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





Certification
of Chief Executive Officer





In
connection with the Annual Report of Moggle Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K
for the fiscal year  ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Alfred
Villa, Chief Executive Officer 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 results of operations of the
      Company.




March 30,
      2009
              
              /s/
      Alfredo VillaAlfredo
      VillaChief
      Executive Officer








A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request. The foregoing certifications are accompanying the Company's
Form 10-K solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United
States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate
disclosure document.
October 15, 1962

No. 67137.

protest 61/5512.

#### E. M. Stevens Corp. *v.*United States,

Plaintiff’s application for rebearing denied.
EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT AMENDMENT


 


THIS
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT (the “Amendment”) is entered into effective as of January 1, 2018 (the “Effective
Date”), is between Rhino GP LLC (“Employer”) and Richard A. Boone (“Employee”).


 


W
I T N E S S E T H


 


WHEREAS,
Employee is currently employed by Employer pursuant to an Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated December 30, 2016 (the
“Prior Agreement”).


 


WHEREAS,
Employer and Employee now desire to amend the Prior Agreement, and have executed this Amendment to evidence the terms of their
agreement.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the parties agree as follows:


 


1.
Section 2 of the Prior Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following language:


 


“Position
and Duties. As of the Effective Date, Executive shall serve as the President and Chief Executive Officer. In such positions,
Executive shall report directly to the Executive Chairman and, in his or her absence, directly to the Board of Directors of Employer.
Executive shall have the customary authority, responsibilities and duties of such position(s), subject to the direction and definition
of such authority, responsibilities, and duties from time to time by Employer. During the Employment Term, Executive will devote
all of his business time and efforts to the performance of his duties hereunder and to his duties under his employment agreement
with Royal Energy Resources, Inc. (“Royal”), with the expectation that the Executive’s business time
and efforts shall be allocated between the Employer and Royal roughly in proportion to the amount of base salary payable by the
Employer and Royal to the Employee. Executive shall be subject to all of the employment and personnel policies and procedures
in effect from time to time and applicable to executive employees of Employer. Executive’s regular place of employment during
the Employment Term shall be at Employer’s executive offices in Lexington, Fayette County, Kentucky, and Executive shall
engage in such travel as may be reasonably required in connection with the performance of his duties hereunder.”


 


2.
Section 8(b) of the Prior Agreement is hereby modified to add the following language at the end thereof: “; provided,
however, that nothing herein shall prohibit the Employer from serving as an executive for Royal.”


 


3.
All other terms and conditions in the Prior Agreement shall remain unchanged except to the extent specifically modified herein.


 


[SIGNATURE
PAGE TO FOLLOW]


 




    	 



    	 



    

 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed and delivered this Agreement as of the day and year first above written.


 


	 	EMPLOYEE:
	 	 	 
	 	 	/s/
    Richard A. Boone
	 	Name:	Richard
A. Boone
	 	 	 
	 	EMPLOYER:
	 	 
	 	RHINO
    GP LLC:
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/William
    L. Tuorto
	 	Title:	William
    L. Tuorto
	 	Name:	Executive
Chairman
Case No. 10,232.

#### NICHOLLS v. JOHNS.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 66.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1812.

Costs — Nonresident—Security.

The plaintiff having removed his family into the county of Washington, the rule for security for costs was stricken out, by leave of the court.

[Cited in Miller’s Adm’r v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., 47 Fed. 266.]

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]
Before the Third Division,

August 24, 1966

No. P66/207. —

No. P66/208. —

#### Royal Trading Company, Limited, and American Customs Brokerage Co. et al. *v.*United States, protests 61/8864, etc. (Honolulu). Fijiya, Ltd., and American Customs Brokerage Co. et al. *v.*United States, protests 64/14346, etc. (Honolulu).

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of Iso peanuts, peanut crackers, and Japanese rice crackers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Hilo Rice Mill*Co., *Ltd., American Customs Brokerage Company et al.*v. *United Stales*(52 CCPA 106, C.A.D. 866), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
(A.R.D. 231)

#### The A. W. Fenton Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 324, etc.

Second Division, Appellate Term

(Decided January 22, 1968)

*Allerton deO. Tomplcins*for the appellant.

*Edwin L. Weisl, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General *{Steven R. Somov,*trial attorney) , for the appellee.

Before Rao, Ford, and Beckworth, Judges

PeR CuRiam :

Appellee has moved this court for an order dismissing the application for review of the decisions and judgments of Senior Judge Wilson, dated February 18, 1963, and July 27, 1967, dismissing the instant appeals for reappraisement and denying the application to vacate said judgment, or for a rehearing, thereof, respectively.

Upon due consideration of the memorandum in support of said motion, and the memorandum in opposition thereto, it is the opinion of *930this court that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain the instant application for review.

In view thereof, the application to dismiss is granted.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
H. Res. 70

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

January 29, 2007.

Whereas the University of California at Santa Barbara 

(UCSB) Gauchos claimed the 2006 NCAA Championship, 2–1, over the University of California at Los Angeles Bruins at Robert R. Hermann Stadium at Saint 

Louis University in St. Louis, Missouri, on December 3, 

2006; 

Whereas the UCSB Gauchos, in their 2006 season, had an 

overall record of 17–7–1, and a perfect 6–0 mark in the 

National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) tournament; 

Whereas the UCSB Gauchos won a Division 1 title for the 

second time ever in school history and first time ever in 

men’s soccer; 

Whereas the UCSB Gauchos have reached the NCAA finals 

twice in the past three years; 

Whereas Nick Perera was named the tournament’s offensive 

Most Outstanding Player and Andy Iro was named the 

defensive Most Outstanding Player; and 

Whereas the 2006 NCAA championship soccer team members 

are Kyle Reynish; Jeff Murphy; David Walker; Andy Iro; 

Jon Curry; Greg Curry; Bryan Byrne; Paul Kierstead; 

Tino Nunez; Tyler Rosenlund; Alfonso Motagalvan; Eric 
2

•HRES 70 EH 

Frimpong; Chris Pontius; Nick Perera; Eric Avila; Evan 

Patterson; Brennan Tennelle; Kyle Kaveny; Andrew 

Proctor; Bongomin Otii; Bryant Rueckner; Tony 

Chinakwe; Jason Badger; Jordan Kaplan; Drew Gleason; 

C.J. Cintas; and Guillermo Jalomo: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives congratulates the University of California at Santa Barbara men’s 

soccer team, the Gauchos, and Coaches Tim Vom Steeg, Greg 

Wilson, Erick Foss, and Neil Jones on an outstanding championship season, a season that set the Gauchos among the 

elite in collegiate soccer. 

Attest:

Clerk.
20 15 UT App 55



### T HE 

### U TAH 

### C OURT O F 

### A PPEALS

S TATE OF U TAH , Plaintiff and Appell ee ,

v. J OHNNY M AEZ , Defendant and Appell ant

.

Per Curiam Decision N o. 20140472

- CA Filed March 5, 2015

Eighth District Court, Vernal Department The Honorable Clark A. McClellan

No. 135800008

Colleen K. Coebergh
, Attorney for Appellant Sean D. Reyes and Cherise M. Bacalski
, Attorney s

for Appellee

Before J UDGE S S TEPHEN L. R OTH , M ICHELE M. C HRISTIANSEN

and K ATE A. T OOMEY

.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Johnny Maez appeals his sentence after pleading guilty to possession of a firearm by a restrict ed person, a second degree felony. Maez argues that the district court abused its discretion in sentencing him to p rison instead of probation.

¶2 We review the sentencing decision of the district court, including the decision to grant or deny probation, for abuse of discretion. See State v. Valdovinos , 2003 UT App 432, ¶ 14, 82 P.3d 1167. “An abuse of discretion results when the judge fails to consid er all legally relevant factors or if the sentence imposed is clearly excessive.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Furthermore, “[a]n appellate court may only find abuse if it can be s aid that no reasonable [person] would take theState v. Maez

20140472

- CA 2 2015 UT App 55 view adopted by the trial court.” Id. ( second alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Finally, a “defendant is not entitled to probation, but rather the court is empowered to p lace the defendant on probation if it thinks that will best serve the ends of justice and is compatible with the public interest.” State v. Rhodes , 818 P.2d 1048, 1051 (Utah Ct. App. 1991).

¶3 Here, the evidence demonstrated that Maez had an
extensive crimina l history
, having spent much of his adult life incarcerated. Maez also had what the district court termed an “ugly” parole history, having violat ed the terms of his parole or probation at least five times. In fact, the incident at issue in this

case occurr ed while Maez was on probation. Additionally , the district court considered Maez’s medical issues, i.e., kidney failure and a traumatic brain injury, a s potential mitigating factors, although the district court noted that Maez had continued violating the l aw despite these medical issues. T he record indicates that the district court considered all potential mitigating factors raised by Maez. Ultimately, the district court concluded: “ H istorically he has posed such a huge threat, and his injuries that he is s uffering now, where he is involved in alleged gang activity where firearms were at play, and this is a char g e where he possessed a

. . . loaded gun . . . it see ms to me that I have to protect society. I wish I had a different route, but I can’t see it.” Under the totality of the circumstances, we cannot conclude that “no reasonable [p erson] would take [this] view;” consequently, we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion in sentencing Maez to prison. See Valdovino s , 2003 UT App 432, ¶ 14.

¶4 Affirmed.
Before the First Division,

February 23, 1960

No. 63837. protest 58/442 (San Francisco).

#### National Carloading Corporation *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of chairs similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Davies Turner & Co.*v. *United States*(45 C.C.P.A. 39, C.A.D. 669), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### Jules J. LEVIN, Roger P. Levin, and Stacey W. Levin, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SEPTODONT, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-1284.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: June 26, 2001.

ON MOTION

MICHEL, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Septodont, Inc. moves without opposition to transfer its appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted.
Summary of Analytical Results

662 - June 2012

Sample ID 662-GRAB 662-GRAB 662-GRAB 662-GRAB

Date 6/4/12 6/11/12 6/18/12 6/25/12

Top (ft) 0 0 0 0

Total (T)/ Bottom (ft) 0 0 0 0

Analyte units Diss. (D) Duplicate # 1 1 1 1

PFOA ug/L T 1.15 2.82 4.57 1.39

ug/L = micrograms per liter or parts per billion (ppb)

ND = not detected (shown as <LOD)

NQ = not quantifiable (shown as <LOQ)

ND<LOD<NQ<LOQ

LOD = limit of detection = 0.0400 ug/L

LOQ = limit of quantification = 0.100 ug/L

Samples were analyzed by Critical Path Services LLC. Reported results 

 represent a single analysis, except for the sample collected on 6/18/12.

 Acceptable precision was obtained and the reported result for the sample

 collected on 6/18/12 represents the average of lab duplicate results.

 The NJDEP lab certification number for Critical Path Services LLC is PA072.

PFOA = Perfluorooctanoic Acid

ug/L = micrograms per Liter

< and ND = Non detect at stated reporting limit Page 1 of 1

09000064810e6d84.xls:Sheet1

8/21/2012 2:11 PM
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                           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 Remington Oil and Gas
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, J. Burke Asher, Vice President/Finance (Principal Financial
Officer) of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec.1350, as adopted
pursuant to sec.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.

     This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S. C. Section
1350, and not for any other purpose.

                                                  /s/ J. BURKE ASHER
                                          --------------------------------------
                                                      J. Burke Asher
                                                  Vice President/Finance
                                              (Principal Financial Officer)

August 8, 2003

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Remington Oil and Gas Corporation and will be retained by
Remington Oil and Gas Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 69704.

#### Gallagher & Ascher Company *v.*United States,

protests 61/24710-12591, 62/17330-13118, and 61/12040-12264 (Chicago).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of heaters and parts thereof similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Gallagher & Ascher Company*v. *United States*(52 CCPA 11, C.A.D. 849), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
May 14, 2015

In accordance with the enclosed Memorandum Opinion, below is the judgment in the numbered cause set out herein to be entered in the Minutes of this Court as of the 14th day of May, 2015.

10-14-00333-CR	THE STATE OF TEXAS v. RICHARD BRYAN KUSSMAUL - ON APPEAL FROM THE 54TH DISTRICT COURT OF McLENNAN COUNTY - TRIAL COURT NO. 1993-773-C – AFFIRMED - Memorandum Opinion by Justice Scoggins:

	“This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record of the Court below, and the same being considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in the judgment, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed by the Court that the judgment be in all things affirmed, and that the appellant pay all costs in this behalf expended and that this decision be certified below for observance.”

# image1.png
Exhibit 32.1
                                  ------------


                      CEO AND CFO 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 ITEC Attractions, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul M.
Bluto, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.

/s/  Paul M. Bluto
------------------
Paul M. Bluto
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
August 12, 2005
**No. 1999-IA-00845-SCT**
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 Business Marketing Services, Inc. on Form 10-K for the twelve month period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Hans Pandeya, acting in the capacity as the Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company and also acting in the capacity as the 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 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/ Hans PandeyaHans PandeyaChief Executive Officer and PresidentApril 15, 2011/s/ Hans PandeyaHans PandeyaPrincipal Financial OfficerApril 15, 2011
MEMORANDUM

DATE: 7/29/15

FROM: Ken Mitchell/EPA Region 4

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

SUBJECT: Discussion of the Clean Power Plan with R4 State and Local Air Directors

SUMMARY: 

Region 4 provided information on the Clean Power Plan to participants at Metro4 SESARM Fall

meeting in Chattanooga, TN on October 29, 2014. The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power 

Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES:

EPA

Ken Mitchell/EPA R4

Beverly Banister/EPA R4

Other Region 4 Air Program Management and Staff

External Stakeholders

John Hornback/Metro4 SESARM

Chris Howard (ADEM)

John Myers (TVA)

Jenah Zweig (SEEA)

Jeremy Tarr (Duke Nicholas Institute)

Approximately 50 Region 4 State and Local Air Directors and Staff

ATTACHMENTS
From: tmagner1@woh.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:31:34 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,

Thomas Magner

, 45424-4710