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 Union Bankshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to the best of his knowledge: 1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and 2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered in the Report.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Union Bankshares, Inc. and will be retained by Union Bankshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


|                                           | 
|------------------------------------------ | 
|/s/ Kenneth D. Gibbons                     | 
|Kenneth D. Gibbons
Chief Executive Officer | 

August 13, 2010
§ 390.36 Harassment of drivers prohibited. ( a ) *Harass or harassment defined.* As used in this section, harass or harassment means an action by a motor carrier toward a driver employed by the motor carrier (including an independent contractor while in the course of operating a commercial motor vehicle on behalf of the motor carrier) involving the use of information available to the motor carrier through an ELD, as defined in § 395.2 of this chapter, or through other technology used in combination with and not separable from the ELD, that the motor carrier knew, or should have known, would result in the driver violating § 392.3 or part 395 of this subchapter.
( b ) *Prohibition against harassment.* ( 1 ) No motor carrier may harass a driver.
( 2 ) Nothing in paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall be construed to prevent a motor carrier from using technology allowed under this subchapter to monitor productivity of a driver provided that such monitoring does not result in harassment.
( c ) *Complaint process.* A driver who believes he or she was the subject of harassment by a motor carrier may file a written complaint under § 386.12(b) of this subchapter.
[80 FR 78383, Dec. 16, 2015]
§ 4.09-17 Sessions to be public. ( a ) All sessions of a Marine Board of Investigation for the purpose of obtaining evidence shall normally be open to the public, subject to the provision that the conduct of any person present shall not be allowed to interfere with the proper and orderly functioning of the Board. Sessions will not be open to the public when evidence of a classified nature or affecting national security is to be received.
###### Editorial Note on Part 451

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 451 appear at 74 FR 49241, Sept. 25, 2009, and at 77 FR 59790, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 451.13 Action by approval authority-approval by design type.

(a) The approval authority arranges with the manufacturer, with notification to the owner, to witness the prototype tests required by the convention, and to examine any number of containers that the approval authority considers appropriate. Upon witnessing successful completion of prototype tests and examination of several containers the approval authority issues to the owner, a notice of approval which authorizes the attachment of safety approval plates to the containers. Absence of individual inspections will not relieve the manufacturer of any responsibility to maintain proper quality control. If a prototype container fails to pass the tests, the approval authority may require testing of as many further representative containers as necessary to ensure the adequacy of the design.
#### Thomas Nelson, Respondent, v. James L. Armstrong and others, Appellants.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Pratt, J.;

Barnard, P. «T., dissenting.
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 7/16/15 2:30 PM

Received: July 16, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8k0e-70lb

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; 

Notice of proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0204

Definition of the Term Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-2460

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-08831

Submitter Information

Name: Steven Wilk

General Comment

The financial future of my family is deeply important. I have become increasingly concerned that 

the Department of Labors (DOL) proposed retirement rule will limit my options when it comes 

to saving for retirement. I am also concerned the proposal may unnecessarily raise costs for me 

to receive in-person help with my IRA.

We all agree that Americans should be doing more to save for retirement and financial 

professionals who provide savings help should be acting in the best interests of those they serve. 

However, I have serious concerns about the impact the DOLs proposal will have on retirement 

savers like me, whether they are in an IRA or a 401(k). The effect of the DOLs 700-page 

proposal is that Americans could be forced to pay high fees for hourly or fee-based services they 

dont want or need, or, even worse, left without advice to fend for themselves online. Experts 

believe this will make our retirement savings crisis worse. Without access to affordable in-person 

guidance, middle-income Americans will miss out on the financial education they need and will 

save less for retirement.

The DOLs long list of complex restrictions and requirements may effectively prevent me from 

choosing what fits my needs. Why should I be forced into more expensive plans or have to 

accept less access to financial guidance because of a government regulation?
At a time when saving for retirement is so difficult, I cannot afford rules that create new 

obstacles to achieving my retirement goals. The DOL has gone beyond clients best interests in a 

way that constrains choice, raises costs, and puts my financial well-being at risk. I believe and 

have urged Congress to intervene with the DOL to protect my choice of retirement products and 

services at the price I want to pay. I have encouraged my Congressmen to support legislation that 

protects IRAs and my retirement choices from the DOL rule.
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1402.html[7/23/2015 9:25:26 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvn-2g4w

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1402

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Jonas Gottfried

Address:

4 Crusade Ct

Manalapan, NJ, 07726

Email: j_b_gottfried@yahoo.com

Phone: 609-462-9393

General Comment

I am fully capable of managing my IRA and 401k in retirement. I do not need the government to manage my

 IRA and 401k
March 20, 2006

To: Aurora Gold Corporation
30 Ledger Road,
Balcatta, Western Australia, 6021 Australia

Tel. 604-687-4432
Fax  604-687-4709

Attention: Cameron Richardson
Email: c.richardson@telus.net
       ----------------------


From: Tomas Almeida, Certified Translator

Re: Translation of Option Agreement regarding Novo Porto Project



                            Translator's Declaration

I,  Tomas  Almeida,  Certified  Portuguese to English Translator, Member in good
standing  of  the  Society  of  Translators and Interpreters of British Columbia
(STIBC),  which  is  a  member  association  of  the  Canadian  Translators  and
Interpreters Council (CTIC), hereby attest that, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, the above-mentioned document is a true, correct and complete translation
of  the  Portuguese  document  presented  to  me.


Tomas Almeida



Tomas Almeida
19780 Honeydew Drive
Pitt Meadows, BC V3Y 2S6

Tel. 604-465-6128
Fax 604-465-6129
Cell.604-202-0031
Email: talmeida@telus.net
       ------------------
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 93 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 132
107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 93

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 3, 2001

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental 
                                Affairs

                             August 2, 2001

              Reported by Mr. Lieberman, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that the mandatory 
  separation age for Federal firefighters be made the same as the age 
     that applies with respect to Federal law enforcement officers.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Firefighters Retirement Age 
Fairness Act''.

SEC. 2. MANDATORY SEPARATION AGE FOR FIREFIGHTERS.

    (a) Civil Service Retirement System.--
            (1) In general.--The second sentence of section 8335(b) of 
        title 5, United States Code, is amended--
                    (A) by inserting ``, firefighter,'' after ``law 
                enforcement officer''; and
                    (B) by inserting ``, firefighter,'' after ``that 
                officer''.
            (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 8335(b) of title 5, 
        United States Code, is amended by striking the first sentence.
    (b) Federal Employees' Retirement System.--
            (1) In general.--The second sentence of section 8425(b) of 
        title 5, United States Code, is amended--
                    (A) by inserting ``, firefighter,'' after ``law 
                enforcement officer'' each place it appears; and
                    (B) by striking ``courier'' the second place it 
                appears and inserting ``courier, as the case may be,''.
            (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 8425(b) of title 5, 
        United States Code, is amended by striking the first sentence.

                                                       Calendar No. 132

107th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                H. R. 93

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that the mandatory 
  separation age for Federal firefighters be made the same as the age 
     that applies with respect to Federal law enforcement officers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             August 2, 2001

                       Reported without amendment
```
§ 210.29 Operation standards (moving locomotives and rail cars). The operation standards for the noise emission levels of moving locomotives, rail cars, or consists of locomotives and rail cars are prescribed in the Standards and duplicated in appendix A of this part. ( a ) Measurements for compliance shall be made in compliance with the provisions of subpart C of the Standards and the following: ( 1 ) Consists of locomotives containing at least one locomotive unit manufactured prior to December 31, 1979, shall be evaluated for compliance in accordance with § 201.12(a) of the Standards, unless a locomotive within the consist is separated by at least 10 rail car lengths or 500 feet from other locomotives in the consist, in which case such separated locomotives may be evaluated for compliance according to their respective built dates.
( 2 ) Consists of locomotives composed entirely of locomotive units manufactured after December 31, 1979, shall be evaluated for compliance in accordance with § 201.12(b) of the Standards.
( 3 ) If the inspector cannot establish the built dates of all locomotives in a consist of locomotives measured under moving conditions, evaluation for compliance shall be made in accordance with § 201.12(a) of the Standards.
( b ) Noise emission standards for rail cars operating under moving conditions are contained in § 201.13 of the Standards and are stated in appendix A of this part. If speed measurement equipment used by the inspector at the time of the measurement is not operating within an accuracy of 5 miles per hour, evaluation for compliance shall be made in accordance with § 201.13(2) of the Standards.
( c ) Locomotives and rail cars tested pursuant to the procedures prescribed in this part and in the Standards shall be considered in noncompliance whenever the test measurement, minus the appropriate tolerance (§ 210.25), exceeds the noise emission levels prescribed in appendix A of this part.
§ 209.207 Consent order. ( a ) At any time before the issuance of an order under § 209.211, the Chief Counsel and the respondent may execute an agreement proposing the entry by consent of an order directing compliance. The Administrator may accept the proposed order by signing it. If the Administrator rejects the proposed order, he or she directs that the proceeding continue.
( b ) An agreement submitted to the Administrator under this section must include: ( 1 ) A proposed compliance order suitable for the Administrator's signature;
( 2 ) An admission of all jurisdictional facts;
( 3 ) An express waiver of further procedural steps and of all right to seek judicial review or otherwise challenge or contest the validity of the order; and
( 4 ) An acknowledgment that the notice of investigation may be used to construe the terms of the order.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1355

YAN ZHENG, Petitioner,

v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: December 8, 2008 Decided: December 18, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry Zhang, ZHANG & ASSOCIATES, P.C., New York, New York, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Rebecca Hoffberg, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Yan Zheng, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of her applications for

relief from removal. Zheng first challenges the determination that she failed to establish eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Zheng fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Zheng cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. Chen v.

INS , 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca , 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Finally, we uphold the finding below that Zheng failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not

that she would be tortured if removed to China. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2008). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

23 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
1210-AB32-2-1385.html[7/26/2015 3:39:51 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jw1-l8sc

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1881

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Barbara McColly

General Comment

Government needs to stay out of our personal finances. It's not right to control our retirement savings when we

 have tried to be financially careful and save money. Government needs to curb its own spending and learn to

 live within a valid budget
Editorial Note on Part 385
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 385 appear at 66 FR 49872, Oct. 1, 2001.

§ 385.305T What happens after the FMCSA receives a request for new entrant registration? ( a ) The requester for new entrant registration will be directed to the FMCSA Internet website (*www.fmcsa.dot.gov*) to secure and/or complete the application package online.
( b ) The application package will contain the following: ( 1 ) Educational and technical assistance material regarding the requirements of the FMCSRs and HMRs, if applicable.
( 2 ) The Form MCS-150, The Motor Carrier Identification Report.
( 3 ) Application forms to obtain operating authority under 49 CFR part 365, as appropriate.
( c ) Upon completion of the application forms, the new entrant will be issued a USDOT number.
( d ) For-hire motor carriers, unless providing transportation exempt from 49 CFR part 365 registration requirements, must also comply with the procedures established in 49 CFR part 365 to obtain operating authority before operating in interstate commerce.
[82 FR 5304, Jan. 17, 2017, as amended at 88 FR 80182, Nov. 17, 2023]
Editorial Note on Part 40
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 73 FR 33329, June 12, 2008.

§ 40.13 How do DOT drug and alcohol tests relate to non-DOT tests? ( a ) DOT tests must be completely separate from non-DOT tests in all respects.
( b ) DOT tests must take priority and must be conducted and completed before a non-DOT test is begun. When conducting a urine DOT drug test, you must discard any excess urine left over from a DOT test and collect a separate urine void for the subsequent non-DOT test.
( c ) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, you must not perform any tests on DOT specimens other than those tests specifically authorized by this part or DOT agency regulations. For example, you must not test a DOT specimen for additional drugs. In addition, a laboratory is prohibited from making a DOT specimen available for a DNA test or other types of specimen identity testing.
( d ) When a DOT urine drug test collection is conducted as part of a physical examination required by DOT agency regulations, it is permissible to conduct medical tests related to this physical examination (*e.g.,* for glucose) on any specimen remaining in the collection container after the DOT portion has been sealed into the specimen bottles.
( e ) A non-DOT drug or alcohol test administered, as part of a physical examination, is not a DOT drug or alcohol test for purposes of this part and/or related DOT agency drug and alcohol testing rules, if that test was performed to determine if an employee is medically qualified for a license or certificate. Consequently, the results of such a test do not have consequences under this part.
( f ) No one is permitted to change or disregard the results of DOT tests based on the results of non-DOT tests. For example, as an employer you must not disregard a verified positive DOT drug test result because the employee presents a negative test result from a blood or urine specimen collected by the employee's physician or a DNA test result purporting to question the identity of the DOT specimen.
( g ) As an employer, you must not use the CCF or the ATF in your non-DOT drug and alcohol testing programs. This prohibition includes the use of the DOT forms with references to DOT programs and agencies crossed out. You also must always use the CCF and ATF for all your DOT-mandated drug and alcohol tests.
( h ) No one is permitted to conduct a DOT drug or alcohol test on an individual who is not a DOT-regulated employee, as defined by the DOT agency regulations.
[65 FR 79526, Dec. 19, 2000, as amended at 88 FR 27637, May 2, 2023]
#### T. Jay Griffiths and others, Respondents, v. Julia A Phelps, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Follett, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>                     
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         424330
<SECURITIES>                                   3341820
<RECEIVABLES>                                  105115
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4050133
<PP&E>                                         3943520
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 10020738
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          262422
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       4805563
<OTHER-SE>                                     4952753
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   10020738
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               192369
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1340573
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1148204)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1148204)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1148204)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.03)
        


</TABLE>