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


EXHIBIT  99.1

                         AMERICAN ENERGY SERVICES, 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 American Energy Services, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending November 30, 2002, as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Patrick  Elliott,  the  Chief  Executive  Officer, President and Director of the
Company,  hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss.  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  that:

(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/  Patrick  Elliott
                                             ---------------------
                                             Patrick  Elliott
                                             CEO,  President  and  Director
January 10,  2002

                                      15


<PAGE>
§ 1610.8 Program integrity of recipient. ( a ) A recipient must have objective integrity and independence from any organization that engages in restricted activities. A recipient will be found to have objective integrity and independence from such an organization if: ( 1 ) The other organization is a legally separate entity;
( 2 ) The other organization receives no subgrant of LSC funds from the recipient, as defined in 45 CFR part 1627, and LSC funds do not subsidize restricted activities; and
( 3 ) The recipient is physically and financially separate from the other organization. Mere bookkeeping separation of LSC funds from other funds is not sufficient. LSC will determine whether sufficient physical and financial separation exists on a case-by-case basis and will base its determination on the totality of the facts. The presence or absence of any one or more factors will not be determinative. Factors relevant to this determination shall include but will not be limited to: ( i ) The existence of separate personnel;
( ii ) The existence of separate accounting and timekeeping records;
( iii ) The degree of separation from facilities in which restricted activities occur, and the extent of such restricted activities; and
( iv ) The extent to which signs and other forms of identification that distinguish the recipient from the organization are present.
( b ) Each recipient's governing body must certify to LSC on an annual basis that the recipient is in compliance with the requirements of this section.
§ 164.534 Compliance dates for initial implementation of the privacy standards. ( a ) *Health care providers.* A covered health care provider must comply with the applicable requirements of this subpart no later than April 14, 2003.
( b ) *Health plans.* A health plan must comply with the applicable requirements of this subpart no later than the following as applicable: ( 1 ) *Health plans other than small health plans.* April 14, 2003.
( 2 ) *Small health plans.* April 14, 2004.
( c ) *Health clearinghouses.* A health care clearinghouse must comply with the applicable requirements of this subpart no later than April 14, 2003.
[66 FR 12434, Feb. 26, 2001]
MUR819000008
361 P.2d 787

#### STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Charles C. ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 8889.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

May 5, 1961.

*264Charles Anderson, New Plymouth, appellant, pro se.

Frank Benson, Atty. Gen., Warren Felton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dwaine Welch, Pros. Atty., Payette County, Payette, for respondent.

McQUADE, Justice.

Defendant Charles C. Anderson was convicted in the police court of the City of New Plymouth of permitting his dog to run at large in violation of a city ordinance. He alleges there were numerous irregularities committed in the police court proceedings.

Defendant appealed to the district court, orally notifying the police judge. The district court is alleged to have dismissed the appeal on the ground it was not filed within the statutory time. The trial judge signed a minute entry to that effect, but there is no order of dismissal in the record.

While defendant was represented by counsel in police court, he acts as his own attorney on this appeal.

Defendant’s brief does not set out formal specifications of error.

.The right of appeal is purely statutory, and can be exercised only in the method and manner provided by statute. State v. Ricks, 34 Idaho 122, 201 P. 827; State v. Stokes, 55 Idaho 51, 37 P.2d 404; State v. Paris, 58 Idaho 315, 72 P.2d 865.

*265Defendant’s oral notice of appeal from the police court to the district court does not meet the requirements of I.C. § 19-3938:

> “A defendant intending to appeal must give notice of his intention to do so within ten days after the rendition and entry of the judgment, by filing notice thereof with the judge or justice of the court wherein the conviction was had, and serving on the prosecuting attorney of the county, or his associate or deputy, a copy thereof, entitled in the action, setting forth the character of the judgment, and the intention of the defendant to appeal therefrom to the district court. * * *”

I.C. § 19-2803 sets out the judgments and orders from which the defendant in a criminal proceeding may appeal to this Court:

> “An appeal may be taken by the defendant :

> “1. From a final judgment of conviction.

> “2. From an order denying a motion for a new trial.

> “3. From any order made after •judgment, affecting the substantial rights of the party. * * * ”

This enumeration does not include an appeal from a district court dismissal of an appeal from a lower court, and hence defendant’s appeal cannot be considered here. State v. Stokes, supra.

There is no order of dismissal by the district court for this Court to consider either by way of appeal or writ of review.

The appeal is dismissed. The defendant may pursue his remedy as if by way of writ of review in the district court, where the record there may be supplemented and reviewed.

TAYLOR, C. J., and SMITH, KNUDSON and McFADDEN, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER and 

CATHERINE HINCKLEY KELLEY,

 Plaintiffs,

 Civil Action No. 19-2336 (JEB)

v.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,

Defendant,

and

HILLARY FOR AMERICA and 

CORRECT THE RECORD,

Defendant-Intervenors.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, the Court 

ORDERS that Defendant’s Motion to Stay is DENIED.

 /s/ James E. Boasberg 

 JAMES E. BOASBERG

 United States District Judge

Date: February 1, 2023

Case 1:19-cv-02336-JEB Document 79 Filed 02/01/23 Page 1 of 1
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of MetroCorp Bancshares, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David
D. Rinehart, Executive Vice President and 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:

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 operating results of the Company.

|                                                                                             
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ David D. Rinehart

David D. Rinehart
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer

25
§ 153.740 Failure to comply with HHS-operated risk adjustment and reinsurance data requirements. ( a ) *Enforcement actions.* If an issuer of a risk adjustment covered plan or reinsurance-eligible plan fails to establish a dedicated distributed data environment in a manner and timeframe specified by HHS; fails to provide HHS with access to the required data in such environment in accordance with § 153.700(a) or otherwise fails to comply with the requirements of §§ 153.700 through 153.730; fails to adhere to the reinsurance data submission requirements set forth in § 153.420; or fails to adhere to the risk adjustment data submission and data storage requirements set forth in §§ 153.610 through 153.630, HHS may impose civil money penalties in accordance with the procedures set forth in § 156.805 of this subchapter. Civil monetary penalties will not be imposed for non-compliance with these requirements during the 2014 or 2015 calendar years under this paragraph if the issuer has made good faith efforts to comply with these requirements.
( b ) *Default risk adjustment charge.* If an issuer of a risk adjustment covered plan fails to establish a dedicated distributed data environment or fails to provide HHS with access to the required data in such environment in accordance with § 153.610(a), § 153.700, § 153.710, or § 153.730 such that HHS cannot apply the applicable Federally certified risk adjustment methodology to calculate the risk adjustment payment transfer amount for the risk adjustment covered plan in a timely fashion, HHS will assess a default risk adjustment charge.
( c ) *Information sharing.* HHS may consult with and share information about issuers of risk adjustment covered plans and reinsurance-eligible plans with other Federal and State regulatory and enforcement entities to the extent the consultation or information is necessary for purposes of Federal or State oversight and enforcement activities.
[78 FR 65095, Oct. 30, 2013, as amended at 80 FR 10863, Feb. 27, 2015]
#### § 1613.3 Prohibition.

Corporation funds shall not be used to provide legal assistance with respect to a criminal proceeding, unless authorized by this part.
§ 158.607 Factors HHS uses to determine the amount of penalty. In determining the amount of any penalty, HHS may take into account the following: ( a ) *The entity's previous record of compliance.* This may include any of the following: ( 1 ) Any history of prior violations by the responsible entity, including whether, at any time before determination of the current violation(s), HHS or any State found the responsible entity liable for civil or administrative sanctions in connection with a violation of Affordable Care Act requirements regarding minimum loss ratios.
( 2 ) Evidence that the responsible entity has never had a complaint for noncompliance with Affordable Care Act requirements regarding MLRs filed with a State or HHS.
( 3 ) Such other factors as justice may require.
( b ) *The gravity of the violation.* This may include any of the following: ( 1 ) The frequency of the violation, taking into consideration whether any violation is an isolated occurrence, represents a pattern, or is widespread.
( 2 ) The level of financial and other impacts on affected individuals.
( 3 ) Other factors as justice may require.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6433

RODNEY LAMONT WEBSTER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:06-cv-01235-LMB) Submitted: July 18, 2007 Decided: August 3, 2007 Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rodney Lamont Webster, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Rodney Lamont Webster seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Webster 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 legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
Case 1:22-cv-01542-RCL   Document 20   Filed 09/01/23   Page 1 of 1
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

TRAXCELL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

AT&T INC.,

Defendant

SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY LP, 

SPRINT SPECTRUM, LP, SPRINT SOLUTIONS, 

INC., VERIZON WIRELESS PERSONAL 

COMMUNICATIONS, LP,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2023-1246, 2023-1436

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Texas in Nos. 2:17-cv-00718-RWS-RSP, 

2:17-cv-00719-RWS-RSP, 2:17-cv-00721-RWS-RSP, Judge 

Robert Schroeder III.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

WILLIAM PETERSON RAMEY, III, Ramey LLP, Houston, 

TX, argued for plaintiff-appellant. 

Case: 23-1246 Document: 74 Page: 1 Filed: 07/13/2023
 BRIAN DAVID SCHMALZBACH, McGuireWoods LLP, Richmond, VA, argued for all defendants-appellees. Defendants-appellees Sprint Communications Company LP, 

Sprint Spectrum, LP, Sprint Solutions, Inc. also represented by DAVID EVAN FINKELSON; TYLER VANHOUTAN, 

Houston, TX. 

 JACOB KEVIN BARON, Holland & Knight LLP, Boston, 

MA, for defendant-appellee Verizon Wireless Personal 

Communications, LP. Also represented by JOSHUA C.

KRUMHOLZ, ALLISON LUCIER. 

 ______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (PROST, HUGHES, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

July 13, 2023 

Date

/s/ Jarrett B. Perlow

Jarrett B. Perlow

Clerk of Court

Case: 23-1246 Document: 74 Page: 2 Filed: 07/13/2023
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 137 (Monday, July 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 42158]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-18056]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 7526]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Rembrandt and the Face of Jesus''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 
of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 
257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Rembrandt and the Face of Jesus,'' 
imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, 
are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan 
agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that 
the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Philadelphia 
Museum of Art, Philadelphia, PA, from on or about July 28, 2011, until 
on or about October 30, 2011; the Detroit Institute of Arts, Detroit, 
MI, from on or about November 11, 2011, until on about February 12, 
2012, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be 
determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public 
Notice of these Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: July 12, 2011.
J. Adam Ereli,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2011-18056 Filed 7-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
§ 155.620 Eligibility redeterminations for exemptions during a calendar year. ( a ) *General requirement.* The Exchange must redetermine the eligibility of an individual with an exemption granted by the Exchange if it receives and verifies new information reported by such an individual, except for the exemption described in § 155.605(g)(2).
( b ) *Requirement for individuals to report changes.* ( 1 ) Except as specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the Exchange must require an individual who has a certificate of exemption from the Exchange to report any change with respect to the eligibility standards for the exemption as specified in § 155.605, except for the exemption described in § 155.605(g)(2), within 30 days of such change.
( 2 ) The Exchange must allow an individual with a certificate of exemption to report changes via the channels available for the submission of an application, as described in § 155.610(d).
( c ) *Verification of reported changes.* The Exchange must— ( 1 ) Verify any information reported by an individual with a certificate of exemption in accordance with the processes specified in § 155.615 prior to using such information in an eligibility redetermination.
( 2 ) Notify an individual in accordance with § 155.610(i) after redetermining his or her eligibility based on a reported change.
( 3 ) Provide periodic electronic notifications regarding the requirements for reporting changes and an individual's opportunity to report any changes, to an individual who has a certificate of exemption for which changes must be reported in accordance with § 155.620(b) and who has elected to receive electronic notifications, unless he or she has declined to receive such notifications.
( d ) *Effective date of changes.* The Exchange must implement a change resulting from a redetermination under this section for the month or months after the month in which the redetermination occurs, such that a certificate that was provided for the month in which the redetermination occurs, and for prior months remains effective.
#### § 1618.1 Purpose.

In order to ensure uniform and consistent interpretation and application of the provisions of the LSC Act, the Corporation's appropriations act or other law applicable to LSC funds, a Corporation rule, regulation, guideline or instruction, or the terms and conditions of the recipient's grant or contract with the Corporation, and to prevent a question of whether these requirements have been violated from becoming an ancillary issue in any case undertaken by a recipient, this part establishes a systematic procedure for enforcing compliance with them.
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 214 (Monday, November 6, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 65007]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9087]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES


National Endowment for the Arts; Proposed Collection; Comment 
Request

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), as part of its 
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a 
preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and 
federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or 
continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(A)]. This program 
helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired 
format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, 
collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of 
collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. 
Currently, the NEA is soliciting comments concerning the proposed 
information collection of: National Survey of Public Participation in 
the Arts. A copy of the current information collection request can be 
obtained by contacting the office listed below in the address section 
of this notice.

DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the 
address section below on or before December 4, 2006. The NEA is 
particularly interested in comments which:
    <bullet> Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is 
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, 
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    <bullet> Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the 
burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity 
of the methodology and assumptions used;
    <bullet> Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected; and
    <bullet> Minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate 
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting 
electronic submissions of responses.

ADDRESSES: Tom Bradshaw, National Endowment for the Arts, 1100 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 616, Washington, DC 20506-0001, 
telephone (202) 682-5527 (this is not a toll-free number), fax (202) 
682-5677.

Johnie Lewis,
Acting Director, Administrative Services, National Endowment for the 
Arts.
[FR Doc. 06-9087 Filed 11-3-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7537-01-P
EXHIBIT
32.1




WAGERGEN
BIO-SYSTEMS, INC.


CERTIFICATION





In
connection with the annual report of WaferGen Bio-systems, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Alnoor Shivji, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely
for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States
Code, that to the best of my knowledge:




1.  The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, 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 at the dates
and for the periods indicated.





This
Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.





Date:
April 29,
2008








By:
            /s/  Alnoor
      ShivjiAlnoor
      ShivjiChairman,
      President and Chief Executive Officer