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

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

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Nexicon, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

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

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

Date: February 3, 2006                  NEXICON, INC.


                                        By: /s/ Richard A. Urrea
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Richard A. Urrea
                                            President, Chief Executive Officer
                                            and Principal Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Nexicon, Inc. and will
be retained by Nexicon, Inc. and furnished to the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission or its Staff upon request.


                                       26
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

1

 Plaintiff had made a request for telephonic appearance. The court’s docket does not have

a telephone number recorded for plaintiff. At the time noticed for hearing, the deputy clerk initiated

a phone call to the number left by plaintiff as the number at which she could be reached for this

hearing. An answering machine received the phone call and contact could not be made with

plaintiff. After the hearing, plaintiff called the chambers of the undersigned and advised the court

the number at which she could be reached was a different number than that previously provided to

the deputy clerk. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIANNE NELSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1103 DFL KJM PS

vs.

PLACER COUNTY, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Defendants’ motions to compel production of documents came on regularly for

hearing March 22, 2006. No appearance was made for plaintiff.1 Richard Crabtree appeared

telephonically for defendant LaBouff. Jamie Edwards appeared telephonically for the remaining

defendants. Upon review of the documents in support and opposition, upon hearing the

 /////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01103-DFL -KJM Document 136 Filed 03/23/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

 The court is advised that plaintiff must first be called at this number so that her facsimile

machine can be initiated; the number can then be used to fax the order to plaintiff.

2

arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AND ORDERS

AS FOLLOWS:

1. Defense counsel has been advised by plaintiff that she has additional

documents to produce in addition to those she previously has provided. Within fourteen days

from the date of this order, plaintiff shall provide, for copying and inspection, documents

responsive to defendants’ requests for production of documents. Plaintiff is cautioned that any

documents not produced within this time period may be subject to exclusion at trial.

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on plaintiff via

facsimile at (907) 262-6877.2

3. Any future requests for telephonic appearance by plaintiff shall be made in

writing, at least one week in advance of the hearing, and shall provide the contact number and the

reason requested for telephonic appearance.

DATED: March 22, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

006

nelson.oah

Case 2:04-cv-01103-DFL -KJM Document 136 Filed 03/23/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1


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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Merrill Lynch Preferred
Capital Trust V (the "Trust") and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding V, L.P.
for the period ended April 1, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Haig J. Nargesian,
Regular Trustee of the Trust, 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 Trust.





                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST V


                              By:  /s/ HAIG J. NARGESIAN
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    Haig J. Nargesian *
                              Title:   Regular Trustee









Dated: May 12, 2005
_____________________

* Haig J. Nargesian functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
  and Chief  Financial  Officer of the Trust for  purposes  of Section  906
  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
Case 2:04-cv-00859-RRB -PAN   Document 26    Filed 07/21/05   Page 1 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00859-RRB -PAN   Document 26    Filed 07/21/05   Page 2 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00859-RRB -PAN   Document 26    Filed 07/21/05   Page 3 of 3

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-27T01:14:50-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
Exhibit 99.1

   Written Statement of the Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
                          Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

Solely  for the  purposes  of  complying  with 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  I, the
undersigned  Chairman,  President and Chief Executive  Officer of Alliant Energy
Corporation (the  "Company"),  hereby certify,  based on my knowledge,  that the
Annual  Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended  December 31, 2002
(the  "Report")  fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) of the
Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934 and that  information  contained in the Report
fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.


/s/ Erroll B. Davis, Jr.
------------------------
Erroll B. Davis, Jr.
March 25, 2003
To : Cc: Bcc: Subject: Gent - repsonse to request for PM2.5 descriptive statistics

To: Beth Hassett-Sipple/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA From: "Gent, Janneane" < janneane .gent@yale.edu> Date: 10/21/2009 04:23PM Subject: repsonse to request for PM2.5 descriptive statistics

Please see attached memo.

Janneane F. Gent, Ph.D.

Research Scientist

Yale University

Center for Perinatal, Pediatric and

Environmental Epidemiology

One Church Street , 6th Floor

New Haven , Connecticut 06510

### October 21, 2009

TO: Beth M. Hassett-Sipple, Environmental Health Sc ientist Ambient Standards Group FROM: Janneane F. Gent, Yale University

RE: Request for PM 2.5 

### descriptive statistics

1. Table 1 shows descriptive statistics from the PM 2.5 

### data used in Gent J. F., Triche E.W., Holford T.R., Belanger K., Bracken M.B., Beckett W. S., Leaderer B.P. (2003). "Association of low-level ozone and fine particles with respiratory symptoms in children with asthma." JAMA 290(14): 1859-67.

Table 1. PM 2.5 concentration (in μ g/m 3 ) in Southern New England, April 1 to September 30, 2001.

EPA Monitoring Sites Statistic New Haven East Hartford Springfield Chicopee 4-site mean Mean 15.99 12.17 12.58 10.74 13.10 Minimum 3.70 2.80 2.10 0.50 3.68 p95 36.93 30.90 26.79 25.35 30.71 p96 39.56 31.32 28.53 26.40 32.41 p97 40.21 31.87 29.54 30.83 32.74 p98 41.16 33.95 34.02 31.82 33.23 p99 43.98 37.58 35.74 34.00 37.64 Maximum 48.40 41.30 42.80 35.10 44.17 Notes. data from Gent et al JAMA 2003;290:1859-1867 Location of sites: New Haven (09-009-0018 Stiles St .) East Hartford (09-003-1003 McAuliffe Park) Springfield (25-013-0016 Liberty Parking Lot) Chicopee (25-013-0008 Anderson AFB)



### 2. Table 2 shows descriptive statistics from PM 2.5 

### data used in Gent J.F., Koutrakis P., Belanger K., Triche E., Holford T.R., Bracken M.B., Leaderer B.P. (2009). “Symptoms and medication use in children with asthma and traffic-related sou rces of fine particle pollution.” Environ. Health Perspec. 117(7):1168-1174.

As described in the methods section, PM 2.5 

### filter samples were collected between 1 August 200 0 and 3 February 2004 from the Stiles Street monitori ng site in New Haven (98% of the filters used) or the State Street site in New Haven (2% of the filters). Table 2 shows descriptive statistics by year and for the entire period of the study.

Table 2. PM 2.5 concentration (in μ g/m 3 ) from Stiles Street monitoring site in New Haven, CT

. Measurements from 8/1/2000 through 2/3/2004.

Study Year 2001 2001 2002 2003 2004 2000 - 2004 Statistic 8/1 - 12/31 1/1 - 12/31 1/1 - 12/31 1/1 - 12/31 1/1 - 12/31 8/1/2000 - 2/3/2004 Mean 16.13 16.84 16.12 16.89 17.55 16.59 Minimum 3.60 0.50 0.30 3.40 11.00 0.30 p95 30.50 35.82 34.80 33.70 29.30 33.65 p96 31.06 36.86 36.00 36.80 30.10 35.76 p97 32.64 39.42 39.38 38.46 30.96 38.61 p98 33.03 40.26 41.78 42.00 32.28 40.87 p99 37.84 43.62 46.16 46.74 33.59 46.30 Maximum 40.30 58.20 83.40 58.60 34.90 83.40
Exhibit 32.1 - Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer required pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and
furnished herewith pursuant to SEC Release No. 33-8238

                            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 Axeda Systems Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2003 (the Report), the
undersigned, Robert M. Russell Jr., Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company and Thomas J. Fogarty, Executive Vice 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 Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

By:     /s/ Robert M. Russell Jr.
        ----------------------------
        Robert M. Russell Jr.
        Chairman of the Board and
        Chief Executive Officer
        November 14, 2003

By:     /s/ Thomas J. Fogarty
        ----------------------------
        Thomas J. Fogarty
        Executive Vice President and
        Chief Financial Officer
        November 14, 2003


This certification is made solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Axeda Systems Inc. and will be retained by Axeda Systems Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
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

 On October 29, 2004, plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the 1

Director of the Department of Corrections was ordered to withdraw the filing fee from plaintiff’s

trust account statement.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALONZO MCKINNEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0913 FCD JFM P

vs.

DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS,

LANCASTER STATE PRISON,

et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil

1

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed March 9, 2005, plaintiff’s second

amended complaint was dismissed. Plaintiff has filed a third amended complaint pressing claims

concerning interference to his access to the courts. However, plaintiff has now identified as main

defendants Sgt. Huerta, Officer Dottaviano and Captain H.T. Brown, all of whom are employed

at Lancaster State Prison, and Chief Deputy Warden Montiero of Los Angeles. The alleged

Case 2:04-cv-00913-FCD-JFM Document 23 Filed 07/28/05 Page 1 of 2
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

2

holding of plaintiff’s legal mail occurred at Lancaster State Prison and plaintiff pursued his

administrative remedies at Lancaster as well. 

The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on

diversity jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all

defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events

or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject

of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is

no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 

In this case, most of the defendants are located and a substantial part of the events

giving rise to plaintiff’s claim arose in Lancaster, California, which is in the Central District of

California. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have been filed in the United States District Court

for the Central District of California. In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a

complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v.

McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the

United States District Court for the Central District of California.

DATED: July 27, 2005. 

/001; mcki0913.21a

Case 2:04-cv-00913-FCD-JFM Document 23 Filed 07/28/05 Page 2 of 2
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 Strategic Internet Investments,
Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"). I, Abbas Salih, Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







|      |                |  |                                
|----- | -------------- |  | -------------------------------
|Date: | April 18, 2018 |  | /s/ Abbas Salih                
|      |                |  | Abbas Salih, Director, CEO, CFO
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES T. DAVIS,

Plaintiff, No. 2:04-cv-0878 TLN DAD P

vs.

C/O KISSINGER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has

requested appointment of counsel. 

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to

require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist.

Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may

request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v.

Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36

(9th Cir. 1990).

The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s

likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in

light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328,

1

Case 2:04-cv-00878-TLN-DAD Document 247 Filed 04/18/13 Page 1 of 2
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

1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). In light of the

complexity of plaintiff’s case and the fact that the case is now proceeding to trial, the court finds

that appointment of counsel on behalf of plaintiff is warranted at this time. The court will

therefore refer this matter to the court’s ADR and Pro Bono Director Sujean Park to locate an

attorney who is admitted to practice in this court and is willing to accept the appointment.

Plaintiff recently filed a pretrial statement as well as motions in limine and other

pretrial motions. Believing that plaintiff had failed to file his pretrial statement, defendants filed

a request for dismissal or, alternatively, a request for an extension of time to file their pretrial

statement. In light of the court’s determination that the appointment of counsel on plaintiff’s

behalf is now appropriate, the court will relieve defendants of having to file their pretrial

statement in this action until further ordered of the court. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 233) is granted;

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to contact Sujean Park, ADR and Pro Bono

Director, for the purpose of locating an attorney who is admitted to practice in this court and is

willing to accept the appointment for the purpose of pursuing this action on plaintiff’s behalf

through all remaining pretrial and trial proceedings; and

3. Defendants’ request for dismissal or alternatively for an extension of time

(Doc. No. 246) is denied. However, defendants are relieved at this time of having to file a

pretrial statement in this matter until further ordered to do so by the court.

DATED: April 17, 2013.

DAD:9

davi0878.counsel

2

Case 2:04-cv-00878-TLN-DAD Document 247 Filed 04/18/13 Page 2 of 2
CASE DIGEST: U.S. DHS, CBP, 73 FLRA 799 (2024)

The Agency failed to pay nightwork premiums, authorized by the Customs 

Officer Pay Reform Act (COPRA), to customs officers taking eight or more hours of 

parental or COVID-19 emergency leave in a pay period. The Arbitrator determined that 

the Agency was erroneously applying a Federal Employees Pay Act (FEPA) limitation 

called the “eight-hour rule” to COPRA-covered nightwork. 

The Authority requested an Office of Personnel Management (OPM) advisory 

opinion because several of the Agency’s exceptions to the Arbitrator’s award required an

interpretation of OPM-issued regulations and guidance. In response, OPM provided an 

advisory opinion, in which it determined that FEPA’s eight-hour rule does not apply to 

leave payments for employees receiving COPRA nightwork pay. Based on that opinion, 

the Authority denied the Agency’s exceptions contending that the award was contrary to 

FEPA, the statutes that created parental and emergency leave, and related regulations and 

guidance. The Authority also denied in part, and dismissed in part, the Agency’s 

remaining exceptions.

The Arbitrator further found that the Agency did not commit an unfair labor 

practice by failing to comply with an earlier arbitration award concerning the eight-hour 

rule or repudiating a related settlement agreement. The Authority denied the Union’s 

exceptions to those findings.

Chairman Grundmann concurred.

This case digest is a summary of a decision issued by the Federal Labor Relations 

Authority, with a short description of the issues and facts of the case. Descriptions 

contained in this case digest are for informational purposes only, do not constitute legal 

precedent, and are not intended to be a substitute for the opinion of the Authority.