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

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



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Pop N Go, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

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 operation of the Company.

|                           |                                                                
|-------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------
|Date:
        May 21, 2007 |                                                                
|                           | By: /s/ Melvin Wyman                                           
|                           | Name: Melvin Wyman                                             
|                           | Title: Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
|                           |                                                                



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Pop N Go, Inc. and will be retained by Pop N Go, Inc. and furnished to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission or its Staff upon request.
**EXHIBIT 99.1**
I, Gerald W. Grandey, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of Cameco Corporation; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this annual 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 presentedin this annual report; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
 a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this annual report is being prepared;  b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annualreport based on such evaluation; and  c)  disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 a)  all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which couldadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialdata and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internalcontrols; and  b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls.
Date: March 15, 2005                                                             /s/ Gerald W. Grandey   Gerald W. Grandey   President & Chief Executive Officer
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

B.H., THE MOTHER,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES GUARDIAN AD LITEM,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-3516

[January 25, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Kirk Volker, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502016DP000015.

Antony P. Ryan, Director and Paul O'Neil, Assistant Regional Counsel 

of Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, West Palm Beach, 

for appellant.

Sarah J. Rumph of Children Legal Services, Tallahassee, Meredith K. 

Hall of Children’s Legal Services, Sara E. Goldfarb and Laura J. Lee of 

Guardian Ad Litem Program, Sanford, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN ARNOLD INDUSTRIES, INC.'S FORM 10-Q FOR 
THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY 
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                      21,737,918
<SECURITIES>                                26,617,818
<RECEIVABLES>                               36,452,583
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,065,694
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            94,411,381
<PP&E>                                     329,321,123
<DEPRECIATION>                             128,228,089
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             314,956,588
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       53,132,373
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    29,942,628
<OTHER-SE>                                 183,520,768
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               314,956,588
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            90,539,222
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               78,991,269
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               303,245
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             331,258
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             11,432,016
<INCOME-TAX>                                 4,110,860
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          7,321,156
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 7,321,156
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .27
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
PCD INC.'S FORM 10-Q FOR PERIOD ENDED MARCH 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY TO REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL INFORMATION.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-30-1996
<CASH>                                           4,725
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,915
<ALLOWANCES>                                       251
<INVENTORY>                                      2,838
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,369
<PP&E>                                           9,174
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,100
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,662
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,735
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            46
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,881
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,662
<SALES>                                          7,087
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,087
<CGS>                                            3,852
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,852
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,495
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    60
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,794
<INCOME-TAX>                                       664
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,130
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,130
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.21
        

</TABLE>
# C_2012138EN.01003201.xml

| 12.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/32

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 6 December 2011 — Wendelboe v Commission

(Case F-85/11) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Preliminary issues - Objection of inadmissibility - Refusal to promote an official - Transfer between institutions during the promotion year in which the official would have been promoted in his institution of origin - Complaint - Delay - Inadmissibility)

(2012/C 138/72)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Wendelboe (Howald, Luxembourg) (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Bercheid and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of the Commission’s decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 5 from 1 March 2009 in the 2009 promotion year.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Ms Wendelboe shall bear all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ms Wendelboe shall bear all the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011, p. 42.

---
89–008

107TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 107–67

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 622, HOPE FOR

CHILDREN ACT

MAY 15, 2001.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, from the Committee on Rules,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. Res. 141]

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House

Resolution 141, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for consideration in the House of H.R.

622, the Hope for Children Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the

chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways

and Means. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill.

The rule provides that the amendment recommended by the

Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill shall be

considered as adopted. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

The waiver of all points of order includes a waiver of clause 4(a)

of rule XIII (requiring a three-day layover of the committee report)

which is needed because the report was not filed until Tuesday,

May 15, and the bill may be considered by the House as early as

Wednesday, May 16.

Æ
§ 28.890 Examination and certification of compliance. ( a ) At least once in every two years each ATA vessel must be examined for compliance with the regulations of this subchapter by the ABS, a similarly qualified organization, or a surveyor of an accepted organization.
( b ) Each individual performing an examination under paragraph (a) of this section, upon finding the vessel to be in compliance with the requirements of this chapter, must provide written certification of compliance to the owner or operator of the vessel.
( c ) Each certification of compliance issued under paragraph (b) of this section must: ( 1 ) Be signed by the individual that performed the examination;
( 2 ) Include the name of the organization the individual performing the examination represents or the name of the accepted organization the individual belongs to; and
( 3 ) State that the vessel has been examined and found to meet the specific requirements of this chapter.
( d ) A certification of compliance issued under paragraph (b) of this section must be retained on board the vessel until superseded.
( e ) A copy of the certification of compliance issued under paragraph (b) of this section must be forwarded by the organization under whose authority the examination was performed to the Coast Guard District Commander (Attention: Fishing Vessel Safety Coordinator) in charge of the district in which the examination took place.
# Memorandum
U.S. Department of Transportation Office of the Secretary ofTransportation Subject:

From : Notice of Commun ic ation:**(~T** -OST-20 14-00 56)

# f~**wor 4/(/~**  Acting Assistant Genera l Coun se l Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedin gs Date : Sept 26, 2014

To : Chief , Dockets The Ameri can Society of Trave l Agents (AST A) ha s re quested add itional inf o rmation ab o ut the m eeting held b y DOT s taff with A irlines for America (A4A) and it s member airlines o n August 7, 2014 re garding the notice of proposed rulemaking titled " Transparency of Ai rlin e Anci ll ary Fees a nd Other Consumer Protecti o n Iss ues ," (Co n s umer III NPRM). 1 The specific que s tion s pose d by ASTA and DOT 's re spo n ses are provided below
. 1
. Question: Who asked for the meeting and how and to whom was th e req uest communicated? Response: Dave Berg (Senior Vice President and General Co un sel , Air lin es fo r America) requested the meeting by emai l to Blane Worki e (Acting Assistant General Co un se l , DOT' s Office of Av iation E nforc ement and Proceeding s). 2. Question : When was the r e que st for th e meeting received by DOT ? Response: The meeting r equ es t was r ece ived on Jul y 16,2014. 3
. Que stion: W ere a ny of question s set out in the memorandum filed in the docket on September 15 provided in advance of the meeting? Re spo n s e: The question s set out in the me morandum (I t o 43) were pro v ided b y A4A to DOT on A ugu s t 4 , 2014
.

1 DOT polic y, as set forth in Order 2 10 0
. 2, e ncour ages mee tin gs w ith a ny i ntere s ted p arty be for e a rul e maki ng begins ( i .e. , before th e issuance of a regulatory document s u c h as a n otice of pro po sed rul ema kin g) , permit s s uc h m

eet in gs while a rul e mak in g's comment per iod is open , and di sco urages such meetin gs afte r th e comment period ha s c lo sed. When co nt ac t with the public takes plac e after the issuance of a rul emak i ng document , a rep ort s hou l d be m ade and includ ed in th e docket promptl y following th e contac t.4
. Question: Where was the meeting held? Response: The meeting was held at Hogan Lovells Litigation Center, located at 555 13th Street, NW, Washington , D.C. 5. Question: When did the meeting begin and end? Response: The meeting began at 10 am and concluded at noon on August 7 , 2014. 6. Question: Was a transcript (taped or otherwise) made of the meeting ? Response: A transcript (taped or otherwise) was not made of the meeting. However , a memorandum summarizing the August 7 meeting was publicly disclosed in the rulemaking docket on September 15. That summary is an accurate reflection of what transpired at the August 7 meeting.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       FEB-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          MAR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                      260,437
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                             2,459,200
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                              11,189,227
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         17,826,048
<PP&E>                                   42,219,417
<DEPRECIATION>                         (15,184,362)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           56,122,478
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    16,999,835
<BONDS>                                           0
<COMMON>                                243,328,866
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                        0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             56,122,538
<SALES>                                   5,788,221
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          5,788,221
<CGS>                                    13,424,304
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           10,873,840
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          6,293,449
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        4,476,690
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (24,803,371)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    (24,803,371)
<DISCONTINUED>                          (4,131,501)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         19,068,916
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                            (9,865,956)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.08)


</TABLE>
Dismiss and Opinion Filed May 13, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-14-00318-CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant

V.

DAVID MANLEY HANSON, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 2 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. MB13-05145-B



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Moseley, O’Neill, and FitzGerald

The State of Texas has filed a motion, signed by counsel for the State, to dismiss its

appeal. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS that the appeal be DISMISSED and this

decision be certified be low for observance. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a).

PER CURIAM

Do Not Publish T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47 140318F.U05
#### § 31.01-10 Authority of marine inspectors—TB/ALL.

Inspectors may at any time lawfully inspect any tank vessel.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, June 26, 2007, 12 p.m. to June 26, 2007, 1:30 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on May 21, 2007, 72 FR 28515-28517.                

The meeting title has been change to “CIHB Member Special Emphasis Panel”. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: May 22, 2007.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 07-2668 Filed 5-29-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

February 5, 2002 Session

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. WILLIAM R. STEVENS

 Appeal from the Court of Criminal Appeals

Criminal Court for Davidson County

No. 98-A-825 Steve Dozier, Judge

No. M1999-02067-SC-DDT-DD - Filed May 14, 2002

ADOLPHO A. BIRCH, JR., J., concurring and dissenting.

I concur with the majority’s decision to affirm the defendant’s convictions. With regard to

the imposition of the death penalty in this case, however, I cannot agree. Repeatedly, I have

expressed grave concerns about the comparative proportionality review protocol employed by the

majority to impose the death penalty. See, e.g., State v. Chalmers, 28 S.W.3d 913 (Tenn.

2000)(Birch, J., concurring and dissenting); State v. Keen, 31 S.W.3d 196 (Tenn. 2000)(Birch, J.,

concurring and dissenting); State v. Carruthers and Montgomery, 35 S.W.3d 516 (Tenn.

2000)(Birch, J., concurring and dissenting); State v. Sims, 45 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2001)(Birch, J.,

concurring and dissenting); Terry v. State, 46 S.W.3d 147 (Tenn. 2001)(Birch, J., concurring and

dissenting); State v. Stout, 46 S.W.3d 689 (Tenn. 2001)(Birch, J., concurring and dissenting); State

v. Bane, 57 S.W.3d 411 (Tenn. 2001)(Birch, J., concurring and dissenting); State v. Godsey, 60

S.W.3d 759 (Tenn. 2001)(Birch, J., concurring and dissenting); State v. McKinney, ___ S.W.3d ___

(Tenn. 2002)(Birch, J., concurring and dissenting); State v. Dellinger and Sutton, ___ S.W.3d ___

(Tenn. 2002)(Birch, J., concurring and dissenting); see also State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651 (Tenn.

1997)(Birch, J., concurring and dissenting). As detailed in my prior dissents, I do not believe the

Court is properly fulfilling its statutory obligation to determine whether “the sentence of death is

excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-

206(c)(1)(D) (2001). Because I have not detected any meaningful effort to address and rectify my

concerns, I respectfully dissent from the imposition of the penalty of death in this case.

___________________________________ 

ADOLPHO A. BIRCH, JR., JUSTICE
§ 42.20-30 Correction for depth. ( a ) Where *D* exceeds *L* 1 ⁄ 15 the freeboard shall be increased by [*D*−(*L*/15)] R inches, where *R* is *L*/131.2 at lengths less than 393.6 feet and 3 at 393.6 feet length and above.
( b ) Where *D* is less than *L*/15 no reduction shall be made except in a vessel with an enclosed superstructure covering at least 0.6*L* amidships, with a complete trunk, or combination of detached enclosed superstructures and trunks which extend all fore and aft, where the freeboard shall be reduced at the rate prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) Where the height of superstructure or trunk is less than the standard height, the reduction shall be in the ratio of the actual to the standard height as defined in § 42.20-40.
[CGFR 68-60, 33 FR 10064, July 12, 1968]