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 Annual Report of Asia Quest Ventures, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William Tay, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

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

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

|                                                                  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| /s/ William Tay                                                       |
|                                                                       |
| William Tay       Principal Executive Officer       February 26, 2009 |
From: fronjoseph@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:52:04 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,

Joseph Fron

Bloomington, IL 61701
No. P67/229.

#### U.S. Asiatic Co., Inc. *v.*United States, protest 66/50656 (New York).

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of ceramic cups and saucers, which are chiefly used for display and decoration, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *W. Kay Company, Inc.*v. *United States*(53 Cust. Ct. 130, C.D. 2484), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 461 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         June 12, 2007.
    Resolved,  That the election contest relating to the office of 
Representative from the Twenty-fourth Congressional District of Florida is 
dismissed.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

________________________

No. ACM S32342 (f rev)

________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Corey R. ROGERS

Airman First Class (E-3), U.S. Air Force, Appellant

________________________

Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary

Decided 2 August 2017

________________________

Military Judge: Wendy L. Sherman (sitting alone).

Approved sentence: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 4 months, forfeiture of $1,031 pay per month for 4 months, and reduction to E-1. Sentence 

adjudged 29 June 2015 by SpCM convened at Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana. 

For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Anthony D. Ortiz, USAF; Major Lauren A. 

Shure, USAF.

For Appellee: Colonel Laura J. Megan-Posch, USAF; Major Amanda L.K. Linares, USAF; Major Mary Ellen Payne, USAF; Gerald R. Bruce, Esquire.

Before DREW, MAYBERRY, and MINK, Appellate Military Judges.

________________________

This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as 

precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.

________________________

PER CURIAM:

We have this case for further review because the staff judge advocate originally erred in advising the convening authority that she could not disapprove Appellant’s punitive discharge. See United States v. Rogers, 76 M.J. 621

(A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2017). Having resolved that issue, we find the approved 
United States v. Rogers, No. ACM S32342 (f rev)

2

findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error materially 

prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles 59(a) and 66(c), 

Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c). Accordingly, 

the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

KURT J. BRUBAKER

Clerk of the Court
No. 58211.

protests 212681-K, etc. (New York).

#### Austin Motor Co., Ltd., et al. *v.*United States,

*298Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of speedometers and parts thereof similar in all material respects to the merchandise the subject of *Industrial Operations, Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 82, C. D. 1500), except that the speedometers and parts thereof in the cited case were designed and intended for use as parts of motorcycles whereas those at bar are intended for use as parts of automobiles, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENT DATED AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN IT'S ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-01-1999
<CASH>                                             304
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     6710
<ALLOWANCES>                                       727
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,741
<PP&E>                                           7,956
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,472
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,049
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,347
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        328
<COMMON>                                           394
<OTHER-SE>                                    (10,944)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,116
<SALES>                                         34,791
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                34,791
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,345
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,081
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,725
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (363)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       110
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (473)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (473)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)


</TABLE>
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsDimension Determination of Precursive Stall Events in a Single Stage High Speed CompressorThis paper presents a study of the dynamics for a single-stage, axial-flow, high speed compressor core, specifically, the NASA Lewis rotor stage 37. Due to the overall blading design for this advanced core compressor, each stage has considerable tip loading and higher speed than most compressor designs, thus, the compressor operates closer to the stall margin. The onset of rotating stall is explained as bifurcations in the dynamics of axial compressors. Data taken from the compressor during a rotating stall event is analyzed. Through the use of a box-assisted correlation dimension methodology, the attractor dimension is determined during the bifurcations leading to rotating stall. The intent of this study is to examine the behavior of precursive stall events so as to predict the entrance into rotating stall. This information may provide a better means to identify, avoid or control the undesirable event of rotating stall formation in high speed compressor cores.Document ID19960047991Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsBright, Michelle M.*(NASA Cleveland, OH United States)*Qammar, Helen K.*(Akron Univ. Akron, OH United States)*Hartley, Tom T.*(Akron Univ. Akron, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJuly 14, 1996Subject CategoryAircraft Propulsion And PowerReport/Patent NumberE-10335NASA-TM-107268NAS 1.15:107268Meeting InformationMeeting: Technical Conference on Nonlinear Dynamics and Full Spectrum ProcessingLocation: Mystic, CTCountry: United StatesStart Date: July 10, 1995End Date: July 14, 1995Sponsors:Office of Naval ResearchAccession Number96N33509Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-62-50Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19960047991.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2011-0731 Directorate Identifier: 2010-NE-39-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update 

accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

HPC shaft 

replacement 180.0 $15,300.

00 $210,211 $225,511.00 0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 0

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated 

Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain

for either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements 

for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
Docket Number: FAA-2012-0590
From: pjkschwab@charter.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:18:14 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,

Phyllis Schwab

, 68845-9580
From: emj062000@utdallas.edu

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:14:19 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,

Enrique Jimenez

Dallas, TX 75248
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 2 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 2

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                       January 4, 2007.
    Resolved,  That the Senate be informed that a quorum of the House of 
Representatives has assembled; that Nancy Pelosi, a Representative from the 
State of California, has been elected Speaker; and Karen L. Haas, a citizen of 
the State of Maryland, has been elected Clerk of the House of Representatives of 
the One Hundred Tenth Congress.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
[PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR RETURN OF PERSONAL PROPERTY - 1 

LAW OFFICES OF STEPHAN R. ILLA, INC. P.S. 

600 FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 433 

SEATTLE, WA 98104 

(206) 464-4142

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT SEATTLE 

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

RAJINDER SINGH JOHAL, 

 Defendant. 

No. CR 05 – 334 RSL 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR RETURN OF PERSONAL 

PROPERTY 

 Defendant’s motion for return of personal property came on regularly for hearing, and, 

the Court being fully advised, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff United States shall return to the defendant or his 

designee within thirty (30) days all personal property seized from the defendant and his family in 

the course of the investigation and prosecution of this case that is not contraband or evidence of a 

crime, or necessary to retain in the investigation or prosecution of the fugitive Defendant 

Lakhwinder Johal. 

Ordered this 29th day of September, 2006. 

A

Robert S. Lasnik 

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cr-00334-RSL Document 210 Filed 09/29/06 Page 1 of 1
Order entered December 1, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-01229-CV

IAN ACREY, PETROLIA GROUP, LLC, PETROLIA WEST I, LLC AND QUANAH 

ACME, LLC, Appellants

V.

KILGORE & KILGORE, PLLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-03110

ORDER

The Court has reviewed the clerk’s record in this case and has determined that the record 

does not include the trial court’s July 14, 2015 order granting summary judgment, which is the 

order from which appellant appeals. So that the Court can determine whether it has jurisdiction 

over this appeal, the Court ORDERS Felicia Pitre, Dallas County District Clerk, to file within 

five (5) days of the date of this order a supplemental clerk’s record including the July 14, 2015 

order granting summary judgment. 

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
CERTIFICATION

I, Asher Zwebner, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report of Dynamic Applications Corp.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the  issuer as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;

4. The  issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as 4efined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the  issuer and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the  issuer, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or causedsuch internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the  issuer's disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the  issuer's internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the  issuer's most recentfiscal quarter (the  issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the  issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The  issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the  issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the  issuer's board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the  issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether r not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the  issuer's internal control overfinancial reporting.

Date: April 15, 2013

/s/ Asher ZwebnerCFO