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 SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Wireless Xcessories Group, Inc. and
subsidiaries (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the date hereof (the
"Report"). I, Stephen Rade, Chairman and 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, to the best of my knowledge, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


By: /s/ Stephen Rade
    --------------------------
    Stephen Rade
    Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
    March 15, 2007
#### § 84.38 Childcare, preschool, elementary and secondary, and adult education.

A recipient to which this subpart applies that provides childcare, preschool, elementary and secondary, or adult education may not, on the basis of disability, exclude qualified individuals with disabilities and shall take into account the needs of such persons in determining the aids, benefits, or services to be provided.

[89 FR 40187, May 9, 2024]
#### § 2552.104 [Reserved]
§ 617.16 Prohibition against intimidation or retaliation. A recipient may not engage in acts of intimidation or retaliation against a person who: ( a ) Attempts to assert a right protected by the Act, or
( b ) Cooperates in any mediation, investigation, hearing or other part of NSF's investigation, conciliation, and enforcement process.
# CE2010015EN.01009401.xml

| 21.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 15/94 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 15/94

---

Tuesday 21 October 2008Civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (codified version) ***I

P6_TA(2008)0480

European Parliament legislative resolution of 21 October 2008 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (codified version) (COM(2008)0098 — C6-0144/2008 — 2008/0049(COD))

2010/C 15 E/23

(Codecision procedure — codification)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2008)0098),

having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 95(1) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0144/2008),

having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 December 1994 — Accelerated working method for official codification of legislative texts (1),

1

having regard to Rules 80 and 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0380/2008),

| A. | whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance, |
| --- | --- |

A.

whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance,

| 1. | Approves the Commission proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Approves the Commission proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 102, 4.4.1996, p. 2.

1

---
§ 98.12 Coordination and consultation. The Lead Agency shall: ( a ) Coordinate the provision of services for which assistance is provided under this part with the agencies listed in § 98.14(a).
( b ) Consult, in accordance with § 98.14(b), with representatives of general purpose local government during the development of the Plan; and
( c ) Coordinate, to the maximum extent feasible, per § 98.10(f) with any Indian Tribes in the State receiving CCDF funds in accordance with subpart I of this part.
[63 FR 39981, July 24, 1998, as amended at 81 FR 67574, Sept. 30, 2016]
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. §1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

In connection with the report on Form 10-K, as amended, of EnteroMedicsInc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Greg S. Lea, Chief Financial 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: 

1. The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

2. Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

December 2, 2008
#### §§ 75.366-75.370 [Reserved]
SUPREME COURT.

#### Clinton Delemater, appellant, agt. Benjamin Bush, respondent.

*Thvrd Department, General Term.*

*Argued at Albany, Janua/ry,*1872,

*and decided at Schenectady,*June, 1872.

While in deeds and other instruments a party may, for certain purposes, prove the consideration to have been different from that expressed, such evidence is not admissible to contradict an *agreement*or *covenant*to pay a certain sum.

The principle that previous oral negotiations are merged in the writing is also a reason why such proof should not be admitted in the absence of fraud or mistake.

Where, in an action upon a-written agreement, the oral evidence disclosed that the parties to the action, between themselves, fixed $450 as the sum to be paid by the defendant as rent for a stone quarry entirely for the purpose of obtaining from another person a portion of that sum, when as between themselves $250 was all that was to be paid by the defend*ant,—Held,*that if this was true, it was a fraud which a party was not allowed to set up as a defense.

*Before*Miller, *P. J., and*Potter *and*Johnson, *JJ.*

This action was tried at the Greene circuit, and resulted in a verdict for defendant. Judgment for costs being entered, an appeal was taken to the general term upon a case and exceptions. The facts will1 more fully appear in the opinion of the court.

James W. Hiseerd & A. M. Osborn, *for the appellant.*Charles T. Bouton *&*D. K. Olnex, *for respondent.*

*By the Court,*Potter, J.

Action upon an article of agreement with *covenant*to pay $450 for rent of a stone quarry, balance due $200.

*3831st. Evidence was admitted against objection, and exception, that the sum to be paid was $250, and not $450, mentioned in the agreement.

I think this was error. While in deeds and some other instruments you may, for certain purposes, prove the considerations to be different from that expressed, it is not admissible to contradict an agreement or covenant to pay a certain sum. The case was tried upon this theory,.and by it a verdict given for defendant.

So, too, the principle that previous oral negotiations are merged "in the writing is a reason why such proof should not be admitted in the absence of fraud or mistake.

2d. The oral evidence disclosed that the parties to the action between themselves fixed $450 as the sum to be paid entirely for the purpose of obtaining from another party a portion-of that sum, whereas as between themselves $250 was all that was to be paid by defendant.

If this was true, it was a fraud which a party is not allowed to set up in defense.

The judgment should be set aside, new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.
<PAGE>

CONTACT                                                           EXHIBIT 10.38
NAME:

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:


                              NOTICE OF CONVERSION

                    (To be Executed by the Registered Holder

                 in order to Convert the Convertible Debenture)



         The undersigned hereby irrevocably elects to convert $1,000,000 of
the principal balance of the Convertible Debenture into shares of Common
Stock, no par value per share (the "Common Stock"), of Emissions Testing,
Inc. (the "Company") according to the conditions hereof, as of the date
written below. No fee will be charged to the Holder for any conversion,
except for transfer taxes, if any. The undersigned, as contemplated by
Section 5.1 of the Securities Purchase Agreement pursuant to which the
Convertible Debenture was issued, hereby states that the representations and
warranties of the undersigned set forth therein are true and correct in all
material respects as of the date hereof (provided, the undersigned makes no
representations concerning its investment intent with respect to the Common
Stock received upon this conversion).

Conversion calculations:

                                       January 31, 2001
                                       --------------------------------------
                                       Date of Conversion

                                       $0.29
                                       --------------------------------------
                                       Applicable Conversion Price

                                       3,553,137
                                       --------------------------------------
                                       Number of Shares


                                       Name/Signature: /s/ Lewis N. Lester
                                                      -----------------------
                                       Address:
#### § 702.57 Administrative review.

Any person who believes a Commission action governed by this subpart to be contrary to the provisions of this subpart shall file an objection in writing with the Staff Director specifying the violation and suggesting corrective action. Whenever possible, the Staff Director shall respond within ten (10) working days of the receipt of such objections.
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite ofcataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:****Office of Searchand Rescue G-OPR newsletter**** 
SuDocNumber: HS 7.21:
ItemNumber: 0520-C-30 (online)
CGPsystem Number: 000592188
 
 - SarWatch1.docSarWatch2.docSarWatch3.docSarWatch4.docSarWatch5.docSarWatch6.docSarWatch7.docSarWatch8.docSarWatch9.docSarWatch10.docSarWatch11.docSarWatch13.docSarWatch14.docSarWatch15.docSarWatch16.docSarWatch17.docSarWatch18.docSarWatch19.docSarWatch20.docSarWatch21.docSarWatch22.docSarWatch23.docSarWatch24.docSarWatch25.docSarWatch26.docSarWatch27.docSarWatch28.docSarWatch29.docSarWatch30.docSarWatch31.docSarWatch32.docSarWatch33.doc
 **
§ 73.735-806 Documentation and publication of opinions. ( a ) The Department Ethics Counselor, deputy ethics counselors, and any other individuals required to be involved in the review and resolution of violations or potential violations of this subpart shall maintain full and accurate documentation of the formal advice and guidance given.
( b ) From time to time, the Department Ethics Counselor shall publish summaries of advisory opinions issued by his or her office, deleting, as necessary, any personal identifiers or other information which may give rise to an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. These summaries shall be distributed to all deputy ethics counselors, heads of principal operating components, and principal regional officials.
( c ) From time to time, the Department Ethics Counselor shall publish an index of all summaries issued in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, and shall distribute these indexes to all deputy ethics counselors and heads of principal operating components who shall in turn make them available for review by supervisors and interested employees.
# Map            Poland.
§ 287.1 What does this part cover? ( a ) The regulations in this part prescribe the rules for implementing section 412(a)(2) of the Social Security Act (the Act), as amended by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) (Pub. L. 104-193) and the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-33).
( b ) Section 412(a)(2) of the Act, as amended, authorizes the Secretary to issue grants to eligible Indian tribes to operate a program that makes work activities available to “such population and such service area or areas as the tribe specifies.”
( c ) We call this Tribal work activities program the Native Employment Works (NEW) program.
( d ) These regulations specify the Tribes who are eligible to receive NEW Program funding. They also prescribe requirements for: funding; program plan development and approval; program design and operation; and data collection and reporting.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 51 (Friday, March 16, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 12593]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1285]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Klamath National Forest, California, Westpoint

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Cancellation notice.

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

SUMMARY: On June 23, 2006, a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an 
environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Westpoint Project on the 
Scott River Ranger District of the Klamath National Forest, was 
published in the Federal Register (71 FR 36056-36058). The Forest 
Service has decided to cancel the preparation of this EIS. The NOI is 
hereby rescinded.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill Bailey, Timber Management 
Officer, Salmon/Scott River Ranger District, 11263 N. Highway 3, Fort 
Jones, CA 96032, telephone (530) 468-5351.

    Dated: March 9, 2007.
Margaret J. Boland,
Forest Supervisor, Klamath National Forest.
[FR Doc. 07-1285 Filed 3-15-07; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
# EUR-Lex - 12008E265 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12008E265

**Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - PART SIX: INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS - TITLE I: INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS - Chapter 1: The institutions - Section 5: The Court of Justice of the European Union - Article 265 (ex Article 232 TEC) **

*
Official Journal 115 , 09/05/2008 P. 0163 - 0163 *

Article 265

(ex Article 232 TEC)

Should the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the Commission or the European Central Bank, in infringement of the Treaties, fail to act, the Member States and the other institutions of the Union may bring an action before the Court of Justice of the European Union to have the infringement established. This Article shall apply, under the same conditions, to bodies, offices and agencies of the Union which fail to act.

The action shall be admissible only if the institution, body, office or agency concerned has first been called upon to act. If, within two months of being so called upon, the institution, body, office or agency concerned has not defined its position, the action may be brought within a further period of two months.

Any natural or legal person may, under the conditions laid down in the preceding paragraphs, complain to the Court that an institution, body, office or agency of the Union has failed to address to that person any act other than a recommendation or an opinion.

--------------------------------------------------
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determine d 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. 96-11153 Summary Calendar

_____________________

OTIS B. CLAYBORNE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY; ROBERT GEHRMAN; PAULA BURCH; WHITNEY WOLF; DENNIS HARRIS; MAX J. MULLENS; BRUCE HINES; TOM MORGAN,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas, Dallas

(3:95-CV-1925-R)

_________________________________________________________________ May 13, 1997

Before KING, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Mr. Otis B. Clayborne, proceeding pro se , filed this

employment discrimination suit against Southwestern Bell Telephone

Company and the above-named employees pursuan t to 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e-5 ("Title VII"). The United States magistrate judge

granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that2

Mr. Clayborne had failed to comply with Title VII's limitations

period. Under Title VII, any suit must be filed within ninety days

of the receipt of a right to sue letter. We affirm.

The movant in a motion for summary judgment has the initial

burden of informing the court of the basis for the motion, and

identifying those portions of the summary judgment re cord that

demonstrates no genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v.

Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553 (1986). When the

movan t satisfies this burden, the non-movant must produce

affirmative evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact.

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505,

2510-11 (1986).

In this case, the movant provided United States Postal Service

a "return receipt" that shows Mr. Clayborne had received his right

to sue noti ce on May 25, 1995. Mr. Clayborne filed this suit on

August 29, 1995, ninety-six days after receiving the right to sue

noti ce. Because Mr. Clayborne failed to provide the magistrate

judge any affirmative evidence contradicting the authenticity of

the return receipts, nor did he give any justification for excuse

from the ninety-day limitations period, he failed to establish any
genuine issue of material fact. Therefore, summary judgment was

appropriate. The judgment of the magistrate judge is therefore

A F F I R M E D.3
Fuel Load Example for Masonry Heaters

1. 2.

3.

4.

2 x 4 2 x 4 

2 x 4

2x4

4 x 4 4 x 4

2 x 4 2 x 4

2 x 4

2 x 2

2 x 2

//////////////////////////////////////////////////

//////////////////////////////////////////////////

//////////////////////////////////////////////////

//////////////////////////////////////////////////

//////////////////////////////////////////////////

2 x 2

2 x 4 Paper

3/4x3/4

Paper

3/4x3/4

//////////////////////////////////////////////////

//////////////////////////////////////////////////

2 x 4

2 x 4 

2 x 4

4 x 4 4 x 4 4 x 4

2 x 4 2 x 4 2 x 4

3/4x3/4

Paper

2 x 4 2 x 4

2 x 2

2 x 4

4 x 4 4 x 4 4 x 4

2 x 4

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

2 x 4 2 x 4

Paper ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

2 x 4

2 x 4

4 x 4

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

2 x 4 2 x 4

2 x 4 2 x 4

3/4x3/4
#### § 502.6 Current index.

The Commission will maintain and make available for public inspection and copying, current indexes providing identifying information for the public as to any matter issued, adopted, or promulgated after July 4, 1967, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2).
#### Benjamin C. Nottingham, *Respondent, v.*Maggie Clark, *Appellant*.

Judgment affirmed. Opinion by

Smith, P. J.
§ 630.215 What must I include in my drug-free awareness program? You must establish an ongoing drug-free awareness program to inform employees about— ( a ) The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace;
( b ) Your policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace;
( c ) Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs; and
( d ) The penalties that you may impose upon them for drug abuse violations occurring in the workplace.
EX-35 (i)
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC N2702-011
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410 884-2000
410 715-2380 Fax

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.


March 05, 2007

Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc.
4 World Financial Center
New York, NY 10281

RE: Annual Statement As To Compliance for Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors
Trust, Series 2006-A4

Per Section 3.16 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of 07/01/2006,
the undersigned Officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (Securities Administrator),
hereby certifies the following for the 2006 calendar year or portion thereof:

(i)   A review of the activities of such signatory during the preceding calendar
      year, or portion thereof, and of the performance of such signatory under
      the related Servicing Agreement or such other applicable agreement in the
      case of a Servicing Function Participant has been made under such
      Officer's supervision.

(ii)  To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, such
      signatory has fulfilled all its obligations under this Agreement, the
      related Servicing Agreement or such other applicable agreement in all
      material respects throughout such year or a portion thereof, or, if there
      has been a failure to fulfill any such obligation in any material respect,
      specifying each such failure known to such officer and the nature and
      status thereof.

(iii) Notwithstanding anything herein to contrary (and noting that, to the
      extent of any inconsistency, any and all other statements, certifications
      or assertions herein are subject to the following): instances of
      noncompliance related to the subject transaction for the applicable
      reporting period are identified on Schedule A hereto.


Certified By:
/s/ Barry Akers
Barry Akers
Vice President

Certified By:
/s/ Gordon Johnson
Gordon Johnson, Assistant Secretary


(page)


Schedule A

Reporting Errors

During the reporting period, one or more of the monthly investor reports
contained certain types of errors in regard to the calculation and or the
reporting of delinquencies for the pool assets. To the best of the signing
officer's knowledge, each such error, which may or may not have been material,
has been identified and remedied and any related corrective action has been
disclosed in a report previously filed with the SEC in respect of the reporting
period.
#### §§ 84.32-84.37 [Reserved]