alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1


                    Certification of CEO and CFO 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 Anthracite Capital,
Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
Christopher A. Milner, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and James J.
Lillis, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

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

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


/s/ Christopher A. Milner
-------------------------------
Name: Christopher A. Milner
Title:   Chief Executive Officer
Date:   August 9, 2006

/s/ James J. Lillis
-------------------------------
Name: James J. Lillis
Title:   Chief Financial Officer
Date:   August 9, 2006

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to ss. 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 the Company for purposes of ss.
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this certification required by ss. 906 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.
1

Stout, Alan

From: Stout, Alan

Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 1:39 PM

To: 'Carter, Sarah@ARB'

Subject: RE: Cold temp testing

Sarah, 

The standards for cold testing aren’t changing, so the Tier 3 transition is not fundamental for them. Allowing for 

transition through 2021 nevertheless correlates with what manufacturers are doing otherwise to update their lab 

equipment and procedures for meeting Tier 3 standards. 

Alan 

From: Carter, Sarah@ARB [mailto:scarter@arb.ca.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 1:34 PM 

To: Stout, Alan 

Subject: RE: Cold temp testing 

Thanks, Alan. So, there’s no distinction between Tier 2 and Tier 3 vehicles in terms of migration of cold temperature 

testing to 1066 correct?

Sarah Carter, M.S.A.E., P.E.

Staff Air Pollution Specialist

Emissions Compliance, Automotive Regulations and Science Division

California Air Resources Board

From: Stout, Alan [mailto:stout.alan@epa.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 10:30 AM 

To: Carter, Sarah@ARB 

Subject: RE: Cold temp testing

 

Sarah,

We wanted to build in an immediate transition to the 1066 procedures for cold testing, but we knew we needed to 

accommodate carryover and some degree of lead time for updating lab equipment. The general expectation is that 

there are no big changes involved in that migration (other than the test fuel, which we deal with separately). The 

provision to smooth the overall transition is in §86.201(c) as noted below.

Alan

_______________

(c) Through model year 2021, manufacturers may certify vehicles based on data collected according to previously 

published cold temperature and intermediate temperature testing procedures. In addition, we may approve the use of 

previously published cold temperature and intermediate temperature testing procedures for later model years as an 

alternative procedure under 40 CFR 1066.10(c). 

From: Carter, Sarah@ARB [mailto:scarter@arb.ca.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 1:19 PM 

To: Stout, Alan 

Subject: Cold temp testing

 
2

Hi, Alan,

I read §86.201 to mean that all Tier 2 and Tier 3 vehicles must be tested using part 1066 to demonstrate compliance with 

cold CO and cold NMHC effective as soon as Tier 3 becomes final, unless a manufacturer is using carryover data. A 

manufacturer may continue to certify both Tier 2 and Tier 3 vehicles using carryover data for cold temperature testing 

through MY 2021. Am I understanding this correctly? Thanks

Sarah Carter, M.S.A.E., P.E.

Staff Air Pollution Specialist

Emissions Compliance, Automotive Regulations and Science Division

California Air Resources Board
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTIONS 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of AutoFund Servicing, Inc., on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Jesse Whittenton, Chief Financial and Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sections 906 of the Sabanes-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 al material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

AutoFund Servicing, Inc.



By: /s/ Jesse Whittenton

--------------------------------------

Jesse Whittenton
Chief Financial and

Executive Officer

February 17, 2004
EXHIBIT 32.1**CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of America Service GroupInc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies that the Company’s Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q for the quarter and six month period ended June 30, 2006 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.Dated: August 9, 2006       Name: /s/ Michael Catalano Title: Chairman, President &    Chief Executive Officer    (Principal Executive Officer)
You are here: EPA Home Region 10 Air Page SIPs/YRCAA SIPYRCAA1201 

SIP - YRCAA - Section 12.01 

ARTICLE XII 

ADOPTION OF STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS

SECTION 12.01 - STATE REGULATIONS

The Yakima County Clean Air Authority hereby adopts by reference and incorporates 

herein, as if specifically set forth herein, all of the terms and provisions of the 

Washington State Administrative Code as identified below, except as the same may be 

less stringent than the provisions of this Regulation of the Yakima County Clean Air 

Authority:

Chapter 173-400 WAC General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources:

Chapter 173-401 WAC Operating Permit Regulation;

Chapter 173-425 WAC Open Burning;

Chapter 173-430 WAC Agricultural Burning:

Chapter 173-433 WAC Solid Fuel Burning Device Standards;

Chapter 173-434 WAC Solid Waste Incineration Facilities;

Chapter 173-435 WAC Emergency Episode Plans;

Chapter 173-470 WAC Ambient Air Quality Standards For Particulate Matter;

Chapter 173-474 WAC Sulphur Oxide Standards;

Chapter 173-475 WAC Photochemical Oxidant, Hydrocarbons, Nitrogen Dioxide 

(Ambient Standards);

Chapter 173-460 WAC Controls for New Sources of Toxic Air Pollutants;

Chapter 173-490 WAC Emission Standards and Controls for Sources Emitting

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC);

Chapter 173-491 WAC Emission Standards and Controls for Sources Emitting 

Gasoline Vapors.

State effective: 12/15/95; EPA effective: 3/4/98

Region 10: the Pacific Northwest

Last updated on Saturday, March 12th, 2011.

URL: http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/airpage.nsf/SIPs/YRCAA/SIPYRCAA1201

SIP - YRCAA - Section 12.01 Page 1 of 1

http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/airpage.nsf/283d45bd5bb068e68825650f0064cdc2/c87e12d1d... 3/15/2011
IA

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 20

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to authorize

the line item veto.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 19, 1999

Mr. ANDREWS introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States to authorize the line item veto.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission

9 for ratification:
2

HJ 20 IH

1 ‘‘ARTICLE —

2 ‘‘In the case of any bill, order, resolution, or vote

3 which is presented to the President under section 7 of Ar4 ticle I of this Constitution, the President may decline to

5 approve in whole any dollar amount of discretionary budg6 et authority, any item of new direct spending, or any lim7 ited tax benefit. The failure of the President to approve

8 a matter under this article of amendment shall be treated

9 in the same manner as the failure of the President to ap10 prove a bill, order, resolution, or vote presented to the

11 President under section 7 of Article I of this Constitu12 tion.’’.

Æ
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), Edward F. Brennan, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer of CryoCor, Inc. (the Company),
and Gregory J. Tibbitts, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his or her knowledge:



| | 1. | The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2007, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (the Annual Report),
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the period covered by
the Annual Report.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: April 22, 2008



|                                                 |  |  |  |                                                                        
|------------------------------------------------ |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    EDWARD F. BRENNAN,
PH.D.                  |  |  |  | /s/    GREGORY J.
TIBBITTS                                             
|Edward F. Brennan, Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  | Gregory J. Tibbitts Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies the Form 10-K/A to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of CryoCor, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the
Form 10-K/A), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
ENABLING ZERO FRESH WATER WITHDRAWAL IN 

SHALE GAS OPERATIONS

Vikram Rao

Research Triangle Energy Consortium

March 29, 2011
GOAL OF ZERO DISCHARGE AND ZERO WITHDRAWALS

REQUIRES

• Salt Tolerance

• Allows easier re-use of flowback water

• Allows use of saline waters of convenience

• Addressing Potential Issues with High Salt

• Scaling: can be repository for radioactive species

• Divalent ions can retard efficacy of cross-linkers, friction 

reducers

• Reservoir effects need better definition

• More desalination may be needed than with fresh water 

make up
SALINE WATERS OF CONVENIENCE

• Sea Water

• Simplest to process

• TDS average of 35000 ppm is already acceptable

• Saline Aquifers

• Target shallow ones preferably for easy access and lower salinity

• USGS has not mapped since middle of last century

• Available maps show presence in many shale gas areas

• Withdrawal could affect hydrology of proximal fresh bodies

• Produced Water

• Potentially the most challenging 

• But use offsets need to dispose of
OPERATIONAL CHEMISTRY CONSIDERATIONS

• TDS Tolerance

• 40000 ppm tolerated today, soon 80000, maybe higher

• Beneficial for clay component of shale

• Optimal: balancing with connate water?

• Divalent Ion removal

• Standard softening methods

• Cost versus tolerance

• Other Species Needing Removal

• Bacteria: how prevalent in saline aquifers?

• Flowback water will need to be treated anyway

• Radioactive elements if any

• Other?

TYPICAL MARCELLUS SALT LEVELS (ppm)

Total Dissolved Solid Mg Ca

Average 47,364 175 1750

Range 16,000 – 220,000 10-927 400-8600

Source: Blauch et al SPE Paper 125740, 2009
SALINE AQUIFER CONSIDERATIONS

• Needs Investigation

• Location by depth and salinity

• Chemical characterization

• Access

• For withdrawal

• For return of desalination waste heavy brine

• Typical distances for transport

• Bacterial Content

• One report: terrestrial bacteria present in three locations
DISCUSSION

• Salt Tolerance: practical upper limits

• divalent ions: removal versus tolerance

• if tolerated how do we handle scaling

• full implications of salt tolerance

• Saline Aquifer Access

• practicalities: depth, distance, chemistry

• if feasible: USGS should produce new map

• Produced Water Use Issues
# L_2022117EN.01011701.xml

| 19.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 117/117 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 117/117

---

Corrigendum to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/396 of 9 March 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 80 of 9 March 2022
  )

On page 17, in the Annex, in the table, in entry 776, in the ‘Name’ column

for:

‘Sergey Borisovich IVANOV

(Сергей Борисович ИВАНОВ)’

read:

‘Sergey Pavlovich IVANOV

(Сергей Павлович ИВАНОВ)’

---
Federal Geographic Data Committee

www.FGDC.gov

fgdc@fgdc.gov

FGDC Announcement

Department	of	the	Interior	Appoints	New Members	to	National	

Geospatial	Advisory	Committee	

April	25,	2023

The	Department	of	the	Interior	has	appointed	14 individuals	to	serve	as	members	of	the	

National	Geospatial	Advisory	Committee	(NGAC).	The	NGAC provides	advice	and	

recommendations	on	national geospatial	policy	and	management	issues,	the	development	

of	the	National	Spatial	Data	Infrastructure (NSDI),	and the	implementation	of	the	

Geospatial	Data	Act of	2018.	The	NSDI	promotes	geospatial	data	sharing	across	all	levels	of	

government,	the	private	and	non-profit	sectors,	and	the	academic	community.	

The	NGAC	Chair	is Gary	W.	Thompson,	who	is the	Deputy	Hazard	Mitigation Chief	and	Chief	

of	the	North	Carolina	Geodetic	Survey in	the	North	Carolina	Division	of	Emergency	

Management.	Interior	also	appointed	a	new	NGAC	Vice Chair,	Maggie	Cawley,	who	is	the	

Executive	Director	of	OpenStreetMap	US.	Ms.	Cawley	is	a	current	member	of	the	NGAC.

The	NGAC	includes	up	to	30	members,	selected	to	achieve	a	balanced	representation	of	the	

varied	interests	associated	with	geospatial	programs	and	technology.	NGAC	members	serve	

staggered	three-year	terms	on	the	committee.	The	new appointees	to	the	NGAC	are:

• Chad	Baker,	California	Dept.	of	Transportation (reappointed	to	a	second	term)

• Jack	Dangermond,	Esri (reappointed	to	a	second	term)

• Holli	Howard,	Google	Maps

• Bert	Granberg,	Wasatch	Front	Regional	Council

• Leslie	Jones,	State	of	Alaska

• Ryan	Mattke,	University	of	Minnesota

• Mark	Meade,	NV5	Geospatial (reappointed	to	a	second	term)

• Curtis	Pulford,	City	of	Phoenix,	AZ

• Devaki	Raj,	CrowdAI

• Siva	Ravada,	Oracle (reappointed	to	a	second	term)

• Breece	Robertson,	One	Tree	Planted

• Vasit	Sagan,	St.	Louis	University (reappointed	to	a	second	term)

• Phil	Thiel,	Dewberry

• Tim	Trainor,	Trainor	Consultants (reappointed	to	a	second	term)

The	NGAC	meets	three	to	four	times	per	year.	The	public	is	invited	to	comment	and	make	

suggestions	at	all	committee	meetings,	which	will	be	announced	by	publication	in	the	
Federal Geographic Data Committee

www.FGDC.gov

fgdc@fgdc.gov

Federal	Register	at	least	15	days	before	the	meeting	date.	The	U.S.	Geological	Survey,	a	

bureau	of	the	Department	of	the	Interior,	provides	support	services	for	the	NGAC.	

The	NGAC	was	authorized	under	the	Geospatial	Data	Act	of	2018.	The	NGAC	operates	under	

the	Federal	Advisory	Committee	Act,	enacted	by	Congress	in	1972	to	ensure	that	advice	

rendered	to	the	executive	branch	by	advisory	committees,	task	forces,	boards,	and	

commissions	formed	by	Congress	and	the	President,	be	objective	and	accessible	to	the	

public.	The	Act	formalizes a	process	for	establishing,	operating,	overseeing,	and	

terminating	these	advisory	bodies.	

Additional	information	about	the	NGAC,	including	a	complete	list	of	the	committee	

members,	is	available	at	www.fgdc.gov/ngac.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1053 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1053

  To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to repeal the provisions 
 prohibiting persons convicted of drug offenses from receiving student 
                         financial assistance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 10, 1999

  Mr. Frank of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was 
        referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to repeal the provisions 
 prohibiting persons convicted of drug offenses from receiving student 
                         financial assistance.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF PROVISIONS PROHIBITING PERSONS CONVICTED OF DRUG 
              OFFENSES FROM RECEIVING STUDENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.

    Subsection (r) of section 484 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
(20 U.S.C. 1091(r)) is repealed.
                                 <all>
```
No. 63508.

protests 330681-K, etc. (New York).

#### Briones & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the facts and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C.C.P.A. 112, C.A.D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importers. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited, it was held that duty and internal revenue tax are not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protests were sustained to this extent.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Mercer Insurance Group, Inc. (the “Group”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Andrew R. Speaker, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Group, 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 Group.











Date: November 9, 2010
/s/ Andrew R. SpeakerAndrew R. SpeakerPresident and Chief Executive Officer
Before the Third Division,

March 12, 1968

No. P68/140.

protests 66/9540, etc. (New York).

#### William Adams, Inc. *v.*United States,

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of various glassware items similar in all material respects to those the subject of *William Adams, Inc.*v. *United States*(56 Cust. Ct. 429, C.D. 2670), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

3 Plaintiff-Appellee,

4 v. NO. 33,884

5 OMAR ENRIQUE GONZALEZ,

6 Defendant-Appellant.

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY

8 Darren M. Kugler, District Judge

9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General

10 Santa Fe, NM

11 for Appellee

12 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender

13 Santa Fe, NM 

14 Sergio J. Viscoli, Assistant Appellate Defender

15 Albuquerque, NM 

16 for Appellant

17 MEMORANDUM OPINION

18 VANZI, Judge.
2

1 {1} Defendant appeals from a district court order revoking his probation and re2 sentencing him. We issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm. Defendant has

3 responded with a memorandum in opposition. We affirm.

4 {2} Defendant continues to challenge the district court sentence, which was

5 imposed after Defendant did not contest that he violated probation. Sentences are

6 reviewed for an abuse of discretion, and there is no abuse of discretion where the

7 sentence imposed is one that is authorized by law. See State v. Cumpton, 2000-

8 NMCA-033, ¶ 10, 129 N.M. 47, 1 P.3d 429. 

9 {3} Defendant has abandoned issue B. [MIO 3] See State v. Johnson, 1988-NMCA10 029, ¶ 8, 107 N.M. 356, 758 P.2d 306. We do not address this argument further,

11 except to note that we remain persuaded that summary affirmance is appropriate based

12 on the analysis in our notice.

13 {4} Defendant has continued to argue that the district court relied on

14 misinformation and denied him the opportunity to correct the error. Specifically,

15 Defendant claims that the judge stated, “He has already killed one person” as the

16 judge walked away from the bench. [MIO 3] It does not appear that this comment is

17 part of the record and therefore is not subject to review on appeal. See In re Aaron L.,

18 2000-NMCA-024, ¶ 27, 128 N.M. 641, 996 P.2d 431. In addition, Defendant did not

19 include any alleged correction in his motion for reconsideration, which was denied by
3

1 the district court. [RP 129, 131] Accordingly, we affirm the district court judgment

2 and sentence.

3 {5} IT IS SO ORDERED.

4 __________________________________

5 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge

6 WE CONCUR:

7 _________________________________

8 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge

9 _________________________________

10 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge