alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the
accompanying report of Start Scientific, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31,
2017 (the “Report”), I, Jim Frazier, Chief Executive Officer 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: August 29, 2018



|                                        
|----------------------------------------
|/s/ Jim Frazier                         
|Jim
    Frazier, Chief Executive Officer
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEMORANDUM March 15, 2022 

TO: Patricia C. Orrock 

Chief Compliance Officer 

Dayna Brown 

Assistant Staff Director 

Audit Division 

FROM: Neven F. Stipanovic 

Associate General Counsel 

Policy Division 

Jessica Selinkoff

Acting Assistant General Counsel 

Compliance Advice 

Jennifer Waldman 

Attorney 

SUBJECT: Interim Audit Report on Weber for Congress (LRA 1149) 

The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed the proposed Interim Audit Report 

(“IAR”) for the Weber for Congress committee. The IAR contains three findings: 

Misstatement of Financial Activity (Finding 1), Receipt of Contributions in Excess of the Limit 

(Finding 2), and Failure to File 48-Hour Notices (Finding 3). We concur with the findings. If 

you have any questions, please contact Jennifer Waldman, the attorney assigned to this audit.
§ 291.12 National Forest System lands closed to casual collection. ( a ) Casual collecting is not allowed in: ( 1 ) National Monuments within the National Forest System; and
( 2 ) Other National Forest System lands closed to casual collecting in accordance with this Part, other statutes, executive orders, regulations, or land use plans.
( b ) Existing closures of certain areas to casual collecting, authorized under separate authority, remain closed under these regulations.
#### § 153.234 Eligibility under health insurance market rules.

A reinsurance-eligible plan's covered claims costs for an enrollee incurred prior to the application of the following provisions do not count towards either the national reinsurance payment parameters or the State supplemental reinsurance payment parameters: 45 CFR 147.102, 147.104 (subject to 147.145), 147.106 (subject to 147.145), 156.80, and subpart B of part 156.

[78 FR 15527, Mar. 11, 2013]
Exhibit 32.1 - Certification of Chief Executive Officer


                        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 Trezac International Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report").  I, Iurie Bordian, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

               (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
                     result of operations of the Company.


/s/ Iurie Bordian
----------------------------
    Iurie Bordian
    President
    Chief Executive Officer


Date  December 16, 2003
      -----------------



<PAGE>
#### § 150.413 Settlement.

CMS has exclusive authority to settle any issue or any case, without the consent of the administrative law judge at any time before or after the administrative law judge's decision.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6590** 

KENNETH LOVETTE YOUNG , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. LEROY CARTLEDGE, Warden of McCormick Corr. Inst. , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Orangeburg
. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 5:15

- cv - 00637

- JFA )

Submitted : December 6, 2016 Decided: December 14, 2016

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Kenneth Lovette Young, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Ap pellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Kenneth Lovette Young seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutiona l right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is deba table 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 district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Young has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 18-5239 September Term, 2019

 FILED ON: MARCH 13, 2020

CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER AND DEMOCRACY 21,

APPELLANTS

v.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ET AL.,

APPELLEES

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 1:16-cv-00752)

Before: TATEL and GARLAND, Circuit Judges, and EDWARDS, Senior Circuit Judge

J U D G M E N T

This cause came on to be heard on the record on appeal from the United States District

Court for the District of Columbia and was argued by counsel. On consideration thereof, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the District Court appealed from in this

cause be affirmed, in accordance with the opinion of the court filed herein this date.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: /s/

Daniel J. Reidy

Deputy Clerk

Date: March 13, 2020

Opinion Per Curiam

Concurring opinion filed by Senior Circuit Judge Edwards.

USCA Case #18-5239 Document #1833356 Filed: 03/13/2020 Page 1 of 1
THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

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

TO THE 7TH DISTRICT COURT OF SMITH COUNTY, GREETING:

Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 25th

day of November, 2014, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

NICKY CHARUNE AGNEW, Appellant

NO. 12-13-00181-CR; Trial Court No. 007-1194-11

Opinion by Brian Hoyle, Justice.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

“THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the 

same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the court 

below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below for 

observance.”

WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals 

for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District of Texas in this behalf, and in all things have it duly 

recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN, Chief Justice of our Court 

of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of 

Tyler, this the 8

th day of June, 2015.

CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK

By: _______________________________

Chief Deputy Clerk
#### § 1149.71 Is there a right to administrative offset?

The amount of any penalty or assessment which has become final, or for which a judgment has been entered, or any amount agreed upon in a compromise or settlement, may be collected by administrative offset, except that an administrative offset may not be made under this subsection against a refund of an overpayment of Federal taxes, then or later owing by the United States to you.
Meeting attendees: 

[CAMD -- EPA's Clean Air Markets Division, PSGC -- Prairie State Generating Company]

Sam Napolitano [CAMD, Division Director]

Michael Cohen [CAMD, Environmental Scientist]

Peter DeQuattro [PSGC, President and CEO]

Craig Bressan [PSGC, Director of Environmental Health & Safety]

Ashlie Kenner Kuehn [PSGC, MGR, Government Affairs & Public Relations]

Natalie Locke[Locke Environmental, Manager]

Robert Talley [Talley & Associates, Government Affairs & Political Consulting]

Joseph Stanko, Jr [Hunton & Williams, Partner]

On April 11, 2011 representatives of Prairie State Generating Company (PSGC) met with representatives 

of EPA's Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) between 3:00 and 4:00 EST at EPA's 1310 L Street offices. 

At this meeting PSGC and their representatives went over their comments on the Proposed Transport 

Rule submitted October 1, 2010 and their comments on the NODA to the Proposed Transport Rule 

submitted February 4, 2011. No new comments were submitted.
§ 902.60 Initial determination. ( a ) An initial determination whether or not to release a record requested under subparts D and E of this part shall be made by the Public Information Offices within 10 workdays after the receipt of a request which complies with § 902.21. Failure of the requester to comply with those provisions may toll the running of the 10 day period until the request is identified as one being made under the Act. This time limit may be extended by up to 10 workdays in accordance with § 902.62.
( b ) Upon making initial determination, the Administrative Officer shall immediately notify the person making the request as to its disposition. If the determination is made to release the requested record, the Administrative Officer shall make the record promptly available. If the determination is to deny the release of the requested record, the Public Information Officer shall immediately notify the requester of the denial and shall provide the following information. ( 1 ) The reason for the determination, including a reference to the appropriate exemption provided in subpart F of this part;
( 2 ) The right of the request or to appeal the determination as provided in subpart H of this part; and
( 3 ) The name and position of each person responsible for the denial of the request.
[41 FR 43143, Sept. 30, 1976, as amended at 48 FR 17354, Apr. 22, 1983]
AAM-11-247-E 

April 8, 2011 

 Exemption No. 10238 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0340 

Ms. Melinda H. Malone 

President/DER 

Malone AirCharter, Inc. 

Craig Airport 

855-21 St. Johns Bluff Road 

Jacksonville, FL 32225 

Dear Ms. Malone: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated March 28, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Malone AirCharter, Inc. (Malone) for an exemption to allow Malone, which is 

operating under separate parts of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), to cover its 

safety-sensitive employees under one drug testing program. The FAA finds that you require 

exemption from part 120 of 14 CFR. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Malone. 

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 

operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one 

would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that 

provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden 

the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs. 
2 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant 

of Exemption No. 9703; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 

also apply to the situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Malone AirCharter, Inc. an exemption from part 120 to 

the extent necessary to allow Malone, which is operating under separate parts of the 

regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to the 

conditions and limitations described below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Malone are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times 

while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of 

the Malone part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

This exemption terminates on April 30, 2013 unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Frederick E. Tilton, M.D. 

Federal Air Surgeon 

Enclosure
Exhibit
32.2




ELEPHANT TALK
COMMUNICATIONS, INC.




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 Elephant Talk Communications, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the period ending June 10,
2010as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark
Nije, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to 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 result of
operations of the Company.








/s/
      Mark NijeMark
      NijeChief Financial
      Officer
                    August 16,
      2010
# INCREASE ALTERNATIVE FUEL USE BY 5 TO 8%

REDUCE CO BY 25 TO 35%

REDUCE NOx BY 30 TO 50%

STRATIFIED INTERNAL KILN GASSES ARE A SIGNIFICANT C ONTRIBUTOR TO KILN EMISSIONS.

MIXING TECHNOLOGIES BREAK UP STRATIFICATION, IMPROV E COMBUSTION

AND PERMIT MORE ALTERNATIVE FUEL USE.

Higher temperature oxygen-rich gasses tend to trave l along the top of the kiln while cooler, carbon diox ide- rich gasses tend to travel along the bottom. This gas stratification actually inhibits the combustion pro cess, limits alternative fuel usage and contributes to emissions. When Mixing Air is added, opposing streams of high velocity air cause the stratifed kiln gas layers to rotate and mix. This rotation improves combustion, serves to reduce emissions and improves the overall stability of the kiln.

Mixing Air is a significant advance in the area of cement kiln emissions reduction. Not only does Mixing Air allow maximum alternative fuel usage, operational tests a nd actual operating data have shown that Mixing Air ca n reduce NOx emissions by 50% while significantly reducing SOx, CO and other emissions. 

# Page 1 of 2 MixingTechnology

8/1/2012 http://www.cadencerecycling.com/mixingtechnology.ht mlMixing Air is equally effective on preheater/precalciner kilns as well as long kilns.

About Customers Mid-Kiln Mixing Air Mixing Energy SNCR News Technical Contact Questions ... ASK ED 

# Page 2 of 2 MixingTechnology

8/1/2012 http://www.cadencerecycling.com/mixingtechnology.ht ml
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

October 24, 2011 

t1017 

Order 

 

October 24, 2011 

143195 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143195 

 COA: 295140 

Wayne CC: 09-010799-FC 

EDWARD DARWIN WINSTON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 12, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Form 8275-R

(Rev. August 2013)

Department of the Treasury 

Internal Revenue Service

Regulation Disclosure Statement

Use this form only to disclose items or positions that are contrary to Treasury 

regulations. For other disclosures, use Form 8275, Disclosure Statement.

▶ Information about Form 8275-R and its separate instructions is at www.irs.gov/form8275. 

▶ Attach to your tax return.

OMB No. 1545-0889

Attachment 

Sequence No. 92A

Name(s) shown on return Identifying number shown on return

If Form 8275-R relates to an information return for a foreign entity (for example, Form 5471), enter:

Name of foreign entity ▶ 

Employer identification number, if any ▶

Reference ID number (see instructions) ▶

Part I General Information (see instructions)

(a) 

Regulation Section

(b) 

Item or Group 

of Items

(c) 

Detailed Description 

of Items

(d) 

Form or 

Schedule

(e) 

Line 

No.

(f) 

Amount

1

2

3

4

5

6

Part II Detailed Explanation (see instructions)

1

2

3

4

5

6

Part III Information About Pass-Through Entity. To be completed by partners, shareholders, beneficiaries, 

or residual interest holders.

Complete this part only if you are making adequate disclosure for a pass-through item.

Note: A pass-through entity is a partnership, S corporation, estate, trust, regulated investment company (RIC), real estate investment

trust (REIT), or real estate mortgage investment conduit (REMIC).

1 Name, address, and ZIP code of pass-through entity 2 Identifying number of pass-through entity

3 Tax year of pass-through entity

/ / to / / 

4 Internal Revenue Service Center where the pass-through entity filed 

its return

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see separate instructions. Cat. No. 14594X Form 8275-R (Rev. 8-2013)
Form 8275-R (Rev. 8-2013) Page 2

Part IV Explanations (continued from Parts I and/or II)

Form 8275-R (Rev. 8-2013)
##### 



Certification Pursuant to Section 302
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 I, David C. Choi, certify that:1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MetroCorp Bancshares, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known
to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit
committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
 a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
  /s/ David C. ChoiDavid C. ChoiChief Financial Officer