alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**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**

The undersigned, Donald Sharpe, President, and Drew Bonnell, Secretary, Treasurer and CFO of Eden Energy Corp., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
| (1) | the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A of Eden Energy Corp. for the period ended September 30, 2006 (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 operations of Eden Energy Corp. |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Dated:  November 17, 2006

/s/ Donald Sharpe

Donald Sharpe, President

(Principal Executive Officer)

/s/ Drew Bonnell

Drew Bonnell

Secretary, Treasurer and CFO

(Principal Financial Officer and

Principal Accounting Officer)

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 Eden Energy Corp. and will be retained by Eden Energy Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 80.153 Coast station operator requirements. ( a ) Except as provided in § 80.179, operation of a coast station transmitter must be performed by a person who is on duty at the control point of the station. The operator is responsible for the proper operation of the station.
( b ) An operational fixed station associated with a coast station may be operated by the operator of the associated coast station.
[51 FR 31213, Sept. 2, 1986, as amended at 54 FR 10008, Mar. 9, 1989; 54 FR 40058, Sept. 29, 1989; 62 FR 40305, July 28, 1997; 67 FR 48564, July 25, 2002]
EXHIBIT 23.1


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
Digital Biometrics, Inc.:


     We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Numbers 33-41510, 33-63984, 33-90900 and 333-34725) on Form S-8 of Digital
Biometrics, Inc., of our reports dated November 21, 1997, except as to note
14(a) which is as of November 24, 1997, and note 14 (b) which is as of December
1, 1997, relating to the balance sheets of Digital Biometrics, Inc., as of
September 30, 1997 and 1996, and the related statements of operations,
stockholders' equity and cash flows and the related financial statement schedule
for each of the years in the three-year period ended September 30, 1997, which
reports appear in the September 30, 1997, Annual Report on Form 10-K of Digital
Biometrics, Inc., and to the reference to our firm under the heading "Selected
Financial Data" in the Company's September 30, 1997, Annual Report on Form 10-K
which is incorporated by reference in the registration statements.



   
                                   /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Minneapolis, Minnesota
February 23, 1998
August 23, 2013

Mr. Michael DeMarchi

Designated Employee Representative

Centennial Helicopters, Inc.

53 Miry Brook Road

Danbury, CT 06810

Dear Mr. DeMarchi:

This is in response to your August 12, 2013 letter sent to the public docket (No. FAA-2009-

1208) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration on behalf of Centennial Helicopters, 

Inc. (Centennial) for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

(14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow MFS to cover its safety-sensitive 

employees under one testing program.

On July 15, 2013, the FAA published the Combined Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs 

final rule (78 FR 41999) relating to air carrier operators and commuter or on-demand 

operators that also conduct commercial air tour operations to combine the drug and alcohol 

testing required for each operation into one testing program. A copy of this rule change is 

enclosed for your information.

If you have any questions, please contact the FAAs Drug Abatement Division at (202) 267-

8442 or drugabatement@faa.gov. Because the relief you seek is now covered under the new 

rule, we will take no further action on your petition.

Sincerely,

/s/

Ida M. Klepper

Manager, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
#### § 38.15 Attempt.

No person on Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge will attempt to commit any offense prohibited by this part.
#### § 80.927 Antenna radio frequency indicator.

The transmitter must be equipped with a device which provides visual indication whenever the transmitter is supplying power to the antenna.
No. 11-5746.

#### Paige *v.*Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         480,732
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  210,079
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    979,284
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,718,091
<PP&E>                                       3,750,473
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,496,949
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,254,495
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          615,448
<BONDS>                                        166,312
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        66,876
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,405,859
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,254,495
<SALES>                                      3,028,600
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,028,600
<CGS>                                        2,155,070
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,155,070
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,549,930
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,154
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,663,403)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,642
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,669,045)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,669,045)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.25)


</TABLE>
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 14

- 1208 V

Filed: May 29 , 2015

Unpublished

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

MICHAEL LERG, *

*

Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

v. * Meningococcal Vaccine; Shoulder Injury

* Related to Vaccine Administration;

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * SIRVA; Special Processing Unit ( “ SPU ” )

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Maximillian J. Muller, Esq., Muller Brazil, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for petitioner.

Christine Bec er

, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Vowell

, Chief Special Master:

On Decemb er 16 , 2014

, Michael Lerg filed a petition for compensation under the

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et se q

. , 2 [ the

“Vaccine Act” or “Program”]

. Peti tioner allege d that he su ffered a shoulder injury which

was caused by the meningococcal vac cin e he received on May 6, 2014

. Petit ion at 1

. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On May 29 , 2015 , respondent filed her Rule 4(c) r eport in which she indicates

that she “ has determined that petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with a shoulder

injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) and recommends that compensation be

awarded in this case. ” Respondent ’ s Rule 4 (c) R eport at 1. Respondent further agrees

that petitioner ’ s injury lasted for more than six months and

, “ that petitioner’s injury is not

due to factors unrelated to the administ ration of the meningococc al vaccine. ” Id. at 3

.

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I inte nd to

post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E

- Government Act

of 2002, Pu b. L. No. 107

- 347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501

note (2006)) . In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 day s to identify and move to

redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would c onstitute an unwarranted invasion of

privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits withi n this definition, I will redact such

material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat . 3755. Hereinafter, for

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §

300aa (2006).2

In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, I find that

petitioner is entitle d to compensation

.

s/Denise K. Vowe ll

Denise K. Vowell

Chief Special Master
Editorial Note on Part 300
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 300 appear at 64 FR 44431, Aug. 16, 1999, and at 76 FR 59305, Sept. 26, 2011.

§ 300.340 Prohibitions. In addition to the prohibitions in § 300.4, it is unlawful for any person to: ( a ) Use a high seas fishing vessel on the high seas in contravention of international conservation and management measures.
( b ) Fish on the high seas unless the vessel has been issued, and has on board, a valid permit issued under § 300.333(d).
( c ) Fish on the high seas unless the vessel has been issued, and has on board, valid permits related to the authorized fisheries noted on the high seas fishing permit, as required under § 300.334(b).
( d ) Operate a high seas fishing vessel on the high seas that is not marked in accordance with § 300.336.
( e ) With respect to the EMTU, ( 1 ) Fail to install, activate, or continuously operate a properly functioning and type-approved EMTU as required in § 300.337;
( 2 ) Power-down or power-up the EMTU without following the procedures required in § 300.337;
( 3 ) In the event of EMTU failure or interruption, fail to repair or replace an EMTU, fail to notify the appropriate OLE divisional office and follow the instructions provided, or otherwise fail to act as required in § 300.337;
( 4 ) Disable, destroy, damage or operate improperly an EMTU installed under § 300.337, attempt to do any of the same, or fail to ensure that its operation is not impeded or interfered with, as provided in § 300.337;
( 5 ) Fail to make an EMTU installed under § 300.337 or the position data obtained from it available for inspection, as provided in § 300.337; or
( 6 ) Fail to carry on board and monitor communication devices as required in § 300.337(l);
( f ) With respect to observers, ( 1 ) Fail to provide to an observer, a NMFS employee, or a designated observer provider, information that has been requested pursuant to § 300.338 or § 600.746 of this title, or fail to allow an observer, a NMFS employee, or a designated observer provider to inspect any item described at § 300.338 or § 600.746 of this title;
( 2 ) Fish without an observer when the vessel is required to carry an observer pursuant to § 300.338(c);
( 3 ) Assault, oppose, harass, impede, intimidate, or interfere with an observer;
( 4 ) Prohibit or bar by command, impediment, threat, coercion, interference, or refusal of reasonable assistance, an observer from conducting his or her duties as an observer; or
( 5 ) Tamper with or destroy samples or equipment.
( g ) Fail to submit a prior notice or a report of a transshipment as provided in § 300.339(b) of this title.
( h ) Fail to comply with reporting requirements as provided in § 300.341.
§ 228.18 Cross-examination. ( a ) The presiding officer may: ( 1 ) Require the cross-examiner to outline the intended scope of the cross-examination;
( 2 ) Prohibit parties from cross-examining witnesses unless the presiding officer has determined that the cross-examiner has an adverse interest on the facts at issue to the party-witness or the party presenting the witness. For the purposes of this subsection, the Assistant Administrator's or his or her representative's interest shall be considered adverse to all parties;
( 3 ) Limit the number of times any party or parties having a common interest may cross-examine an “adverse” witness on the same matter; and
( 4 ) Exclude cross-examination questions that are immaterial, irrelevant or unduly repetitious.
( b ) Any party shall be given an opportunity to appear, either in person or through an authorized counsel or representative, to cross-examine witnesses. Before cross-examining a witness, the party or counsel shall state his or her name, address and occupation. If counsel cross-examines the witness, counsel shall state for the record the authority to act as counsel. Cross-examiners shall be assumed to be familiar with the direct testimony.
( c ) Any party or party's counsel who fails to appear at the hearing to cross-examine an “adverse” witness shall be deemed to have waived the right to cross-examine that witness.
( d ) Scientific, technical or commercial publications may only be utilized for the limited purposes of impeaching witnesses under cross-examination unless previously submitted and introduced in accordance with these regulations.
Case 16-27757 Doc 1 Filed 08/30/16 Entered 08/30/16 12:11:08 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 10
Case 16-27757 Doc 1 Filed 08/30/16 Entered 08/30/16 12:11:08 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 10
Case 16-27757 Doc 1 Filed 08/30/16 Entered 08/30/16 12:11:08 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 10
Case 16-27757 Doc 1 Filed 08/30/16 Entered 08/30/16 12:11:08 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 10
Case 16-27757 Doc 1 Filed 08/30/16 Entered 08/30/16 12:11:08 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 10
Case 16-27757 Doc 1 Filed 08/30/16 Entered 08/30/16 12:11:08 Desc Main

 Document Page 6 of 10
Case 16-27757 Doc 1 Filed 08/30/16 Entered 08/30/16 12:11:08 Desc Main

 Document Page 7 of 10
Case 16-27757 Doc 1 Filed 08/30/16 Entered 08/30/16 12:11:08 Desc Main

 Document Page 8 of 10
Case 16-27757 Doc 1 Filed 08/30/16 Entered 08/30/16 12:11:08 Desc Main

 Document Page 9 of 10
Case 16-27757 Doc 1 Filed 08/30/16 Entered 08/30/16 12:11:08 Desc Main

 Document Page 10 of 10
#### THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF COOPERSTOWN, Appellants, *v.*JANE A. TOMAJO and others, Respondents.

*Referee*— fees *of*— must *be fixed by mitten agreement*— entry *of agreement in minutes not sufficient.*

Appeal from an order made at a Special Term, denying a motion for a readjustment of costs.

This cause was tried before a referee, and on the trial it was stipulated between the counsel for the respective parties “that the referee shall be entitled to a just and reasonable compensation for his services, the amount of such compensation to be fixed by himself; ” and the stipulation was entered on the minutes of the trial. The referee heard the cause, made his report and fixed his compensation at $575, which was paid to him by the prevailing party. The taxing officer allowed this sum in the bill of costs adjusted by him, and a motion was made at Special Term for a readjustment of the costs and to strike out the item. The motion was denied and an appeal has been taken from that order.

The court at General Term said: “It has just been held by the Supreme Court in the third department that an entry on the minutes of a referee of an agreement for his compensation beyond the legal rate is not sufficient, and that to be ■tfalid and effectual such an agreement must be signed by the parties or their attorneys. *(Olíase*v. James, N. Y. W. Digest, vol. 7, No. 18, p. 415; *8. Q.,*16 Hun, 14.) We are inclined to concur in this view.”

*241*Estes <&*Barnard, for the appellants. *James E. Ohandler,*for the respondents.

Opinion by

Dykman, J.

Barnard, P. J., concurred; Gilbert, J., not sitting.

Order reversed, with costs and disbursements.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 550

To amend section 207 of title 18, United States Code, to prohibit Members

of Congress after leaving office from representing foreign governments

before the United States Government.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 21, 1993

Mr. UPTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend section 207 of title 18, United States Code, to

prohibit Members of Congress after leaving office from

representing foreign governments before the United

States Government.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESTRICTION ON REPRESENTING

4 FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS.

5 (a) RESTRICTION.—Section 207(f) of title 18, United

6 States Code, is amended—

7 (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ‘‘Any’’ and in8 serting ‘‘Subject to paragraph (2), any’’;
2

•HR 550 IH

1 (2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as para2 graph (3); and

3 (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the follow4 ing:

5 ‘‘(2) ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS FOR MEMBERS

6 OF CONGRESS.—Any person who is a Member of

7 Congress and who, after that person leaves office as

8 such Member—

9 ‘‘(A) represents a foreign government be10 fore any officer or employee of any department

11 or agency of the United States with the intent

12 to influence a decision of such officer or em13 ployee in carrying out his or her official duties;

14 or

15 ‘‘(B) aids or advises a foreign government

16 with the intent to influence a decision of any of17 ficer or employee of the United States in carry18 ing out his or her official duties;

19 shall be punished as provided in section 216 of this

20 title.’’.

21 (b) DEFINITIONS.—Section 207(f)(3) of title 18,

22 United States Code, as redesignated by subsection (a)(2)

23 of this section, is amended to read as follows:

24 ‘‘(3) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this sub25 section—
3

•HR 550 IH

1 ‘‘(A) the term ‘foreign entity’ means the

2 government of a foreign country as defined in

3 section 1(e) of the Foreign Agents Registration

4 Act of 1938, as amended, or a foreign political

5 party as defined in section 1(f) of that Act; and

6 ‘‘(B) the term ‘foreign government’ means

7 the government of a foreign country as defined

8 in section 1(e) of the Foreign Agents Registra9 tion Act of 1938, as amended.

10 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

11 (a) IN GENERAL.—The amendments made by this

12 Act take effect llllll days after the date of the

13 enactment of this Act.

14 (b) APPLICABILITY.—The amendments made by this

15 Act apply to any person whose service as a Member of

16 Congress (as defined in section 202(d) of title 18, United

17 States Code) terminates before, on, or after the effective

18 date set forth in subsection (a), but shall not apply to ac19 tivities prohibited by such amendments which are con20 ducted before such effective date.

Æ
#### § 29.100 How will the Service process my application?

We will conduct initial review of your application to determine if all information is complete. Once your information is complete, we will begin formal review.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ AIA AMERICA, INC., F KA ALZHEIMER'S INSTITUTE OF AMERICA , INC. , Plaintiff

- Appellant

MICHAEL J. MULLAN, R ONALD E. SEXTON, Counterclaim Defendants

v.

ELI LILLY & COMPANY, ELAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC ., Defendants

- Appellees

______________________

2016

- 2094

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in No. 3:10

- cv

- 00482

- EDL, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

P ETER B UCKLEY , Fox Rothschild, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, argued for plaintiff

- appellant.

D EBORAH E. F ISHMAN , Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Palo Alto, CA, argued for all defendants

- appellees.Defendant

- appellee Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. also represented by K ATIE J EANNINE L EWIS S COTT

.

L AWRENCE S COTT B URWELL , Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Reston, VA, for d efend ant -a ppellee Eli Lilly & Company. Also represented by C HARLES E. L IPSEY ; L AURA P OLLARD M ASUROVSKY , Washington, DC; M ANISHA A. D ESAI , Eli Lilly and Co mpany, Indianapolis, IN.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (N EWMAN , L OURIE , and H UGHES , Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

August 10, 2017 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court
**Exhibit
      32.1**








**PRECISION
      OPTICS CORPORATION, INC.**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**








We,
      Richard E. Forkey, Chief Executive Officer, and Michael T. Pieniazek, Chief
      Financial Officer, **** of
      Precision Optics Corporation, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section
      1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
            The
                Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended June
                30,
                2006 (The “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
                or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78 m or
                78o(d)); and




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








DATE:
      October 13, 2006







/s/
      Richard E.
      Forkey


Richard
      E. Forkey, Chairman of the Board, Chief


Executive
      Officer, President and Treasurer














/s/
      Michael T.
      Pieniazek


Chief
      Financial Officer


Principal
      Financial Officer