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



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Fox Entertainment Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, K. Rupert Murdoch, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my 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 operations of the Company.



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|                                    
|/s/    K. RUPERT MURDOCH            
|                                    
|K. Rupert Murdoch                   
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|May 10, 2004
#### Inez Dominick, an Infant, by Madison N. Dominick, Her Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, *v.*Fort Stanwix Canning Company, Appellant.

*Dominick*v. *Fort Stanwix Canning Co.,*123 App. Div. 912, affirmed.

(Argued December 16,1908;

decided January 5, 1909.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered January 11, 1908, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been received through defendant’s negligence.

*Howard C. Wiggins*for appellant.

*Joseph B. Murphy*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Vann, Werner, Hiscock and Chase, JJ.
PUBLIC LAW 109–238—JUNE 30, 2006 120 STAT. 507

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 5603:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 152 (2006):

June 21, considered and passed House.

June 23, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 109–238

109th Congress

An Act

To temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965,

and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Second Higher Education Extension Act of 2006’’.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PROGRAMS.

Section 2(a) of the Higher Education Extension Act of 2005

(Public Law 109–81; 20 U.S.C. 1001 note) is amended by striking

‘‘June 30, 2006’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30, 2006’’.

SEC. 3. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act, or in the Higher Education Extension

Act of 2005 as amended by this Act, shall be construed to limit

or otherwise alter the authorizations of appropriations for, or the

durations of, programs contained in the amendments made by the

Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–

171) to the provisions of the Higher Education Act of 1965 and

the Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act of 2004.

Approved June 30, 2006.

20 USC 1001

note.

Second Higher

Education

Extension Act of

2006.

20 USC 1001

note.

June 30, 2006

[H.R. 5603]
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsOrbital debris research at NASA Johnson Space Center, 1986-1988Research on orbital debris has intensified in recent years as the number of debris objects in orbit has grown. The population of small debris has now reached the level that orbital debris has become an important design factor for the Space Station. The most active center of research in this field has been the NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center. Work is being done on the measurement of orbital debris, development of models of the debris population, and development of improved shielding against hypervelocity impacts. Significant advances have been made in these areas. The purpose of this document is to summarize these results and provide references for further study.Document ID19900001479Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsReynolds, Robert C.*(Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Co. Houston, TX., United States)*Potter, Andrew E., Jr.*(Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Co. Houston, TX., United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateSeptember 1, 1989Subject CategorySpace Sciences (General)Report/Patent NumberS-595NASA-TM-102155NAS 1.15:102155Accession Number90N10795Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900001479.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 538



## ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION I No. CR-15-140

JAMES MIKEL REEP APPELLANT V. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE Opinion Delivered September 30, 2015 APPEAL FROM THE SALINE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO.63-CR-14-443] HONORABLE GARY ARNOLD, JUDGE
REBRIEFING ORDERED
WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge Appellant James Reep appeals his conviction of driving while intoxicated (DWI), sixth offense. He argues on appeal that the evidence was insufficient (1) to convict him of DWI, and (2) to conclude that this was his sixth offense. We do not reach the merits of appellant’s argument due to deficiencies in the abstract, brief, and addendum. Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(5)(A) 1 requires that an appellant create an abstract of the material parts of the transcript in the record. Information is material if it is essential for the appellate court to confirm its jurisdiction, to understand the case, and to decide the issues on appeal. Here, appellant has failed to abstract all of the material parts of the transcript, including the transcript of the DVD played before the court. Additionally, appellant has

1 (2015).Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 538

abstracted more than one page before giving a record page reference. This, too, is a rule violation. 2 Appellant’s addendum is deficient as well. Rule 4-2(a)(8) requires that the addendum to an appellant’s brief include all documents essential for the appellate court to understand the case and issues on appeal. Here, appellant has failed to include the following: (1) the DVD of him performing the field sobriety tests, (2) the implied consent form, (3) the BAC test results, and (4) his waiver of a trial by jury. Due to the numerous deficiencies, we order appellant to file a substituted brief, abstract, and addendum curing these deficiencies within fifteen days from the entry of this order. 3 We remind counsel that the examples we have noted are not to be taken as an exhaustive list of deficiencies. Counsel should carefully review the rules to ensure that no other deficiencies exist. Rebriefing ordered. A BRAMSON and H ARRISON , JJ., agree. Ogles Law Firm , by: John Ogles , for appellant. Leslie Rutledge , Att’y Gen., by: Karen Virginia Wallace , Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

2 See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(5)(B).
3 Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3). 2
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

In the Matter of ) 

) A13-12 

Proposed Final Audit Report on the ) 

Colorado Republican Committee ) 

CERTIFICATION. 

I, Dayna C. Brown, Secretary and Clericof die Federal Election 

Commission, do hereby certify that on July 19,2017, the Commission decided 

by a vote of 4-1 to approve the Proposed Final Audit Report on the Colorado • 

Republican Committee, as recommended in the Memorandum from the Chief 

Compliance Officer and the Audit Division dated July 13,2017. 

Commissioners Goodman, Hunter, Petersen, and Walther voted 

affirmatively for the decision. Commissioner Weintraub dissented. 

Attest: 

CJKL >%2on 

'' / Date Dayna C. Brown 

Secretary and Clerk of the Commission
1

U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

COOLIDGE REAGAN FOUNDATION ) 1:19-CV-01493-CJN

1629 K Street, NW, Suite 300 )

Washington, D.C. 20006, )

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, )

1050 First Street, NE )

Washington, DC 20463, )

)

Defendant, )

_______________________________________)

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiff COOLIDGE REAGAN FOUNDATION (“CRF”) hereby files this Notice of 

Dismissal Without Prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The Defendant has not yet 

served an Answer or Motion for Summary Judgment.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report, and subsequent public testimony before 

Congress, of the findings of his investigation, along with other documents subsequently released 

by the U.S. Department of Justice, confirm that various agencies of the federal government are 

aware of and investigating the illegal activities the Democratic National Committee and Clinton 

for President campaign hired Christopher Steele to perform. See generally Special Counsel Robert 

S. Mueller, III, Report on the Investigation Into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential 

Election (Mar. 2019). CRF believes this lawsuit may be mooted during its pendency by the results 

of such criminal, Congressional, and Intelligence Community investigations. 

Case 1:19-cv-01493-CJN Document 9 Filed 08/15/19 Page 1 of 2
2

Dated this 15th day of August, 2019. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Dan Backer

DC Bar # 996641

POLITICAL.LAW PLLC

441 North Lee Street, Suite 300

Alexandria, VA 22314

(202) 210-5431

dan@political.law

Counsel for Coolidge 

Reagan Foundation

Case 1:19-cv-01493-CJN Document 9 Filed 08/15/19 Page 2 of 2
§ 153.420 Data collection. ( a ) *Data requirement.* To be eligible for reinsurance payments, an issuer of a reinsurance-eligible plan must submit or make accessible all required reinsurance data in accordance with the reinsurance data collection approach established by the State, or by HHS on behalf of the State.
( b ) *Deadline for submission of data.* An issuer of a reinsurance-eligible plan must submit or make accessible data to be considered for reinsurance payments for the applicable benefit year by April 30 of the year following the end of the applicable benefit year.
[78 FR 15530, Mar. 11, 2013]
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 218 (Monday, November 13, 2006)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 66227]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9200]



[[Page 66225]]

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

Part III





The President





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



Notice of November 9, 2006--Continuation of the National Emergency With 
Respect to Iran


                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 218 / Monday, November 13, 2006 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 66227]]

                Notice of November 9, 2006

                
Continuation of the National Emergency With 
                Respect to Iran

                On November 14, 1979, by Executive Order 12170, the 
                President declared a national emergency with respect to 
                Iran pursuant to the International Emergency Economic 
                Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) to deal with the 
                unusual and extraordinary threat to the national 
                security, foreign policy, and economy of the United 
                States constituted by the situation in Iran. Because 
                our relations with Iran have not yet returned to 
                normal, and the process of implementing the January 19, 
                1981, agreements with Iran is still underway, the 
                national emergency declared on November 14, 1979, must 
                continue in effect beyond November 14, 2006. Therefore, 
                consistent with section 202(d) of the National 
                Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing 
                for 1 year this national emergency with respect to 
                Iran.

                This notice shall be published in the Federal Register 
                and transmitted to the Congress.
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    November 9, 2006.

[FR Doc. 06-9200
Filed 11-9-06; 10:31 am]
Billing code 3195-01-P
May 1 , 2015

VIA ELECTRONIC DOCKET (DOT

- OST

- 2015

- 0037)

Mr. Shabu Thomas

Air Carrier Fitness Division

Office of Aviation Analysis

United States Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Docket DOT

- OST

- 2015

- 0037)

Dear Mr. Thomas :

We are writ ing on behalf of the applicant, Liberty Helicopters, Inc. (“LHI”)

, i n order to

supplement information that was provided in support of LHI’s application for commuter

authority; specifically, information in response to 14 CFR Part 204.3(l), which requests a “list of

all actions and outstanding judgments for more than $5,000 ...”

When providing information in response to 14 CFR Part 204.3(l), LHI referenced

paragraph 6 on page 20 on the DOT Information Packet “How to Become a Commuter Air

Carrier,” which asks only about judgments

– there is no mention, as in 14 CFR 204.3(l) of

“actions ”

– in excess of $5,000. As a result, LHI inadvertently omitted information about the

following pending action where the amount claimed exceeds $5,000.

Nathaniel Klipper, Drew Doscher, et al

. v Liberty Helicopters, Inc., Liberty Helicopters,

Inc. (NY), Liberty Helicopter Tours, Liberty Helicopter Tours of New York, Drew E. Schaefer,

Aegis Holdings Corporation, Meridian Consulting Co., Inc., is a tort action seeking damages for

personal injury arising from a 2001 aircraft accident. Although technically still pending, the case

has settled within insurance limits, contingent only on court approval, whic h is expected in the

near future

.

Other than the above, the applicant knows of no other action s or judgments to be

disclosed pursuant to 14 CFR Part 204.3(l). 80 Ferry Boulevard

Stratford, CT 06615

Phone 203

- 375

- 7724

Fax 203

- 375

- 9397

Writer’s Direct Extension: 108

bhk@lopal.com

www.lopal.com 4 45 Park Ave., 9 th Floor

New York, NY 10022

Phone 212

- 385

- 1215

Fax 212

- 608

- 1215

Please Reply To: CT Office2

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you.

Sincerely,

/s/

Benjamin H. Klein
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Angelo Lance, Appellant, *v.*Frank E. O’Reilly, as City Magistrate, et al., Respondents.

*People ex reí. Lanei*v. *O'Pteilly,*129 App. Div. 522, affirmed.

(Argued February 10, 1909;

decided March 2, 1909.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered January 18, 1909, which affirmed an order of Special Term dismissing a writ of certiorari to inquire into the validity of a warrant committing the relator to the city prison.

*James F. Finegan*for appellant.

*John F. Clark, .District Attorney (Peter P. Smith*of counsel), for respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Oh. J., Haight, Vann, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hisoook and Chase, JJ.
# Map            Israel.
*Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-20862

Summary Calendar

 

SOLAR TURBINES INTERNATIONAL; SOLAR TURBINES

INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

M/V HOOGEN, ET AL,

Defendant,

SHIP-SIDE CRATING COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee,

POWELL ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURING COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

(H-94-CV-1214)

 

August 28, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Solar Turbines International appeals denial of leave to file

a third-amended complaint. Shipside Crating Co. and Powell
2

Electrical Manufacturing Company argue that 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3)

does not give us jurisdiction to hear this appeal. We agree.

In March 1993, Solar shipped a Power Control Room from

Houston, Texas to Cork, Ireland aboard the M/V Hoogen. During the

voyage, the PCR broke loose from its lashings and moved about in

stow. The beating severely damaged the PCR. Powell designed and

manufactured the PCR. Shipside dismantled and prepared the PCR for

ocean carriage.

On April 11, 1994, Solar filed suit for $1.9 million against

the M/V Hoogen, Groden Schiffahrts G.m.b.H. & Co. Betriebs - KG,

Gulf Global Navigation, Ltd., Transoceanic Shipping Co., Inc.,

Ocean Projects, Inc., Brown & Root, Inc., Shipside, Powell

Industries, Inc., and Powell Industries Offshore. In its firstamended complaint, Solar added Powell as a defendant. In its

second-amended complaint, it dropped defendants Powell Industries,

Inc. and Powell Industries Offshore.

On February 2, 1995, the district court denied without

prejudice Solar's motion for leave to file a third-amended

complaint. On September 30, 1995, the lower court granted

Shipside's motion to dismiss and Powell's motion for summary

judgment. On October 10, 1995, the district court denied Solar's

first-amended motion for leave to file a third-amended complaint.

Solar appeals that interlocutory order.

Denial of leave to amend a complaint is not an appealable

interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3) because it does
3

not determine a litigant's rights or liabilities. E.g., Balboa

Shipping Co. v. Standard Fruit & Steamship Co., 181 F.2d 109, 110

(2d Cir. 1950). The Second Circuit in A.H. Bull Steamship Company

v. United States, 235 F.2d 1 (2d Cir. 1956), carved out a narrow

exception to this rule where the denial of leave to amend a

complaint effectively terminates the litigation. Here, the denial

of leave to amend does not terminate the litigation. Claims

against the M/V Hoogen and others are still pending in the lower

court. This appeal is premature.

Accordingly, we DISMISS Solar's appeal.
#### §§ 1181.152-1181.159 [Reserved]
#### Louise Horstkotter, Respondent, *v.*Syracuse and Suburban Railroad Company, Appellant.

*Horstkotter*v. *Syracuse & Suburban B. B. Go.,*121 App. Div. 931, affirmed.

(Argued February 17, 1909;

decided March 5, 1909.)

Appeal, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered October 21, 1907, which affirmed a judgment of the Onondaga County Court affirming a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of Syracuse in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a verdict in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained through defendant’s negligence.

*Louis L. Waters*for appellant.

*Frank J. O'Neill*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Edward T. Bartlett, Yann, Werner, Willard Bartlett and Hiscock, JJ. Dissenting: Cullen, Ch. J., and Haight, J.
1

PART I: Importing Committee Data into FECFile

• Getting started

• Formatting entries

• Importing your data into FECFile

• Key information to remember

• Troubleshooting common error messages

PART II: Earmarked Contributions

• Importing conduit / earmark data

• Handling contributions received between 

reporting periods

• Schedule B entries / gross v. net amount

• Reattributing / redesignating earmarked 

contributions

• Refunds of contributions via conduits

PART III: Reporting Loans and Debts

• Debts - unreimbursed out-of-pocket expenses

• Loans - payment to the committee with 

repayment terms

• Debts owed by committee

• Payments on loans and debts

• Loan forgiveness

PART IV: FEC Form 6 (48-Hour Notices of 

Contributions / Loans Received)

• When to file 48-Hour Notices

• Using FEC website to submit FEC Form 6

• Using FECFile to submit FEC Form 6

PART V: Joint Fundraising Transfers

• Joint fundraising transfers

• Joint fundraising memos

• Handling in-kind contributions

• Refunds through joint fundraising efforts

PART VI: FEC Form 3Z

• FEC Form 3Z filing requirements

• How to add FEC Form 3Z to filing

• Preview report to re-check numbers

HELPFUL LINKS

• Electronic filing resources

• FECFile video tutorials

• Reporting and additional resources

• Contact information 

for additional help

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 2024 WEBINAR SERIES 

Federal Election Commission

2024 April Quarterly Advanced FECFile Webinar

for Candidate Committees

April 4, 2024 (2:30 - 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time)
Editorial Note on Part 1303
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1303 appear at 89 FR 67816, Aug. 21, 2024.

§ 1303.21 Program procedures—applicable confidentiality provisions. ( a ) If a program is an educational agency or institution that receives funds under a program administered by the Department of Education and therefore is subject to the confidentiality provisions under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), then it must comply with those confidentiality provisions of FERPA instead of the provisions in this subpart.
( b ) If a program serves a child who is referred to, or found eligible for services under, IDEA, then a program must comply with the applicable confidentiality provisions in Part B or Part C of IDEA to protect the PII in records of those children, and, therefore, the provisions in this subpart do not apply to those children.
EXHIBIT
32.2








Certification
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(18
U.S.C. Section 1350)








In
connection with the quarterly report of Heartland, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mitchell Cox,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





·
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and


·
            The
      information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of the
    Company.





Date: May
14, 2009





/s/
      Mitchell Cox


Chief
Financial Officer


(Principal
Financial Officer)