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 RegeneRx (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, J.J. Finkelstein, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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



|                  |  |                                                        
|----------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------
|November 14, 2004 |  | /s/ J.J. Finkelstein                                   
|                  |  | Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
EDWARD SUMMERS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D17-3385

_____________________________/

Opinion filed November 2, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Marianne L. Aho, Judge.

Edward Summers, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, KELSEY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

** **

Pursuantto the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section 1350 ofChapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), James M. Gower,Chief Executive Officer of Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”),and Ryan D. Maynard, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each herebycertifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

 

1.                                     The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended September 30, 2009, to which this Certification is attachedas Exhibit 32.1 (the “Periodic Report”), fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of theExchange Act, and

 

2.                                     The information contained in the Periodic Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

In Witness Whereof, the undersignedhave set their hands hereto as of November 3,2009.

 
| /s/ JAMES M. GOWER      |   | /s/ RYAN D. MAYNARD                         |
|-------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------|
| James M. Gower          |   | Ryan D. Maynard                             |
| Chief Executive Officer |   | Vice President and Chief  Financial Officer |

 

Thiscertification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemedfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporatedby reference into any filing of Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. under theSecurities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q),irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

 

----
Ms. Sbphie L. Ward 

OfficcdReguki~asd~om 

bpl~m Bene-fb Secdty AQrrd-tian, Rcwrm NS65S 

us. Depemmt of Wf 

Dearmward: 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the Department of labor and 

Dtpartment ofthe Treasury elTom pmmte retirement security for American workers 

and specifically on lifetime income options in retirement plans. We have stmchred our 

rqmm in two &om. The kt saction will spw:ificalIy respond to those of the 39 

listed questions in tbe FUN we could meaniogfuily comment upon. The second don 

represents our comments on retirement surity in general and the government role. 

Fidl y, we u&m&md the phase "iifetime imme stmmn" meam "an annuity" or "to 

muitize." 

. . 1. 

I. Pmm the standpoint of a plan participant, the main advantage of receiving pams or PU 

of the benefits in tbe form of Iifdtne payments b &at the putkipant receives a bwn 

quantity of fund8 thoughout their life, The dmdvmtages am in exchange for the 

lifetime stream the partidpant 1- conld and access to a @on of their savings; the 

lifetime stream must be staFistically dculfpd to be less than the amount the participant 

on to him; finally, the= is a fear & Icmg-te~ , < 

1- wan dMdbutiom rather th aanuidze dmir rctirmmnt plam id*. Me want to 

havefd wof~~aroountdthevalueof~~~ydonatw;anttah~e~( b .? 

: t 

4,
§ 551.60 When must the Designation by Foreign Manufacturer be signed? ( a ) The foreign manufacturer must sign the Designation by Foreign Manufacturer on or before the date that the agent signs the Acceptance by Agent. It is not possible for an individual or entity to accept a designation as agent until on or after the date on which a foreign manufacturer makes the designation.
( b ) If the Designation by Foreign Manufacturer is dated after the Acceptance by Agent, NHTSA will deem the designation insufficient under this subpart and reject the submission.
<PAGE>   1





                                                                 Exhibit 23.1


                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


          As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the
          incorporation of our reports included in this Form 10-K, into the
          Company's previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-8
          (file Nos. 33-34629, 33-40766, 33-40767, 33-42655, 33-43651, 33-
          63052, 33-63054, 33-53755 and 33-59669) and Form S-3 (file No.
          33-53287).



                                            /s/  ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



          Boston, Massachusetts
          March 1, 1996
# March 21 Daily Red Sea Update

/ Published March 21, 2024

March 21, 2024Release Number 20240321 - 02FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

**TAMPA, Fla. –**On March 21, between 8:50 a.m. and 11:40 a.m. (Sanaa time), a coalition aircraft successfully engaged and destroyed one unmanned surface vessel (USV) launched by Iranian-backed Houthi terrorists from a Houthi-controlled area of Yemen. 

Additionally, coalition forces successfully engaged and destroyed two anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs) launched by Iranian-backed Houthi terrorists from Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen toward the Red Sea. There were no injuries or damage reported to U.S. or coalition vessels.

It was determined these weapons presented an imminent threat to coalition and merchant vessels in the region. These actions are taken to protect freedom of navigation and make international waters safer and more secure for coalition and merchant vessels.
ANSF and Coalition respond to attack in Kabul
 By , ISAF Public Affairs Office
  KABUL,  Afghanistan (September 13, 2011) — A small group of insurgents  attacked the vicinity of the U.S. Embassy and International Security  Assistance Force Afghanistan headquarters today,  firing from outside the compound using small arms and rocket-propelled  grenades. The attack started around 1:30 p.m. (local). Afghan  National Security Forces and coalition forces immediately responded to  the attack, and are still on the scene. Coalition forces are providing  air support. There are no reports of ISAF casualties at this time.
#### § 595.9 Automatic emergency braking.

A manufacturer, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business that modifies a vehicle owned by a law enforcement agency to provide a means to temporarily deactivate an AEB system is exempted from the “make inoperative” prohibition in 49 U.S.C. 30122 to the extent that such modification affects the motor vehicle's compliance with 49 CFR 571.127, S5.4.2. Modifications that would take a vehicle out of compliance with any other Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or portions thereof, are not covered by this exemption.
Exhibit 32.01



          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 on Form 10-Q of Spectrum Organic
Products, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Neil G. Blomquist, 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, as amended; and

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



                                                 /s/ Neil G. Blomquist
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Neil G. Blomquist
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                                 November 7, 2005



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# 1 OrPARTMENTOF 

Mfc/ J ;ANSPpRWION, 

U&DepCNtment of • • i' '" f OPERATION'S 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Transportation Washington, DC 20590 

Office Of the Secretary " / '; J I >, /l'^ i(]: :>r 

ofTronsportaticxi 

September 30, 2010 

The Honorable Jim Marshall 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Congressman Marshall: 

Thank you for your letter of August 10 regarding essential air service (EAS) at Macon, 

Georgia. 

As you know, the Department issued Order 2010-5-33, May 28, 2010, requesting proposals 

from carriers interested in providing replacement service at Macon, as well as Athens, for 

the two-year period begirming October 1, 2010. In response to our request, we received 

proposals from Pacific Wings, L.L.C. d/b/a Georgia Skies (the incumbent), Gulfstream 

International Airlines, Charter Air Transpoit, Inc., and Sovereign Air, Inc. 

As you mentioned in your letter, Macon's enplanements have declined in recent years. In 

fact, based on available data for 2009, there were 2,987 passengers enplaned and deplaned 

at Macon. The current aimual subsidy amount for Pacific Wings' current contract to 

provide EAS at Macon is $1,386,306, resulting in a subsidy per passenger of $464. 

Prospectively, Pacific Wings has proposed a continuation of the $1,386,306 rate, while 

Gulfstream, the carrier favored by the community, proposed an aimual subsidy of 

$2,733,975, which would result in a subsidy per passenger in excess of $900. As you are 

aware, the Department is prohibited from subsidizing air service at a community where the 

subsidy per passenger exceeds $200, unless the community is more than 210 highway miles 

from the nearest large or medium hub airport. Macon exceeds the $200 per passenger cap 

and it is fewer than 210 miles from a large or medium hub, i.e., it is 82 miles from AtlantaHartsfield International Airport. 

However, rather than terminate Macon's service eligibility at this stage, the Department has 

decided to reject the cunent proposals and rebid the case in an effort to obtain proposals 

tliat show a reasonable prospect for reducing the subsidy per passenger below the statutory 

cap. During the 30-day window for proposals, we expect the community to work 

aggressively with all potential applicants to mitigate some of the risks that the carriers may 

face in an attempt to lower subsidy levels, 1 asstiie you dial liie DeparlmeiK will e\'alua(e 
U nroiM-.s,;!!'-: -1 ihmitl'fd hef'r*re C'^mmil(!'*'£ t''^ ?• nvij-vear contt'u^i or makhi? a final 

detenriiiiation on Macon's continuing eligibility. 

Consistent with longstanding program practice, we give great weight to community's 

views. We will apprise your office as soon as the Department issues a final decision. 

As is our normal practice, I am placing a copy of your letter and this response in 

Docket DOT-OST-2007-28671 as a contact outside the record of this matter. 

Sincerely yours. 

Dennis J. DeVa*?' < ^ " 

Chief 

EAS & Domestic Analysis Division
§ 537.10 Incorporation by reference by manufacturers. ( a ) A manufacturer may incorporate by reference in a report required by this part any document other than a report, petition, or application, or portion thereof submitted to any Federal department or agency more than two model years before the current model year.
( b ) A manufacturer that incorporates by references a document not previously submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shall append that document to the report.
( c ) A manufacturer that incorporates by reference a document shall clearly identify the document and, in the case of a document previously submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, indicate the date on which and the person by whom the document was submitted to this agency.
EXHIBIT
32.02









CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO




SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Colonial Commercial Corp. (the
“Company”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William
Salek, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to section 18
U.S.C. 1350 as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:




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




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









By:          /s/ William
Salek




Name:     William
Salek




Chief Financial Officer




Date:     
 March 31, 2008
§ 392.71 Radar detectors; use and/or possession. ( a ) No driver shall use a radar detector in a commercial motor vehicle, or operate a commercial motor vehicle that is equipped with or contains any radar detector.
( b ) No motor carrier shall require or permit a driver to violate paragraph (a) of this section.
[58 FR 67375, Dec. 21, 1993]
# U.S. General James Mattis consults Pakistan Leaders

/ Published Nov. 13, 2011

TAMPA, Fla. (November 13, 2011) — U.S. Central Command Commander Gen. James Mattis departed Pakistan yesterday after visiting and consulting with senior Pakistani military and security officials.  Gen. Mattis discussed regional military cooperation and highlighted the many sacrifices of the Pakistani military as a result of their ongoing operations in the tribal areas. 

Gen. Mattis’ visit to Pakistan is part of a multi-country trip to increase his awareness of regional issues and discuss the continued need to work together to counter violent extremists.
----

(2004/C 88 E/0107)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2588/03

by Marco Pannella (Nl) to the Commission

(8 August 2003)

Subject:   Execution of Faramaz Mohammadi, the 19-year-old leader of the student movement at Tabriz University (Iran)

On 22 July Xalq Qazeti, an Azerbaijan newspaper, published a report according to which:

Is the Commission aware of the events described and, if so, what action has it taken or does it intend to take? Does it not consider that all relations with Iran should be suspended and any resumption thereof be made subject to respect for fundamental human rights and a moratorium on capital punishment?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2003)

As set out in the ‘Guidelines to EU policy towards third countries on the death penalty’, the EU has consistently opposed the imposition of the death penalty and has raised this issue on numerous occasions with the Government of Iran. The EU has also underlined its serious concerns about executions in Iran at the last United Nations (UN) Commission on Human Rights in April 2003. Moreover, the Human Rights' dialogue that the EU initiated with Iran in 2002 included a concerted effort to address a wide range of human rights' concerns, including the application of the death penalty. In its first evaluation of the dialogue of 18 March 2003, the General Affairs and External Relations Council underlined that it remained deeply concerned by the continued serious violation of human rights in Iran, including death penalty sentences carried out in internationally recognised safeguards.

The EU will continue using the Human Rights dialogue with Iran to reiterate its concerns as regards the application of the death penalty in addition to a number of individual cases.

The Commission believes that a policy of constructive engagement with Iran is more likely to contribute to improving the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Iran rather than the suspension of all relations with this country. It should be recalled that in 2002, when the Union decided to enter into the negotiation of a trade and cooperation agreement with Iran, which will be accompanied by a political agreement, it was made clear that the deepening of economic and commercial relations between the EU and Iran should be matched by similar progress in all other aspects of the relations with Iran, in particular, the EU was expecting significant positive developments in four areas of concern: human rights, non-proliferation, the fight against terrorism and the Middle East Peace Process. The actual situation of human rights in Iran is certainly one of the factors that will determine future progress in EU-Iranian relations.

----
From: Jim Bowman [mailto:jimbow@tx.rr.com] 

Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2010 10:19 AM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: Lifetime IncomeRFI

If government confiscation of individual 401‐k and IRA funds is allowed to happen, our nation is

no longer free.  This is an obvious effort by politicians and government bureaucrats to steal

private money to pay for their abusive, profligate spending.  I am totally against this, even if it is

only an “option” as it opens the door even further for government intrusion into my life and the

lives of American citizens everywhere.

Our forefathers would be repulsed and sickened by this and other abuses of freedom by the

federal government.  DO NOT try this unless you want anarchy and rebellion in our freedom‐

loving nation.

James R. Bowman

11034 Lippitt Avenue

Dallas, Texas 75218

214.321.2460

972.489.4208 mobile

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 

database 5116 (20100515) __________ 

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. 

http://www.eset.com
###### Editorial Note on Part 393

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 393 appear at 66 FR 49874, Oct. 1, 2001.

#### § 393.28 Wiring systems.

Electrical wiring shall be installed and maintained to conform to SAE J1292—Automobile, Truck, Truck-Tractor, Trailer, and Motor Coach Wiring, October 1981, except the jumper cable plug and receptacle need not conform to SAE J560. The reference to SAE J1292 shall not be construed to require circuit protection on trailers. (See § 393.7(b) for information on the incorporation by reference and availability of this document.)

[70 FR 48047, Aug. 15, 2005]
---

Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Silverado Gold Mines,
Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2009,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Donald G. Balletto, Principal Financial Officer of the Company,
certify to the best of my knowledge, 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 and 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/ Donald G.
BallettoDonald G.
Balletto, Principal Financial Officer

March 12, 2010

---
#### SAMUEL KUGELMAN, Respondent, *v.*ABRAHAM D. RHODES, Appellant.

*County Court*— orders *resting in its discretion cure not remewdble at General Term.*

An order made in a County Court, refusing to set aside an inquest and to permit the defendant to answer, is not reviewable by the General' Term, as the granting or refusal of such an order rests in the discretion of the County Court, and the discretionary decisions of one tribunal are not reviewable by another.

*Btebbins*v. *Cowles*(30 Hun, 523) followed.

Appeal by the defendant from an order made by the County Court of Queens county.

*W. J.*Stanford, for the appellant.

*Isaac Kugelmcm,*for the respondent.

Pratt, J.:

This is an appeal from an order made by the County Court in Queens county, refusing to set aside an inquest and permit the defendant to answer. Aside from any question of the merits of the application, we think this case falls within the principle laid down in the case of *Stebbins*v. *Cowles*(30 Hun, 523). It was discretionary with the County Court whether to grant the order or not. *270The rule is, that the decisions of one tribunal resting in discretion are not reviewable by another.

There is a broad distinction between an appeal seeking to review the discretion of the County Court and a discretion exercised at a Special Term of the Supreme Court. In the latter case the discretion of the Special Term is reviewable by the General Term, but the County Court being an independent tribunal, this court cannot interfere with the exercise of its discretionary powers. But upon the merits we are unable to say there was any abuse of discretion in the County Court, as the defendant was guilty of very great laches.

The order should be affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

Present — Barnard, P. J., Dykman and Pratt, *JS.*

Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements.
U.S. Coast Guard Ship Seizes $48 Million in Drugs in Middle East
 
  By U.S. Naval Forces Central Command Public Affairs
  A U.S. Coast Guard fast response cutter seized an estimated $48 million worth of drugs from a fishing vessel while patrolling the Gulf of Oman, Oct. 10.
While operating in support of Combined Task Force (CTF) 150, USCGC Glen Harris (WPC 1144) seized 5,000 kilograms of hashish and 800 kilograms of methamphetamine as the fishing vessel transited international waters. CTF 150, led by the Royal Saudi Navy, is one of four task forces under the Combined Maritime Forces (CMF), the world’s largest multinational naval partnership.
Glen Harris previously interdicted another fishing vessel Aug. 30 while patrolling the Gulf of Oman. The interdiction led to CTF 150 seizing 2,980 kilograms of hashish and 320 kilograms of amphetamine tablets worth $20 million. This followed two earlier Glen Harris seizures of heroin, methamphetamine and amphetamine pills worth $28 million in the same body of water in May.
The fast response cutter arrived in the Middle East in January and operates from the U.S. Navy base in Bahrain where CMF is headquartered with U.S. Naval Forces Central Command and U.S. 5th Fleet.
CMF includes 34 member-nations that operate across the Middle East to promote rules-based international order at sea.