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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Neema Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended April 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Nigel Liang, Chief Executive 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 29thday of July, 2008.

NIGEL LIANGNigel LiangChief Executive Officer


















---
Exhibit32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the QuarterlyReport of Salomon Smith Barney Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P.(the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for theperiod ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, David J. Vogel, President andDirector of Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of thePartnership.

/s/ David J.Vogel

|  |
|--|
|  |  |
|  |

David J.VogelCitigroup Managed Futures LLC President and Director

November 12, 2004

----
##### 



Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

Michael V. Shustek, as Chief Executive Officer of Vestin Group, Inc. (the
Company), and John W. Alderfer, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the
Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge

(1)  the Companys Quarterly Report of Form 10-QSB/A for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report) fully complies with the applicable
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 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/ Michael V. Shustek     |  | 
|Dated: November 3, 2003 |  |                            |  | 
|                        |  | Michael V. Shustek         |  | 
|                        |  | Chief Executive Officer of |  | 
|                        |  | Vestin Group, Inc.         |  | 
|                        |  |                            |  | 
|                        |  | /s/ John W. Alderfer       |  | 
|Dated: November 3, 2003 |  |                            |  | 
|                        |  | John W. Alderfer           |  | 
|                        |  | Chief Financial Officer of |  | 
|                        |  | Vestin Group, Inc.         |  |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

PURSUING AMERICA’S GREATNESS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 15-cv-1217 (TSC)

)

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, )

)

Defendant. )

)

ORDER

Upon consideration Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 38, and 

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 40, and for the reasons set forth 

in the court’s Memorandum Opinion dated March 21, 2019, ECF No. 48, it is hereby 

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 38, is 

GRANTED. It is further 

ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 40, is 

DENIED.

The court hereby declares that 11 C.F.R. § 102.14(a) violates the First Amendment of the 

U.S. Constitution. The court further permanently enjoins the FEC from enforcing 11 C.F.R. § 

102.14(a). 

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. This is a final and 

appealable Order. 

Date: March 21, 2019

Tanya S. Chutkan 

TANYA S. CHUTKAN

United States District Judge

Case 1:15-cv-01217-TSC Document 49 Filed 03/21/19 Page 1 of 1
§ 2506.41 What are the Corporation's procedures for collecting debts by tax refund offset? ( a ) The Corporation's Accounting and Financial Management Services Division will be the point of contact with the Treasury for administrative matters regarding the offset program.
( b ) The Corporation will ensure that the procedures prescribed by the Treasury are followed in developing information about past-due debts and submitting the debts to the Treasury.
( c ) The Corporation will submit to the Treasury a notification of a taxpayer's liability for past-due legally enforceable debt. This notification will contain the following: ( 1 ) The name and taxpayer identification number of the debtor;
( 2 ) The amount of the past-due and legally enforceable debt;
( 3 ) The date on which the original debt became past due;
( 4 ) A statement certifying that, with respect to each debt reported, all of the requirements of § 2506.40(b) have been satisfied; and
( 5 ) Any other information as prescribed by Treasury.
( d ) For purposes of this section, notice that collection of the debt is stayed by a bankruptcy proceeding involving the debtor will bar referral of the debt to the Treasury.
( e ) The Corporation will promptly notify the Treasury to correct data when the Corporation: ( 1 ) Determines that an error has been made with respect to a debt that has been referred;
( 2 ) Receives or credits a payment on the debt; or
( 3 ) Receives notice that the person owing the debt has filed for bankruptcy under title 11 of the United States Code and the automatic stay is in effect or has been adjudicated bankrupt and the debt has been discharged.
( f ) When advising debtors of the Corporation's intent to refer a debt to the Treasury for offset, the Corporation will also advise debtors of remedial actions (*see* §§ 2506.9 and 2506.14 through 2506.16 of this part) available to defer the offset or prevent it from taking place.
1 

### Maurin, Lawrence

From: BECKHAM, LISA

Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 12:15 PM

To: Maurin, Lawrence

Subject: FW: NGS Permitting

From: Heckel Kyle C [mailto:Kyle.Heckel@srpnet.com]

Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 10:34 AM

To: Raju Bisht <rbisht@navajo

‐ nsn.gov>; Yu

‐ Lien Chu <Yu

‐ Lien.Chu@erg.com>

Cc: BECKHAM, LISA <BECKHAM.LISA@EPA.GOV>; Cenalmor Bruquetas Maria B (Barbara)

<Barbara.CenalmorBruquetas@srpnet.com>

Subject: NGS Permitting

Hi Raju and Yu

‐ Lien,

I spoke with Lisa Beckham with EPA Region 9 regarding the recent questions on the Navajo Generating Station (NGS)

permit applications and I wanted to fill the two of you in on our conversation. Lisa, please correct me if I have misstated

anything.

To address the concerns that the MATS Hg control project included in the Title V renewal addendum application and the

refined coal project included in the Tribal Minor NSR application submitted to EPA were related, I explained the

differences between the two project. The refined coal project will be owned and operated by a third

‐ party which will be

contracted out by SRP. Further, SRP will not be relying on the refined coal project for complying with the MATS Hg

emission limits. The MATS Hg control project includes equipment that will be owned and operated by SRP and will be

used to comply with the MATS Hg emission limits. The MATS Hg control project is designed to have a capacity capable

of controlling Hg emissions absent the refined coal project. The projects are independent from each other and would be

carried through even if the other one were not to be installed.

Regarding the PTE calculations for the baghouses on the PAC silos, EPA is okay with the use of baghouse grain loading

rate for uncontrolled emission calculations. However, Lisa did mention that because the installation of the PAC silos will

have an increase in potential emissions, though less than the minor NSR thresholds, the project is still subject to the

administrative permit amendment requirements of the tribal minor NSR program.

Based on the above two items, SRP will be submitting an administrative amendment application to EPA Region 9 to

authorize the MATS Hg control project. While separate from the refined coal project proposed in the tribal minor NSR

application, EPA will likely process the two applications together. If there are concerns with having a permit issued by

the October 1, 2015 deadline for commencing construction of the MATS Hg control equipment, EPA will separate out

the administrative amendment processing so that SRP can comply with the October 1 deadline.

I would imagine that based on this approach, NNEPA may want to exclude the MATS Hg control equipment (i.e., PAC

storage silos) from the NGS Title V permit until the NGS construction permit has been revised by EPA. Since the

construction of the equipment will be authorized via the administrative amendment, SRP is okay if that is the desired

approach.

If there are any questions or concerns, please let me know.

Thanks,2 Kyle

Kyle Heckel

Salt River Project

Environmental Engineer

602

‐ 236

‐ 5493

Mail Station PAB352

‐ PO Box 52025

‐ Phoenix, AZ 85072
**EXHIBIT31.2**

CERTIFICATION

I, Stathis Kouninis, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10-Q/A of Tasker Capital Corp.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

4. The issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the issuer andhave:

(a) designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the periodin which this report is being prepared;

(b) [Intentionallyomitted in accordance with SEC Release No. 33-8392]

(c) evaluated theeffectiveness of the issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

(d) disclosed in thisreport any change in the issuer’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the issuer’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and

5. The issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of theissuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

(b) any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.
| October 26, 2006                                  |
|---------------------------------------------------|
|                                              |
|                                              |
| /s/ Stathis Kouninis                              |   |   |
| Stathis Kouninis                                  |
| Chief Financial  Officer, Treasurer and Secretary |
| (Principal  Financial and Accounting Officer)     |

 

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

**No. 12**  **- 8087** 

MTU AKILI , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. C. ZYCH, Warden , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke
. Michael F. Urbanski , District Judge. ( 7:12

- cv - 00456

- MFU

- RSB )

Submitted : April 18, 2013 Decided: April 22, 2013

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY , and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Mtu Akili, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Mtu Akili , a federal prisoner, appeals the district
court ’ s order s denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2012) petition and his motion for reconsideration
. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Akili V. Zych , No. 7:12

- cv - 00456

- MFU

- RS B (W.D. Va. Oct. 15, 2012; Nov. 27, 2012) We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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 Primus Knowledge Solutions, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ronald M. Stevens, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/    RONALD M. STEVENS





Ronald M. Stevens


Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer


November 7, 2002
§ 162.1101 Health care claims or equivalent encounter information transaction. The health care claims or equivalent encounter information transaction is the transmission of either of the following: ( a ) A request to obtain payment, and the necessary accompanying information from a health care provider to a health plan, for health care.
( b ) If there is no direct claim, because the reimbursement contract is based on a mechanism other than charges or reimbursement rates for specific services, the transaction is the transmission of encounter information for the purpose of reporting health care.
#### Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company, appellant, v. Nebraska State Railway Commission, appellee.

Filed May 15, 1914.

No. 17,733.

Carriers: Tariffs: Regulation. Tbe order of the state railway commission set forth in the opinion *held,*under the facts in the ease, not to be unreasonable and unjust.

Appeal from the State Railway Commission.

*Dismissed.*

*M. A.*Low, *Paul E. Walker, E. P. Holmes*and *G. L. DeLaoy,*for appellant.

*Grant G.*Martin, *Attorney .General, George W. Ayres*and *Frank E. Edgerton, contra.*

Letton, J.

This is an appeal from an order of the state railway commission denying the request of the appellant that it *212approve, ratify and confirm supplement 97 to Freight Tariff No. 21,432, which eliminates from the tariff providing for switching charges the names of certain corporations and individuals as engaged in industries located upon the track of the applicant. The commission allowed the Benjamin F. Bailey Sanatorium Company to be eliminated, but denied the request as to the others named in the application. The evidence indicates that all of the occupations affected are carried on at some distance from the tracks of appellant; that by an error of a former agent the names were listed and placed upon the tariff sheet without regard to the fact that the industries were not situated upon a track; that they have been allowed for years to use tracks other than the regular team track; and that no separate tariff charge has been made for this service. It is conceded by the attorney general that the railway company is not bound by this refusal so far as concerns interstate shipments. It is also conceded that it may require reasonable compensation for delivering shipments upon these tracks which have been received from other railroads. With these concessions, and with the provision contained in the order that the service shall only be continued until a showing is made to the railway commission that the industries on and adjacent to the right of way on these industrial tracks are inconvenienced by this service, it appears that no property right is affected, and it does not appear that by the order the property of the railway company is taken ¿without due process of law. Under these circumstances, the order of the railway commission is not so “unjust and unreasonable” (Rev. St. 1913, secs. 6128, 6129) as to warrant a court in interfering with the legislative function exercised in the regulation of the published tariff. *Hooper Telephone Co. v. Nebraska Telephone Co.,*p. 245, *post.*

The appeal is therefore

Dismissed.
**Exhibit 23.2**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

The Board of Directors 

GateHouse Media, Inc.: 

We consent to the incorporation byreference in Registration Statement (No. 333-138225) on Form S-8 of GateHouse Media, Inc. of our report dated March 12, 2007, with respect to the consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity (deficit) and cash flows of GateHouseMedia, Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2006, and the related financial statement schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 2008 annual report on Form 10-K of GateHouse Media, Inc. 

As discussed in Note 1(s) to the consolidated financial statements, during 2006, the Company adopted Statement of Financial Accounting StandardsNo. 123 (revised 2004), *Share-Based Payment*. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Chicago, Illinois 

March 13, 2009
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

Day & Zimmermann Hawthorne Corporation ) ASBCA No. 59033 

) 

Under Contract No. DAAA09-99-D-0022 ) 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

Hal J. Perloff, Esq. 

Husch Blackwell LLP 

Washington, DC 

Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 

Army Chief Trial Attorney 

MAJ Nancy J. Lewis, JA 

Trial Attorney 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 26 June 2014 

~~ Administrative Judge 

Vice Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 59033, Appeal of Day & 

Zimmermann Hawthorne Corporation, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
§ 2105.30 How will the Agency consider the submitter's objections? ( a ) The Agency must carefully consider a submitter's objections and specific grounds for nondisclosure in deciding whether to disclose the requested information.
( b ) The Agency, not the submitter, is responsible for deciding whether the information will be released or withheld.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk August 6, 2009

d0720 

# Order

August 6, 2009

138540

MARK JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 138540 COA: 288226 DEPARTMENT OF CORR ECTIONS, Saginaw CC: 08-001972-AH Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e February 18, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 Certification Pursuant to Section 302
Of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I, Kevin Shu, 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. Date: August 27, 2004 /s/ Kevin Shu