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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Great Plains Energy
Incorporated (the "Company") for the annual period ended December 31, 2008, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), Michael J. Chesser, as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, and Terry Bassham, as Executive Vice President - Finance
and Strategic Development and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each
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 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/
      Michael J. ChesserName:
                Title:
              Michael
      J. Chesser
                Chairman
      of the Board and Chief Executive OfficerDate:
              February
      27, 2009/s/
      Terry BasshamName:
                Title:
              Terry
      Bassham
                Executive
      Vice President – Finance and Strategic Development and Chief
      Financial OfficerDate:
              February
      27, 2009





This
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and
is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.  This certification shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes
of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to
liability under that section.  This certification shall not be deemed
to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933
or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 except to the extent this Exhibit 32.1 is
expressly and specifically incorporated by reference in any such
filing.





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 required
by Section 906, has been provided to Great Plains Energy Incorporated and will
be retained by Great Plains Energy Incorporated and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4372 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs to pay costs associated with the delivery of automobiles or other 

conveyances to eligible persons, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 21, 2024 

Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. SCHATZ) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs to pay costs associated 

with the delivery of automobiles or other conveyances 

to eligible persons, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Deliver for Veterans 

5 Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4372 IS

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY FOR DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AF2 FAIRS COVERAGE OF COSTS ASSOCIATED 

3 WITH DELIVERY OF AUTOMOBILES OR 

4 OTHER CONVEYANCES TO ELIGIBLE PER5 SONS. 

6 Section 3902(a) of title 38, United States Code, is 

7 amended by inserting ‘‘and the total shipping price to de8 liver the automobile or other conveyance to the eligible 

9 person’’ after ‘‘the total purchase price of the automobile 

10 or other conveyance’’. 

11 SEC. 3. MODIFICATION OF CERTAIN HOUSING LOAN FEES. 

12 The loan fee table in section 3729(b)(2) of title 38, 

13 United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘November 

14 15, 2031’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘November 

15 20, 2031’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001052635
<NAME>                        MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING V, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-29-2000
<CASH>                                               1
<SECURITIES>                                 1,031,214
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,576
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,049,791
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,049,791
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,576
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    876,300
<COMMON>                                       154,915
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,049,791
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                56,166
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 56,166
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             55,166
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    55,166
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
No. 59543.

protest 258046-K (New York).

#### J. Ossola Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cheese similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Fontana Hollywood Corp.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 98, C. D. 1503), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. P68/299.

protest 64/15367 (Ogdensburg).

No. P68/300.

protest 64/15369 (Ogdensburg).

No. P68/301.

protest 64/17903 (Ogdensburg).

#### A. N. Deringer, Inc. *v.*United States, A. N. Deringer, Inc. *v.*United States, A. N. Deringer, Inc. *v.*United States,

Beckworth, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise marked “A” covered by the foregoing protests consists of screens or parts of machines for making paper or paper pulp similar in all material respects to those the subject of *A. N.*Deringer, *Inc.*v. *United States*(56 Cust. Ct. 477, C.D. 2681) and that the items of merchandise marked “B” consist of screen plate frames with screen plates similar in all material respects to, and appraised in the same manner as, those the subject of said C.D. 2681, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained as to the items marked “A” and, insofar as they related to the items marked “B”, the protests were dismissed and the matter remanded to a single judge to determine the proper dutiable value of said merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U.S.C. § 2636(d)).
From: "John Reggi" <John.Reggi@ormet.com>

To: David Putney/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: "Tim Adamowicz" <Tim.Adamowicz@ormet.com>

Date: 06/27/2011 11:12 AM

Subject: RE: Follow up on pitch storage tanks at PAL facilities

I n response to your questions below:

1. Ormet does not use any new pitch storage tanks

2. Ormet does not have any controls on existing pitch storage tanks. The process is currently not operating.

From: Putney.David@epamail.epa.gov [ mailto:Putney.David@epamail.epa.gov ]

Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 6:01 PM

To: Michael.Palazzolo@alcoa.com; ksands@centuryky.com; kisnerj@noralnm.com;

jvanmatre@centurywv.com; danny.carroll@riotinto.com; kisne rj@noralnm.com; John Reggi;

Henk.VanDerMeyden@alcoa.com; Kathryn.Mitchell@alcoa.com; Patricia.Bilskis@alcoa.com;

nathan.rufa@alcoa.com; Terry.Blodgett@alcoa.com; chris.allen@alcoa.com; david.hulse@alcoa.com

Cc: cjohnson@aluminum.org; bahner@rti.org

Subject : Follow up on pitch storage tanks at PAL facilities

Hello all,

Thank you so much for taking the time to respond to the information collection request (ICR) dated April

25, 2011 concerning the primary aluminum operations conducted at your facility. T he information you

provided will be instrumental in the ongoing associated residual risk/technology review. I have been going

through the ICR responses I received and have a couple of follow

- up questions concerning pitch storage

tanks:

1. The ICR d id not directly ask whether or not your facility utilizes any new pitch storage tanks (i.e.

tanks installed after the proposal of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart LL on 09/26/96)? Do you have any new

pitch storage tanks that are subject to Subpart LL at your facili ty? If so, what controls do you use to meet

the 95% POM reduction requirement in 40 CFR §63.844(d) [please submit this information on Table(s) 1

through 5 found in the ICR for the associated control device(s), if applicable]?

2. It appears, based o n the ICR responses I received, that the ICR may not have been clear in

regards to submitting information on any controls that may be installed on existing pitch storage tanks at

your facility that are subject to Subpart LL. If you have any existing pitch storage tanks at your facility that

are subject to Subpart LL and that have emissions controls installed on them (even though those controls

are not required under Subpart LL) please provide the information necessary to evaluate those controls

[i.e. submi t Table(s) 1 through 5 found in the ICR for the associated control device(s), if applicable].

I am sorry for the need for this follow

- up email. Your time is valuable and I appreciate you taking time out

of your busy days to provide this information.

Th anks again,

David Putney, Environmental Engineer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Sector Policies and Programs Division

109 T.W. Alexander Drive, RTP, NC 27711

Mail Drop D243

- 02

Ph: (919) 541

- 2016 Fax: (919) 541

- 3207

Email: putney.david@epa.gov
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 March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of 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; and

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


                  By:  /s/ Richard A. Urrea             June 27, 2005
                       --------------------------
                  Richard A. Urrea
                  President and Chief 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 Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
### JUDGMENT 

## Court of Appeals First District of Texas

NO. 01

- 1 5

- 0 0 289

- C R
VICTOR CUA , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 1 2 of H a rri s County. (Tr. Ct. No. 1945086 ). This case is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on March 9 , 201 5

. After due consideration, the Court grants the appellant’ s motion to dismiss the appeal . Accordingly, the Court dismisses the appeal.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.
Judgment rendered April 14 , 201 5

. Per curiam opinion delivered by panel consisting of Justice s Keyes , Bland , and Masse n gale

.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v ANTHONY J. MAZZURCO, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant

21 USCMA 15, 44 CMR 69

No. 24,220

July 16, 1971

*Colonel George J. McCartin, Jr., Captain Bernard J. Casey,*and *Captain Gary W. Allman*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*16
      *Lieutenant Colonel Ronald M. Holdaway, Captain Richard L. Menson,*and *Captain Leon J. Schachter*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Darden, Chief Judge:

In this case the Court of Military-Review sitting en banc affirmed the appellant’s conviction contrary to a prior Court of Military Review panel -that had ruled in his favor. This procedure is unauthorized. United States v Chilcote, 20 USCMA 283, 43 CMR 123 (1971); United States v Wheeler, 20 USCMA 595, 44 CMR 25 (1971); United States v Croney, 20 USCMA 292, 43 CMR 132 (1971).

Accordingly the en banc decision of the Court of Military Review is reversed. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for action consistent with this opinion.

Judge Quinn and Senior Judge Ferguson concur.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 14

- 11029 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A200

- 939

- 955

EMMA ESPERANZA MEDINA

- MENENDEZ, Petitioner,

versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________ ( September 8, 2014 )
Before PRYOR , MARTIN and JORDAN , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Emma Esperanza Medina

- Menendez seeks review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA) denying her motion to reopen her

Case: 14-11029 Date Filed: 09/08/2014 Page: 1 of 32 proceedings in order for her to apply for a Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver
under 8 C.F.R. § 212.7(e). The BIA denied Ms. Medina

- Menendez’ s motion
because she was already subject to a final order of re moval and, thus , ineligible for the waiver she sought. On appeal, Ms. Medina

- Menendez argues that she is eligible for the provisional waiver on almost all of the requi red criteria, that the congressional intent be hind the waiver is to maintain “ family unity,” and that the
BIA’ s decision effectively goes against this intent by not allowing her proceedings to be reopened

. The BIA’ s denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed for an abuse of
discretion. See A li v. U

. S. Att'y Gen. , 443 F.3d 804, 808 (11th Cir. 2006). This

re view “ is limited to determining whether there has been an exercise of
administrative discretion and whether the matter of exercise has bee n arbitrary or capricious. ” Id. (citation and internal qu otation marks omitted). “Generally,

m o tions to reopen are d isfavored, especially in a removal proceeding, where, as a general matter, every de lay works to the advantage of the deportable alien who
wishes merely to remain in the United States. ” Id. (ci tation , alterations , and
internal quotation marks omitted).

“ The decision to grant or deny a motion to reope n . . . is within the discretion of the [BIA], ” which “ has discretion to deny a motion to reopen even if the party moving has made out a prima facie case for relief. ” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). Failure

Case: 14-11029 Date Filed: 09/08/2014 Page: 2 of 33 to establi sh a prima facie case for relief is, however, one of the grounds upon which the BIA may deny a motion to reopen

. See Jiang v. U

. S. Att'y Gen. , 568
F. 3d 1252, 1256 (11th Cir. 2009). An alien is not eligible for a provisional un lawful presence waiver if “ [t]he alien is subject to a final order of removal issued under section 217, 235, 238, or
240 of the Act

. . . any other provision of law

. ” 8 C.F.R. § 212.7(e)(4)(vi). Because she was subject to a final order of removal, Ms. Medina

- Mendez was ineligible for the Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver. As such, she could not
establish a prima facie case that she was eligible for the relief she sought , and the
BIA did not abuse its disc retion in denying her motion to reopen.
P ETITION D ENIED . Case: 14-11029 Date Filed: 09/08/2014 Page: 3 of 3
(Reap. Dec. 10382)

Entry No. 4754, etc.

#### Brown, Alcantar & Brown, Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided December 4, 1962)

*Sharretts, Paley & Garter*for the plaintiff.

*Joseph D. G-uilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “B,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the parties hereto that the merchandise which is the subject of the appeals for reappraisement listed in Schedule B, hereto attached and made a part hereof, consists of phonograph records exported from Mexico after January 1, 1960.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that phonograph records are not on the list of articles published in T.D. 54521 and are subject to appraisement under the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (Public Law 927— 84th Congress 2nd Session).

> *469IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the prices, at the time of exportation to the United States of the merchandise undergoing reappraisement, at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold or, in the absence of sales, offered for sale in the principal markets of the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the prices shown on Schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof for each of the items enumerated therein with or without qualifying words and with or without additional symbols.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeals for re-appraisement listed in Schedule B are hereby submitted on this stipulation.

On tbe agreed facts, I find tbat tbe proper basis for appraisement of tbe phonograph records in question is statutory export value and bold tbat such value therefor is the prices shown in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, for each of the items enumerated therein with or without qualifying words and with or without additional symbols.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the June 30,
1997 Financial Statements included in the Company's Form 10-Q and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                            5863
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    74885
<ALLOWANCES>                                      3298
<INVENTORY>                                     135921
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                223521
<PP&E>                                          280402
<DEPRECIATION>                                  173050
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  361007
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            60425
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         69674
<OTHER-SE>                                      189754
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    361007
<SALES>                                         208492
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                208492
<CGS>                                           133369
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   133369
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   873
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 856
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  16655
<INCOME-TAX>                                      6079
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              10576
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     10576
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .39


</TABLE>
Case No. 5,302.

#### GELSTON v. ADAMS.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 440.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Nov. Term, 1823.

Bili.s and Notes — Assignment aftek Dishonor —Suit nr Assignee.

If the payee of a promissory note, after it has been dishonored, assigns it to a debtor of the maker, and then gives the maker a release upon his surrendering all his effects to a trustee for the benefit of his creditors, the assignee cannot recover upon the note in an action against the maker, who had no notice of the assignment until after the deed of trust and release had been executed.

This was an action by the assignee of *a*promissory note for $430.31, made by the defendants [A. and A. H. Adams] to Jonathan Janney, and due on the 25th of July, 1S22, when it was protested. Janney assigned it to the plaintiff on the 1st of August, 1S22. On the 14th of August, 1S22, Janney, then being a creditor of the defendants to the amount of $00, upon an open account, attended a meeting of the creditors of the defendants, who laid before them a list of their debts, and stating Janney to be a creditor for the amount of the note, as well as of the open account. Janney did not inform the defendants of the assignment of the note, but signed the release, and accepted the satisfaction given by the defendants, which was an assignment of all their effects to a trustee for the benefit of their creditors.

THE COURT

(THRUSTON, Circuit Judge,

absent), on the prayer of Mr. Taylor, for defendants, instructed the jury that if, from the evidence, they believed the facts to be as above stated, the plaintiff could not recover, although they might be satisfied by the evidence that the plaintiff was debtor to the defendants to the amount of $2S3.90, until and at the time of the transfer of the note.