alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32.1

                        CERTIFICATION OF CEO 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 MIV Therapeutics, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended November 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Alan P.
Lindsay, as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:

(1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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 result of operations of
         the Company.

/S/ ALAN P. LINDSAY
-------------------
Alan P. Lindsay
President and CEO
January 14, 2005
In The Matter Of: 

SERVED: September 9, 2014 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0110 

M.T.I.TRA VEL, INC. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2013S0950011 

Respondent 

NOTICE OF HEARING LOCATION 

On September 8, 2014, an Order Resetting the Hearing was filed, which noted that the 

location of the Hearing would be provided by separate Notice to the parties. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Hearing in this case, set to begin on November 5, 

2014, at 9:00a.m., will be held at the following location: 

United States District Court, District ofNew Jersey 

Frank R. Lauteriberg Post Office & Courthouse 

Courtroom # 4, Third Floor 

2 Federal Square 

Newark, NJ 07102 

The Hearing begins at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time. Please allow time to pass 

through security. Brief cases, purses, packages, and the like will be x-rayed. All individuals must 

present government issued identification to enter the courthouse. 

Attachment: Service List 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

Mr. Michael F. McKinley 

Complainant's Counsel 

ONE COPY 

Senior Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel, AGC-300 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence A venue, S. W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

TEL: 202-267-7100 

FAX: 202-267-5106 

Mr. David P. Affinito 

Respondent's Counsel 

101 Eisenhower Parkway 

Suite 300 

Roseland, NJ 07068 

TEL: NONE PROVIDED 

FAX: NONE PROVIDED 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

US. Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0110 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC--430.
No. 10-11270.

#### Haywood *v.*Booker, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>


                                                        EXHIBIT 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-86944) pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option Plan of
Celadon Group, Inc., of our report dated August 26, 1997, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Celadon Group, Inc., included
in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 1997.


                                                       /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Indianapolis, Indiana
September 10, 1997

                                       98


<PAGE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 74

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 74 appear at 64 FR 4055, Jan. 27, 1999.

#### § 74.28 Additional orders.

In case the rules contained in this part do not cover all phases of operation with respect to external effects, the FCC may make supplemental or additional orders in each case as may be deemed necessary.

[78 FR 25175, Apr. 29, 2013]
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 439 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 439

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a penalty enhancement 
             for the use of juveniles in Federal offenses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

  Mr. Zimmer introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a penalty enhancement 
             for the use of juveniles in Federal offenses.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. OFFENSE.

    Chapter 1 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
the end the following:
``Sec. 21. Use of children in Federal offenses
    ``(a) Except as otherwise provided by law, whoever, being at least 
18 years of age, uses a child to commit a Federal offense, or to assist 
in avoiding detection or apprehension for a Federal offense, shall--
            ``(1) after a previous conviction under this subsection has 
        become final, be subject to 3 times the maximum imprisonment 
        and 3 times the maximum fine otherwise provided for the Federal 
        offense in which the child is used; and
            ``(2) in any other case, be subject to 2 times the maximum 
        imprisonment and 2 times the maximum fine for such offense.
    ``(b) As used in this section--
            ``(1) the term `child' means a person who is under 18 years 
        of age; and
            ``(2) the term `uses' means employs, hires, uses, 
        persuades, induces, entices, or coerces.''.

SEC. 2. CLERICAL AMENDMENT.

    The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 18, 
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
item:

``21. Use of children in Federal offenses.''.

                                 <all>
```
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 20, 2011.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

____________

NO. 14-11-00686-CV

____________

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF RACHEL LYNN BEVERLY AND 

CHAD ASHLEY BEVERLY, Appellant

On Appeal from the 245th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2007-64129

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment signed July 8, 2011. The notice of appeal was 

filed on August 8, 2011. Our records show that the contest to appellant’s affidavit of 

indigence was sustained. Appellant was ordered to pay costs, but, as of this date, has not 

paid the $175.00 appellate filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5 (requiring payment of fees in 

civil cases unless indigent); see also Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil Cases in the 

Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals and Before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict 

Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 07-9138 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2007) (listing fees in court of 

appeals); Tex. Gov’t Code Ann.. ' 51.207 (Vernon 2005) (same). 
2

On November 10, 2011, this court ordered appellant to pay the appellate filing fee 

on or before December 1, 2011, or the appeal would be dismissed. Appellant has not paid 

the appellate filing fee. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case because appellant has failed to comply 

with notice from clerk requiring response or other action within specified time). 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Seymore, and Jamison.
193P16

#### State v. Calvin Renard Carter

1. State’s Motion for Temporary Stay (COA15-1234)

1. Allowed 05/24/2016

2. State’s Petition for *Writ of Supersedeas*

*2.*
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1023/2005

of 30 June 2005         

fixing the maximum export refund for butter in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 581/2004

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 31(3) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the permanent tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 581/2004, for the tendering period ending on 28 June 2005, the maximum amount of refund for the products referred to in Article 1(1) of that Regulation shall be as shown in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 July 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 30 June 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 48. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 186/2004 (OJ L 29, 3.2.2004, p. 6).

(2)OJ L 90, 27.3.2004, p. 64. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2250/2004 (OJ L 381, 28.12.2004, p. 25).

(3)OJ L 90, 27.3.2004, p. 58. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2250/2004 (OJ L 381, 28.12.2004, p. 25).

----

ANNEX

----
Public Employee Labor Relations Board

No. 80-372

#### Appeal of Town of Conway

(New Hampshire Public Employee Labor Relations Board)

May 7, 1981

*Hastings & Son P.A.,*of Fryeburg, Maine *(Peter G. Hastings*on the brief and orally), for the Town of Conway.

*Sheehan, Phinney, Bass & Green,*of Manchester *(Bradford E. Cook*on the brief and orally), for the Public Employee Labor Relations Board.

*373Memorandum

This is an appeal by the Town of Conway from the July 31, 1980 order of the New Hampshire Public Employee Labor Relations Board certifying certain members of the Conway Police Department as a bargaining unit under RSA 273-A:8 I. The board excluded from the unit five part-time patrolmen, the chief, a lieutenant, and a detective sergeant. It included in the unit three sergeants and ten patrolmen, five of whom were probationary employees. The town argues that the probationary employees should not have been included within the unit. We agree.

RSA 273-A:8 I requires the board to certify a bargaining unit with at least ten employees. For purposes of this section, the board has interpreted “employees” to mean positions, and it will certify a unit if there are ten positions within an organization even if, as in this case, some of those positions are held by probationary employees. That interpretation, however, is contrary to the plain language of the statute. RSA 273-A:l IX(d) expressly excludes “[p]ersons in a probationary or temporary status” from the definition of “public employee.” That definition applies to the word “employee” as it is used in RSA 273-A:8 I. “[WJords used with plain meaning in one part of ... [a statute] are to be given the same meaning in other parts of . . . [the statute], unless a contrary intention is clearly shown.” *Dupont v. Chagnon,*119 N.H. 792, 794, 408 A.2d 408, 409 (1979) (quoting *Appalachian Mountain Club v. Meredith,*103 N.H. 5, 16, 163 A.2d 808, 815-16 (1960)).

 Because the statute specifically excludes probationary employees from the definition of “public employee,” the board erred in including probationary employees in the bargaining unit for the purpose of determining whether the requisite number of employees existed. *Cf. In re Nashua Ass’n of School Principals,*119 N.H. 90, 92, 398 A.2d 832, 833-34 (1979); *Keene State College Educ. Ass’n v. State,*119 N.H. 1, 3, 396 A.2d 1099, 1101 (1979). Without those five probationary employees, the police department has an insufficient number of employees to be certified as a bargaining unit under RSA 273-A:8 I.

*Reversed.*
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 7265

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. COREY ANTOINE TABOR , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Statesville

. Richard L. Voorhees, Senior District Judge. ( 5:03

- cr - 00012

- RLV

- CH

- 5; 5:17

- cv - 00089

- RLV )

Submitted : March 29 , 2018 Decided: April 2, 2018

Before AGEE and DIAZ , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Corey Antoine Tabor, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, A sheville, North Carolina; Kenneth Michel Smith, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Core y Antoine Tabor seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standar d by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322,
336

- 38 (2003). When the d istrict court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at
484

- 85.
W e have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Tabor has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Tabor ’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an
ap plication to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either:3 (1) newly discovered evidence that . . . would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collater al review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Tabor ’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. 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
#### § 73.4015 Applications for AM and FM construction permits, incomplete or defective.

See Public Notice, FCC 84-366, dated August 2, 1984, 49 FR 47331, December 3, 1984.

[49 FR 50048, Dec. 26, 1984]
No. 11-5836.

#### Simon *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
# JoAnne Green wins FGDLA Award

/ Published Dec. 16, 2016

Ms. JoAnne Green

On December 8, 2016  Ms. JoAnne Green, Director of Academic Computing at IRMC, received the Federal Government Distance Learning Association “Pioneer Award”  at the association’s 20th Awards Anniversary at the Washington Convention Center.  The Pioneer Award is given in recognition of an individual for demonstrating initiative and leadership in the development and implementation of distance learning in the Federal Government.  MS Green was cited for her efforts in building and maintaining a robust distance learning program in support of the IRMC cyber curriculum.

The Federal Government Distance Learning Association (FGDLA) is a nonprofit, professional association formed to promote the development and application of distance learning in the Federal Government, in accordance with  Section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code for Business Leagues and charted by the State of Ohio. Additionally, the Association actively fosters collaboration and understanding among those involved in leveraging technology and instructional media in support of the education and training needs of the Federal Government. 

Focused on supporting Federal Government agencies involved in distance learning, the FGDLA  encourages the application of all forms of distance learning media, as well as embracing innovative methods in  integrating instructional technologies to meet the training and education needs of the Federal Government. Our membership is derived primarily from individuals employed by the various agencies within the Federal Government. The FGDLA is a chapter of the United States Distance Learning Association.

Good job JoAnne!
# Lt Col Walker Hofmann

### Instructor

### Joint Planning and Operations

### 

Areas of Interest:

Cybersecurity, joint planning and operations

Lt Col Walker Hofmann is a member of the military faculty at the College of Information and Cyberspace, National Defense University, Fort McNair, District of Columbia. In this capacity, he is responsible for the development and execution of graduate level cyber security and leadership courses at the College of Information and Cyberspace.

 

Lt Col Hofmann began his career by enlisting in the Navy in 1997 and serving as a nuclear propulsion plant operator on submarines. In 2006 he was selected to attend Officer Training School and was commissioned in the Air Force as a cyber warfare operations officer. Lt Col Hofmann has served in a variety of operational and staff assignments, including tours in base communications, the space community, Air Force enterprise network operations, as a career field instructor at Undergraduate Cyberspace Training, commander of a cyber ISR detachment, lead operational cyber planner for a numbered Air Force, and as an Executive Support Officer for the Secretary of Defense. Prior to his current position, he was the Director of Operations of a cyber operations squadron leading Cyber Protection Teams as part of U.S. Cyber Command’s Cyber Mission Force. Lt Col Hofmann has been stationed in a variety of locations around the world and has deployed numerous times throughout his career.

 

Lt Col Hofmann holds a B.S. in Computer Science from Hawaii Pacific University and a M.S. in Computer Science from Colorado Technical University. He has been awarded an Executive Certificate in Public Leadership for completion of Leadership and Character in Uncertain Times, Strategic Leadership, Digital Transformation in Government, Cybersecurity: The Intersection of Policy and Technology, John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, Executive Education. He is certified as a CISSP and GNFA.
#### § 73.601 Scope of subpart.

This subpart contains the rules and regulations (including engineering standards) governing TV broadcast stations, including noncommercial educational TV broadcast stations and, where indicated, low power TV and TV translator stations in the United States, its Territories and possessions. TV broadcast, low power TV, and TV translator stations are assigned channels 6 MHz wide, designated as set forth in § 73.603(a).

[47 FR 21494, May 18, 1982]
§ 73.3999 Enforcement of 18 U.S.C. 1464 (restrictions on the transmission of obscene and indecent material). ( a ) No licensee of a radio or television broadcast station shall broadcast any material which is obscene.
( b ) No licensee of a radio or television broadcast station shall broadcast on any day between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. any material which is indecent.
[60 FR 44439, Aug. 28, 1995]
#### § 73.4082 [Reserved]
#### §§ 61.11-61.12 [Reserved]
Editorial Note on Part 74
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 74 appear at 64 FR 4055, Jan. 27, 1999.

§ 74.833 Temporary authorizations. ( a ) Special temporary authority may be granted for low power auxiliary station operation which cannot be conducted in accordance with § 74.24. Such authority will normally be granted only for operations of a temporary nature. Where operation is seen as likely on a continuing annual basis, an application for a regular authorization should be submitted.
( b ) A request for special temporary authority for the operation of a remote pickup broadcast station must be made in accordance with the procedures of § 1.931(b) of this chapter.
( c ) All requests for special temporary authority of a low power auxiliary station must include full particulars including: licensees name and address, statement of eligibility, facility identification number of the associated broadcast station (if any), type and manufacturer of equipment, power output, emission, frequency or frequencies proposed to be used, commencement and termination date, location of proposed operation, and purpose for which request is made including any particular justification.
( d ) A request for special temporary authority shall specify a frequency band consistent with the provisions of § 74.802: *Provided,* That, in the case of events of wide-spread interest and importance which cannot be transmitted successfully on these frequencies, frequencies assigned to other services may be requested upon a showing that operation thereon will not cause interference to established stations: *And provided further,* In no case will operation of a low power auxiliary broadcast station be authorized on frequencies employed for the safety of life and property.
( e ) The user shall have full control over the transmitting equipment during the period it is operated.
( f ) Special temporary authority to permit operation of low power auxiliary stations pending Commission action on an application for regular authority will not normally be granted.
[42 FR 14729, Mar. 16, 1977, as amended at 47 FR 9221, Mar. 4, 1982; 47 FR 55939, Dec. 14, 1982; 58 FR 19776, Apr. 16, 1993; 68 FR 12772, Mar. 17, 2003]