alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    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

I, Steven C. Quay, M.D., Ph.D., Chairman of the Board, President and Chief
Executive Officer of Nastech Pharmaceutical Company Inc. ("Nastech"), certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Nastech on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that
information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A fairly presents in all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Nastech.

Date: April 29, 2005

                                    By:    /s/ Steven C. Quay
                                           ----------------------------------
                                    Name:  Steven C. Quay, M.D., Ph.D.
                                    Title: Chairman of the Board, President
                                           and Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Nastech and will be retained by Nastech and furnished to the
Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies each periodic report pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by Nastech for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) 2ND
QUARTER 1999 FORM 10-Q UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND UNAUDITED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH (B) FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          12,626
<SECURITIES>                                     9,911
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,555
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                44,976
<PP&E>                                          28,069
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  74,035
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,550
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            79
<OTHER-SE>                                      51,725
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    74,035
<SALES>                                         22,132
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,132
<CGS>                                           15,175
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,175
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,086
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 384
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,970)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (496)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,474)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,474)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.19)


</TABLE>
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 12

- 003 2 5

- CR

Pedro Dominguez

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§

§ From Criminal District Court No. 4

o f Tarrant County ( 121960 5 D )

May 30 , 2013

Opinion by Justice Meier

Concurrence by Justice Gabriel

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_________________________________ Justice Bill Meier
Before the Third Division,

July 3, 1957

No. 61005.

#### Leo Organek *v.*United States,

protest 280604-K (New York).

Johnson, Judge:

This is a protest against the collector’s assessment of duty on ceramic vases and electrical parts (switches, etc.), imported from West Germany on or about May 26, 1954.

It appears from the official papers, which were received in evidence at the trial, that the ceramic vases were entered as consisting of 16^2 or 17 dozen pieces, valued at over $3 and under $10 per dozen, having a total value of $83, subject to duty at 35 per centum ad valorem and 10 cents per dozen under paragraph 211 of the Tariff Act of 1930 [apparently as modified by the Annecy Protocol of Terms of Accession to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T. D. 52373, and the President’s proclamation of May 13, 1950, T. D. 52476]. The electrical parts (switches, etc.) were entered at a total value of $258, subject to duty at 17)4 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 353 of the Tariff Act of 1930 [apparently as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T. D. 51802].

On liquidation, duty was assessed on $271 at 50 per centum ad valorem, on $70 at 17)4 per centum ad valorem, and on 150 dozen at 10 cents per dozen.

The collector’s memorandum states that, following the appraiser’s descriptions on the sheets attached to the invoice, duty would now be assessed on $83 at 50 per centum ad valorem and on 17 dozen at 10 cents per dozen under paragraph 211, and on $258 at 17)4 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 353.

At the trial, the protest was amended and limited to the claim that 17 dozen pieces were properly dutiable at 10 cents per dozen, that the merchandise valued at $83 was subject to duty at 50 per centum ad valorem, and that the merchandise valued at $258 was subject to duty at 17K per centum ad valorem.

Counsel for the Government then recommended that allowances be made in accordance with the collector’s memorandum, to which plaintiff, appearing in person, agreed.

On the record presented, we hold that the merchandise described on the entry as ceramic vases, having a total value of $83, is properly dutiable at 50 per centum ad valorem and 10 cents per dozen on 17 dozen pieces under paragraph 211 of the Tariff Act of 1930, and that the merchandise described on the entry as electrical parts (switches, etc.), having a total value of $258, is properly dutiable at *17%*per centum ad valorem under paragraph 353 of said tariff act, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T. D. 51802.

The protest, having been limited to the above claims, is sustained. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
### SAT Report PMN Number: P-13-0854 SAT Date: 9/6/2013 Print Date: 1/8/2014
Related cases : Health related cases : Ecotox related cases: Analogs:
Concern levels : Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments Level of Concern: 1 3

Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments 2 11

Exposure Based Review : Health: N o Ecotox: Yes Routes of exposure : Health: Low Concern Ecotox: All releases to water Fate: ;

P 2 Rec Comments : Comment: N o Commen t Keywords : Keywords: N O SIG HLTH CNCRNS AQUATOX-A,C Summary of Assessment : Fate : Fate Summary: P-13-0854 FATE:H < 1.00E-8 (E) POTW removal (%) = 90 via sorption Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg > mo Sorption to soils/sediments = strong PBT Potential: P2B1 *CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = slow
Health : Health Summary: Absorption is nil to poor all routes, based on p hysical/chemical properties. N o significant health concerns.
Ecotox : Test Organism Test Type Test End Point Predicted Measured Comments
fish 96-h LC50 0.44 daphnid 48-h LC50 1.6 green algal 96-h EC50 0.11 fish

_ chronic value 0.044 daphnid

_ chronic value 0.16 algal

_ chronic value 0.026 Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50

_ Sewage Sludge

_ Chronic Value _
Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SAR nearest analog predictions for organozinc compounds; SAR chemical class = o ; with unknown mp effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and mean measured concentrations ; hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;
N earest analog data were for (CAS RN p rovided in the and considered to be core (as denoted by the ‘C’) by If additional experimental data characterize the PMN substance as a stable , ecotoxicity hazard will need to be re-evaluated.
Factors Values Comments Assessment Factor 10 Concentration of Concern ( p pb) 3
SARs SAR Class Ecotox CategoryEcotox Factors Comments: SAT Chair: J. Kwiat
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------



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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Signature Eyewear, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2007, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Michael Prince, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my 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.


/s/ Michael Prince
---------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer
March 15, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 172 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 172

 Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Transportation 
         and Infrastructure in the One Hundred Tenth Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 16, 2007

    Mr. Oberstar (for himself and Mr. Mica) submitted the following 
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Transportation 
         and Infrastructure in the One Hundred Tenth Congress.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

    For the expenses of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure (hereafter in this resolution referred to as the 
``Committee''), including the expenses of all staff salaries, there 
shall be paid, out of the applicable accounts of the House of 
Representatives for committee salaries and expenses, not more than 
$19,724,511.24 for the One Hundred Tenth Congress.

SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

    Of the amount specified in section 1--
            (1) not more than $9,528,749.39 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2007, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2008; and
            (2) not more than $10,195,761.85 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2008, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2009.

SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

    Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers authorized 
by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, and approved 
in the manner directed by the Committee on House Administration.

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

    Amounts made available under this resolution shall be expended in 
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House 
Administration.
                                 <all>
```
### MANDATE

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE 406TH JUDICIA L DISTRICT COURT OF WEBB COUNTY, GREETIN GS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on November 19, 2014, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Jose Luis Ramos, Appellant

V.

Stat e Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Appellee

No. 04

- 14

- 00572

- CV and Tr. Ct. No. 2013CVQ001953 D4

was determined, and therein our said Court of Appeals made its order in these words:



## In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is SET ASIDE WITHOUT REGARD TO THE MERITS and the case is REMANDED to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance
with the parties’ agreement.

We ORDER that appellee, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, recover its costs of this appeal from appellant, Jose Luis Ramos.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Cou rt of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS the Hon. Catherine Stone, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas,
with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on January 28, 2015

.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLE RK

____________________________ Cynthia A. Martinez Deputy Cl erk, Ext. 3853BILL OF COSTS



### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH DISTRICT, AT SAN ANTONIO

No. 04

- 14

- 00572

- CV

Jose Luis Ramos

v.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

(NO. 2013CVQ001953 D4 IN 406TH JUDICIAL DISTR ICT COURT OF WEBB CO UNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

MOTION FEE
MOTION FEE
REPORTER'S RECORD
REPORTER'S RECORD
CLERK'S RECORD
FILING
INDIGENT
SUPREME COURT CHAPTE R 51
FEE STATEWIDE EFILING FE E $10.00 $10.00 $120.00 $224.00 $138.00 $100.00

$25.00

$50.00 $20.00 E

- PAID
E

- PAID
PAID
PAID
PAID
E

- PAID
E

- PAID

E

- PAID
E

- PAID DAVID TOLER
DAVID TOWLER
DAVID TOWLER

DAVID D. TOWLER
DAVID TOWLER
DAVID TOWLER

DAVID TOWLER
DAVID TOWLER

Balance of costs owing to the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas: 0.00

**Court costs in this cause shall be pai d as per the Judgment issued by this Court.** 

I, KEITH E. HOTTLE

, CLERK OF THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for the Fourth District of Texas, this January 28, 2015

.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

____________________________ Cynthia A. Martinez Deputy Clerk, Ext. 3853
PMN PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM

SANITIZED
Case No. 6,467.

#### In re HIGGINS.

[8 Ben. 100.] 1

District Court, S. D. New York.

May, 1875.

Bower op Attorney — Notary Public.

■ Under general order in bankruptcy No. 34, •■adopted April 12th, 1875, a notary public is not authorized to take the acknowledgment of a creditor to a power of attorney to vote for assignee.

1

 [Reported by Robert D. Benedict, Esq., and Benj. Lincoln Benedict, Esq., and here reprinted by permission.]

In this case the register certified that, at a ■first meeting of creditors held for the choice •of assignee, eleven proofs of debt were filed, representing $3,952.05; that seven of them, representing claims amounting to $2,642.18, voted for George W. Van Siclen as assignee, the powers of attorney, tinder which two of these were represented, having been acknowledged before a notary public; that the other four creditors, representing claims amounting to $1,309.87, voted for John H. Platt as assignee; that the bankrupt [J. Olmstead Higgins] and the minority creditors objected to the votes cast under the powers of attorney, on the ground that, under general order "No. 34, adopted April 12th, 1875, a notary public was not a proper officer authorized to take such acknowledgments; and that he had ¡sustained the objection, had held that no as-signee was appointed, and had appointed Mr. Platt as assignee.

BLATCHFÓRD, District Judge. T think the register ruled correctly.
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION


OF


PERIODIC
REPORT





I,
Alessandro Sodi, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:





(1)           the  Annual
Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009
(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and





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





Dated:
      March 18, 2010/s/ Alessandro SodiAlessandro
      Sodi,President
      and Chief Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)





[A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Diligent Board Member Services, Inc. and will be retained by Diligent Board
Member Services, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.]
Questions to ASTSWMO for Clarification of States’ Policies Re: CBI and Manifests

October, 2008

QUESTION 1: Do states that now collect manifests make individual manifests available 

at public request, or are there restrictions on access? How long after hazardous waste 

shipments are completed does it typically take the state to make such manifests available 

to requestors?

QUESTION 2: Do states that now collect manifests make aggregated data from

manifests, multiple manifests, or data reports freely available to the public upon request? 

(Examples would be a request for all manifests with a particular waste code or all 

manifests going to or managed by a particular company or facility.) Have states 

imposed any CBI related limitations on the information they will disclose in response to 

such requests? How long after hazardous waste shipments are completed does it 

typically take the state to provide aggregate data in response to such a request?

QUESTION 3: In a survey conducted for ASTSWMO by Liz Bols (MI DEQ) in 

January, 2007, nine States provided responses to questions related to manifests and a 

future electronic manifest system. The States that responded were NY, OR, SC, FL, MI, 

WA, CT, ID, and OH. Of these nine states, eight states responded that manifest data 

would probably not be subject to CBI under state laws and policies, while Ohio indicated 

that manifest data might be subject to CBI claims based on the experience in Ohio with

Ohio’s Hazardous Waste Annual Report. In addition, several states on the e-Manifest 

rule workgroup, including MD, PA, NJ, and CA, stated that they would also release their 

HW manifests as public information without allowing CBI claims.

However, in August, 2004, Paula Canter of the Ohio EPA polled the States on their Site 

ID, manifest tracking, and Hazardous Waste Reporting requirements. As part of the 2004 

survey, 44 States responded to the question “Do you allow CBI claims on the Hazardous 

Waste Report?” The responses to this question in 2004 from the 44 respondents was 

evenly split between states that would allowed and states that would not allow CBI 

claims for their HW Report data. 

Given that the request for aggregate manifest data may be viewed as presenting many of 

the same data and issues as requests for a state’s HW Report data insofar as the disclosure 

of customer list information, how should we reconcile the answers given in response to 

the 2004 and 2007 surveys? Should aggregate manifest requests and requests for HW 

Annual Report data be treated differently for purposes of CBI claims?

QUESTION 4: Do you think that your state’s current policy on public disclosure of 

information of the type described in Question 2 would be at all affected by the fact that 

an electronic manifest system may make information available more rapidly than it is 

available under the current paper system?
From: Sburk4653@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:55:28 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Stephen Burkhart

, 40240
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2009 of Secure Window Blinds, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Annual Report”), I, Anthony Pizzacalla, Chairman, President and Chief 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 Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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





/s/ Anthony Pizzacalla


Anthony Pizzacalla


President, Secretary Treasurer, Principal Executive Officer,


Principal Financial Officer and Director





Date: March 3, 2011