alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.10011 Who may sign applications? ( a ) The Commission only accepts electronic applications. An electronic application is “signed” when there is an electronic signature. An electronic signature is the typed name of the person “signing” the application, which is then electronically transmitted via ICFS.
( b ) For all electronically filed applications, you (or the signor) must actually sign a paper copy of the application, and keep the signed original in your files for future reference.
( c ) You only need to sign the original of applications, amendments, and related statements of fact.
( d ) Sign applications, amendments, and related statements of fact as follows: ( 1 ) By you, if you are an individual;
( 2 ) By one of the partners, if you are a partnership;
( 3 ) By an officer, director, or duly authorized employee, if you are a corporation; or
( 4 ) By a member who is an officer, if you are an unauthorized association.
( e ) If you file applications, amendments, and related statements of fact on behalf of eligible government entities, an elected or appointed official who may sign under the laws of the applicable jurisdiction must sign the document. Eligible government entities are: ( 1 ) States and territories of the United States,
( 2 ) Political subdivisions of these states and territories,
( 3 ) The District of Columbia, and
( 4 ) Units of local government.
( f ) If you are either physically disabled or absent from the United States, your attorney may sign applications, amendments and related statements of facts on your behalf. ( 1 ) Your attorney must explain why you are not signing the documents.
( 2 ) If your attorney states any matter based solely on his belief (rather than knowledge), your attorney must explain his reasons for believing that such statements are true.
( g ) It is unnecessary to sign applications, amendments, and related statements of fact under oath. However, willful false statements are punishable by a fine and imprisonment, 18 U.S.C. 1001, and by administrative sanctions.
[69 FR 40327, July 2, 2004, as amended at 85 FR 17285, Mar. 27, 2020; 88 FR 21437, Apr. 10, 2023]
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to his knowledge:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                        
|----------------------------------------
|/s/ Marliss D. Johnson                  
|Marliss D. Johnson                      
|Vice President, Controller and Treasurer
|May 10, 2011
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-4558

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

STEPHONI VERNARD SUMTER, a/k/a Steezy, a/k/a Step,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (3:14-cr-00736-TLW-4)

Submitted: August 19, 2021 Decided: August 23, 2021

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ian T. Duggan, CALLISON TIGHE & ROBINSON, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellant. Jane Barrett Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Stephoni Vernard Sumter seeks to appeal the district court’s criminal judgment, as 

amended in response to a motion in his criminal case. Sumter’s counsel has filed a brief 

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no 

meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether the district court relied on 

impermissible factors in resolving the motion and whether the court’s ruling was 

reasonable. Sumter was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has 

not done so. The Government has declined to file a response brief.

Our review of the district court’s order is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). While 

that statute provides us with “jurisdiction to hear challenges to the lawfulness of the method 

used by the district court” in issuing its ruling, we lack “jurisdiction to review any part of”

the court’s discretionary decision. United States v. Davis, 679 F.3d 190, 194 (4th Cir. 

2012). 

Our review of the record reveals that the district court’s method in issuing its ruling 

was lawful. Because Sumter identifies no ground upon which this court may review the 

district court’s substantive ruling, and our independent review of the record pursuant to 

Anders has revealed no such ground, we lack the authority to review the district court’s 

amended judgment. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 

This court requires that counsel inform Sumter, in writing, of the right to petition 

the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Sumter requests that a petition 

be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may 
3

move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state 

that a copy thereof was served on Sumter.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32.1

              CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U. S. C. SECTION 1350 AS
                       ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF

                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10- Q of Environmental Solutions
Worldwide, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period March 31, 2011 (the
"Report"), Mark Yung, Executive Chairman of the Company, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) To my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

                                                     DATE: MAY 16th, 2011

                                                     BY: /S/ MARK YUNG
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                         MARK YUNG
                                                         EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Environmental Solutions Worldwide,
Inc. and will be retained by Environmental Solutions Worldwide, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
(1289) 

II. COMMITTEE ACTIONS AND FILINGS OF 

THE PARTIES PRIOR TO THE AUGUST 4, 

2010 HEARING ON PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS 

d. Pre-Trial Motions 

ii. Cross Motions regarding the Admission of 

Judge Porteous’ Immunized Testimony Before 

the Fifth Circuit Special Committee 
1290 
1291 
1292 
1293 
1294 
1295 
1296 
1297 
1298 
1299 
1300 
1301 
1302 
1303 
1304 
1305 
1306 
1307 
1308 
1309 
1310 
1311 
1312 
1313 
1314 
1315 
1316 
1317 
1318 
1319 
1320 
1321 
1322 
1323 
1324 
1325 
1326 
1327 
1328 
1329 
1330 
1331 
1332 
1333 
1334 
1335 
1336 
1337 
1338 
1339 
1340 
1341 
1342 
1343 
1344 
1345 
1346 
1347 
1348 
1349 
1350 
1351 
1352 
1353 
1354 
1355 
1356 
1357 
1358 
1359 
1360 
1361 
1362 
1363 
1364 
1365 
1366 
1367 
1368 
1369 
1370 
1371 
1372 
1373 
1374 
1375 
1376 
1377 
1378 
1379 
1380 
1381 
1382 
1383 
1384 
1385 
1386 
1387 
1388 
1389 
1390 
1391 
1392 
1393 
1394 
1395 
1396 
1397 
1398 
1399 
1400 
1401 
1402 
1403 
1404 
1405 
1406 
1407 
1408 
1409 
1410 
1411 
1412 
1413 
1414 
1415 
1416 
1417 
1418 
1419 
1420 
1421 
1422 
1423 
1424 
1425 
1426 
1427 
1428 
1429 
1430 
1431 
1432 
1433 
1434 
1435 
1436 
1437 
1438 
1439 
1440 
1441 
1442 
1443 
1444 
1445 
1446 
1447 
1448 
1449 
1450 
1451 
1452 
1453 
1454 
1455 
1456 
1457 
1458 
1459 
1460 
1461 
1462 
1463 
1464 
1465 
1466 
1467 
1468 
1469 
1470 
1471 
1472 
1473 
1474 
1475 
1476 
1477 
1478 
1479 
1480 
1481 
1482 
1483 
1484 
1485 
1486 
1487 
1488 
1489 
1490 
1491 
1492 
1493 
1494 
1495 
1496 
1497 
1498 
1499 
1500 
1501 
1502 
1503 
1504 
1505 
1506 
1507 
1508 
1509 
1510 
1511 
1512 
1513 
1514 
1515 
1516 
1517 
1518 
1519 
1520 
1521 
1522 
1523 
1524 
1525 
1526 
1527 
1528 
1529 
1530 
1531 
1532 
1533 
1534 
1535 
1536 
1537 
1538 
1539 
1540 
1541 
1542 
1543 
1544 
1545 
1546 
1547 
1548 
1549 
1550 
1551 
1552 
1553 
1554 
1555 
1556 
1557 
1558 
1559 
1560 
1561 
1562 
1563 
1564 
1565 
1566 
1567 
1568 
1569 
1570 
1571 
1572 
1573 
1574 
1575 
1576 
1577 
1578 
1579 
1580 
1581 
1582 
1583 
1584 
1585 
1586 
1587 
1588 
1589 
1590 
1591 
1592 
1593 
1594 
1595 
1596 
1597 
1598 
1599 
1600 
1601 
1602 
1603 
1604 
1605 
1606 
1607 
1608 
1609 
1610 
1611 
1612 
1613 
1614 
1615 
1616 
1617 
1618 
1619 
1620 
1621 
1622 
1623 
1624 
1625 
1626 
1627 
1628 
1629 
1630 
1631 
1632 
1633 
1634 
1635 
1636 
1637 
1638 
1639 
1640 
1641 
1642 
1643 
1644 
1645 
1646 
1647 
1648 
1649 
1650 
1651 
1652 
1653 
1654 
1655 
1656 
1657 
1658 
1659 
1660 
1661 
1662 
1663 
1664 
1665 
1666 
1667 
1668 
1669 
1670 
1671 
1672 
1673 
1674 
1675 
1676 
1677 
1678 
1679 
1680 
1681 
1682 
1683 
1684 
1685 
1686 
1687 
1688 
1689 
1690 
1691 
1692 
1693 
1694 
1695 
1696 
1697 
1698 
1699 
1700 
1701
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 128 (Monday, July 3, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 41072]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16731]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals To Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or To Acquire Companies That Are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company, including the 
companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a 
subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in 
Sec. 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has 
determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible 
for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities 
will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all 
bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information 
Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than July 17, 2000.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (Richard Walker, Community 
Affairs Officer) 600 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02106-2204:
    1. Boston Private Financial Holdings, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts; 
to acquire Sand Hill Advisors, Inc., Menlo Park, California, and 
thereby engage in investment advisory services, pursuant to 
Sec. 225.28(b)(6) if Regulation Y.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (A. Linwood Gill, III, Vice 
President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:
    1. Southern Financial Bancorp, Inc., Warrenton, Virginia; to 
acquire First Savings Bank of Virginia, Springfield, Virginia, and 
thereby engage in operating a savings and loan association, pursuant to 
Sec. 225.28(b)(4)(ii) of Regulation Y, and immediately merging this 
institution into Southern Financial Bank, Warrenton, Virginia, a wholly 
owned subsidiary of Southern Financial Bancorp, Inc. Comments on this 
application must be received not later than July 27, 2000.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 27, 2000.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 00-16731 Filed 6-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"2021-1924: UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"SG2K8taf5J\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-04-2022-2021-1924-ucb-inc-v-actavis-laboratories-ut-inc-audio-uploaded\/\">2021-1924: UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc.<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-04-2022-2021-1924-ucb-inc-v-actavis-laboratories-ut-inc-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=SG2K8taf5J\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2021-1924: UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc.” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"SG2K8taf5J\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Oral argument audio posted: UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. (mp3) Appeal Number: 2021-1924 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

 

 

                     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Alcan Inc. (the "Company"),hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the "Report") fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 

Date:10 May 2006                                                                    

                                                                                               /s/ Richard B. Evans                                        

                                                                                               Richard B. Evans

President and ChiefExecutive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 127 (Friday, June 30, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 40607]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16655]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Rural Utilities Service


Berkeley Electric Cooperative; Notice of Finding of No 
Significant Impact

AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of finding of no significant impact.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) 
has made a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) with respect to the 
construction of a 115/24.9 kV distribution substation by Berkeley 
Electric Cooperative. Berkeley Electric Cooperative may request 
financing assistance from the RUS to finance the construction of the 
substation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Quigel, Engineering and 
Environmental Staff, RUS, Stop 1571, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, 
Washington, DC 20250-1571, telephone (202) 720-0468, e-mail at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c3a1b2b6aaa4a6af83b1b6b0edb6b0a7a2eda4acb5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5f3d2e2a36383a331f2d2a2c712a2c3b3e71383029">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed substation will be located on a 
18.4-acre site in Dorchester County, South Carolina, between Parkers 
Ferry Road and Ridge Road approximately 1000 feet east of the 
intersection of these two roads. The substation will cover 
approximately 7.5 acres of the site. The substation will be surrounded 
by a seven foot high chain link fence topped with three strands of 
barbed wire. A crushed stone driveway approximately 22 feet in width 
will be constructed from Ridge Road to the substation for access. The 
substation will be connected to an existing 115 kV transmission line 
which parallels Parkers Ferry Road. Approximately 500 feet of 
transmission line will be constructed to connect the substation to the 
transmission line.
    Copies of the FONSI are available from RUS at the address provided 
herein or from Tom Meyers, Vice President of Engineering, Berkeley 
Electric Cooperative, 414 North Highway 52, Monks Corner, South 
Carolina 29461, telephone (843) 761-8200.

    Dated: June 27, 2000.
Blaine D. Stockton, Jr.,
Assistant Administrator, Electric Program.
[FR Doc. 00-16655 Filed 6-29-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-15-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
§ 50-203.21 Decisions ( a ) Within 30 days after the close of the hearing, each interested person at the hearing may file with the administrative law judge an original and four copies of a statement containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, together with reasons for such proposals. The administrative law judge shall, immediately following the termination of the thirty-day period provided for the filing of proposed findings and conclusions, certify the complete record to the Administrative Review Board.
( b ) Upon the basis, and after consideration, of the whole record, the Administrative Review Board may issue a tentative decision. The tentative decision shall become part of the record, and shall include: ( 1 ) A statement of findings and conclusions, with the reasons and bases therefor, upon all material issues of fact, law, or discretion presented on the record, and
( 2 ) any proposed wage determination. Any tentative decision shall be published in the Federal Register.
( c ) Within twenty-one days following the publication of any tentative decision in the Federal Register, any interested person may file an original and four copies of a statement containing exemptions to the tentative decision, together with supporting reasons.
( d ) Thereafter, the Administrative Review Board may issue a decision ruling upon each exception filed and including any appropriate wage determination. Any such decision shall be published in the Federal Register after it becomes the final action of the Department.
[26 FR 8945, Sept. 22, 1961, as amended at 61 FR 19988, May 3, 1996; 85 FR 13041, Mar. 6, 2020; 85 FR 30627, May 20, 2020]
This decision is made pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. in Room 4211, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 

*Docket Number:*                     99-025. Applicant: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599. Instrument: Nose Only Inhalation System. Manufacturer: ADG Developments Ltd., United Kingdom.                     Start Printed Page 3667                    Intended Use: See notice at 64 FR 63788, November 22, 1999.                 

*Comments:*                     None received.                     *Decision:*                     Approved. No instrument of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such purposes as it is intended to be used, is being manufactured in the United States.                     *Reasons:*                     The foreign instrument provides delivery of drug aerosols by nose-only exposure to mycobacterium infected guinea pigs to evaluate novel therapies for the treatment of tuberculosis in animal models. The National Institutes of Health advises in its memorandum of December 10, 1999 that (1) this capability is pertinent to the applicant's intended purpose and (2) it knows of no domestic instrument or apparatus of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument for the applicant's intended use.                 

We know of no other instrument or apparatus of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument which is being manufactured in the United States. 

Frank W. Creel, 

Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff. 

[FR Doc. 00-1655 Filed 1-21-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
### Docket No. FAA**- 2013**  **- 1032**  **Contacts.** With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted Date 

### Response **National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti**  6/6/12 ----- **Regional Airline Association Dave**  **Lotterer** 6/6/12 ----- **Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman**  6/6/12 ----- **ATA M Lopez**  6/6/12 -----