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

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of EnerNOC, Inc. (the “Company”), for the quarterended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Timothy G. Healy, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 1350of Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, that:

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

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

Date: August 10, 2007
|        | By:    | /s/ Timothy G. Healy    |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |   | Timothy G. Healy        |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to EnerNOC,Inc. and will be retained by EnerNOC, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
July 10, 1942

No. 47392.

Suit 4388.

#### B. *Cardinale*v. *United States.*

C. D. 588. Appeal dismissed April 24, 1942; not yet reported.
Evidence Table K3: DISCRETE outcomes for class RETINOID (ORAL).

Trial #

Method Info

Discrete Outcome Name (Units)

Definition/Comments

Between

P-value

Follow- Treatment Comparator

up (wks)

Comparison Attribute: Number of patient Attribute: Number of patients

K.02.01 Isotretinoin Placebo

Reduction in application due to side 

effects

Cheilitis 1

Facial dermatitis 1

Artharlgia 1

Cheilitis 0

Facial dermatitis 0

Artharlgia 0

269

Parallel Sev

N=33

È

K.02.02 Isotretinoin Dapsone

Side effects Cheilitis 17

Hypersensitivity reaction 

(withdraw) 0

Cheilitis 0

Hypersensitivity reaction (withdraw) 

1

276

Parallel Sev

N=40

Long (16

K.02.03 Isotretinoin Tetracycline hydrochloride

Integumentary side effects I Xerosis 15

Cheilitis/dry lips 15

Desquamation of skin 7

Atopecia 3

Xerosis 2

Cheilitis/dry lips 3

Desquamation of skin 0

Atopecia 0

Erythema 0

206

Parallel Sev

N=30

Í

Erythema 3

Integumentary side effects II Pruritis 1

Dry hair 1

Skin flushing 1

Eczema 1

Pruritis 0

Dry hair 2

Skin flushing 1

Eczema 0

Tender fingertips 1 Tender fingertips 0

Integumentary side effects III Skin fissuring 1

Lesions crusting 1

Morbilliform eruption 0

Herpes simplex 0

Skin fissuring 0

Lesions crusting 0

Morbilliform eruption 1

Herpes simplex 1

Epistaxis 0

Dry nose 1

Epistaxis 10

Dry nose 10

Systemic reactions Increased thirst 0

Dry mouth 3

Indigestion 0

Increased thirst 2

Dry mouth 1

Indigestion 1

TRIAL: -presence of positive or negative methodological features (see Summary Table). "Mild/mod," etc., -our assessment of entry severity of study patients. "P"- to parallel study, "S"-split face design. BETWEEN 

P-VALUE: comparison between Target and Comparator arms.

Evidence Table K DISCRETE: Page 1 of 2

ÈÍ
Trial #

Method Info

Discrete Outcome Name (Units)

Definition/Comments

Between

P-value

Follow- Treatment Comparator

up (wks)

Comparison Attribute: Number of patient Attribute: Number of patients

Systemic reactions/Special senses Conjunctivtis 1

Pterguim 1

Photophobia 1

Decreased sweating 1

Conjunctivitis 0

Pterguim 0

Photophobia 0

Decreased sweating 0

Tiredness 2

Dry eyes 0

206

Parallel Sev

N=30

Í

Tiredness 0

Dry eyes 2

Post-therapy back total lesions change Decreased 5

No change 8

Ok new lesion 2

Decreased 0

No change 10

Ok new lesion 5

Long (24

Post-therapy chest total lesion change Decreased rate 2

No change 4

Ok rate at baseline 9

Decreased rate 0

No change 3

Ok rate at baseline 12

Long (24

K.03.01 Vitamin A Placebo

Overall change/dermatologist Improved 10

No change 18

Worse 2

Improved 11

No change 9

Worse 21

12

Parallel 

N=80

È Mid (12)

Overall change/generalist Improved 24

No change 5

Worse 1

Improved 22

No change 8

Worse 1

Mid (12)

TRIAL: -presence of positive or negative methodological features (see Summary Table). "Mild/mod," etc., -our assessment of entry severity of study patients. "P"- to parallel study, "S"-split face design. BETWEEN 

P-VALUE: comparison between Target and Comparator arms.

Evidence Table K DISCRETE: Page 2 of 2

ÈÍ
**EXHIBIT
31.2**
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
302 OF THE
 SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002
 I, Wayne F.
Irmiter , certify
that:
 
 1.
    I
      have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K ofCE
      Generation LLC;2.
    Based
      on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
      material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
      statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
      were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
      report;3.
    Based
      on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
      included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
      financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
      registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    The
      registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for
      establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
      defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
      and we have:a)
    Designed
      such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
      controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
      that material information relating to the registrant, including its
      consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
      entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
      prepared;b)
    Evaluated
      the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures
      and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
      the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period
      covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc)
    Disclosed
      in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over
      financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent
      fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
      materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial
      reporting; and5.
    The
      registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
      most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
      the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of
      directors (or persons performing the equivalent
  function):a)All
      significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
      operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    Any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control
      over financial reportingDate:
    February
      25, 2005
 
 /s/
Wayne F. Irmiter
 Wayne F.
Irmiter
 Vice
President and Controller
 (chief
accounting officer)
# The Attorney General of Texas April 20, 1978 JOHN L. HILL Attorney General Honorable John H. Morris Fannin County Attorney Bonhem, Texas 75418 Opinion No. H- 1157 Re: Whether e juvenile probation officer is apeace officer. Dear Mr.Morris: Youhave requested our opinion concerning whether ajuvenile probation officer who is also en adult probation officer is e peace officer. Article 5139L, section 2A, V.T.C.S., authorizes the Fennin County Juvenile Board to “appoint ajuvenile officer whoshall have the powers end duties prescribed by Article 5142.” Article 5142,V.T.C.S., provides that juvenile officers “shell he vested with all the power end authority ofpolice officers or sheriffs incident to their offices.” Thus inIn re S.E.B., 514S.W.2d 948 (Tex. Civ. App. - El Paso 1974, no writ), the court held that ajuvenile probation officer had the right of a police officer to make arrests pursuant to article 14.01 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. See also Attorney General Opinion O-7332 (1946). Accordingly, in our opinion a juvenile officer whose powers end duties are governed by article 5142has the power and authority of a peace officer. See Code Crim. Proc. art. 2.12;Attorney General Opinion H-522 (1975). Wedo= believe he would lose the powers of e peace officer merely because he is also an adult probation officer. See Attorney General Opinions H-549 (1975);H- - 167(1973). The juvenile officer need not he certified pursuant to article 4413 (29ea), which was amended in 1975 to apply only to persons designated as peace officers by article 2.12of the Code of Criminal Procedure and section 51.212of the Education Code. V.T.C.S. art. 4413(29ae), § 8(h); House Bill 1202,Acts 1975,64th Leg., ch. 547. SUMMARY A juvenile officer whose powers and duties are governed by article 5142has the authority of a peace officer.

P. 4688Honorable John H.Morris - Page 2 (H-1157)
Very truly yours,

Attorney General ofTexas APPROVED: 

# V 

# :4

DAVIDM.KENDALL, First Assistant

C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman Opinion Committee jst

p. 4689
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Wells Real Estate Investment Trust II, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), the undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Principal Executive Officer of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Principal Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of our 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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                 
|-----------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                 
|/s/ LEO F. WELLS, III                                            
|Leo F. Wells, III Principal Executive Officer November 13, 2008  
|                                                                 
|/s/ DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMS                                          
|Douglas P. Williams Principal Financial Officer November 13, 2008
No. 59029.

protest 246073-K (New York).

#### Hudson Shipping Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

An examination of the record failing to disclose evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s classification, the protest was overruled.
### NUMBER 13 - 12 - 00 225 - CR 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

LUIS GARCIA , A ppellant ,
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

.

On a ppeal from the 3 57 th District Court of Cameron County, Texas.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant, Luis Garcia , attempts to appeal his conviction for driving while
intoxicated . The trial court has certified that this “ is a plea

- barga in case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal, ” and “ the defendant has waived the right of appeal. ” See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 25.2(a)(2).2

On August 20, 2012 , this Court notified appellant ’ s counsel of the trial court ’ s certification and ordered counsel to: (1) review the record; (2) determine whether appellant has a right to appeal; and (3) forward to this Court, by letter, counsel ’ s findings as to whether appellant has a right to appeal, or, alternatively, advise this Court as to the
existence o f any amended certification. Appellant’s counsel failed respond to the order and on October 16, 2012, this Court abated the appeal and remanded to the trial court for a hearing to determine why counsel failed to comply with this Court's order

. The trial c ourt held a hearing on November 28, 201 2

. Counsel’s statements at the hearing do not establish that the certification currently on file with this Court is incorrect or that appellant otherwise has a right to appeal. On June 24, 2013, the trial court issu ed an order stating that appellant entered into an agreed plea bargain, was sentenced to the terms of the plea agreement, and does not have the right to appeal. Accordingly, this case is hereby REINSTATED

. The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an appeal must be dismissed if the trial court ’ s certification does not show that the defendant has the right of appeal. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d); see T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 37.1, 44.3, 44.4. Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED. Any pending motions are dismissed as moot. PER CURIAM Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.2(b).
D elivered and filed t he 25th day of July, 2013

.
#### Lydia Vogel et al., Appellants, v Thomas J. Palmieri, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[633 NYS2d 404]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., arising from medical malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Brien, J.), dated March 10, 1994, as granted the branch of the motion of the defendant Thomas Joseph Palmieri which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant Dr. Thomas Joseph Palmieri performed surgery on the right hand of the plaintiff Lydia Vogel to relieve the effects of what was diagnosed as carpal tunnel syndrome. The plaintiff, alleging, *inter alia,*that she was unable to open her hand completely after the surgery, commenced this action *523against Dr. Palmieri and his clinic, the defendant Hand Rehabilitation Center of Long Island, alleging lack of informed consent and medical malpractice. The court granted the branch of the motion of the defendant Thomas Joseph Palmieri which was for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against him. We now affirm.

In support of his motion for summary judgment, Dr. Palmieri submitted evidence in admissible form sufficient to warrant summary judgment in his favor *(see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851). Accordingly, the burden shifted to the plaintiff to raise a triable issue of material fact *(see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., supra; Baldasare v Suriano,*175 AD2d 93). Here, however, the affidavit submitted by the plaintiffs expert failed to connect the factual assertions made therein to the plaintiffs claim alleging medical malpractice or lack of informed consent other than in a purely conclusory manner *(see, e.g., Bennett v Sullivan,*116 AD2d 938). Thus, the complaint was properly dismissed insofar as it is asserted against Dr. Palmieri. Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Ritter and Florio, JJ., concur.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4696 

To provide an exemption from certain dredging restrictions for vessels that 

arrive at or depart from the Helen Delich Bentley Port of Baltimore, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 11 (legislative day, JULY 10), 2024 

Mr. LEE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To provide an exemption from certain dredging restrictions 

for vessels that arrive at or depart from the Helen Delich 

Bentley Port of Baltimore, 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 ‘‘Restore the Port of 

5 Baltimore Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4696 IS

1 SEC. 2. TEMPORARY EXEMPTION FROM DREDGING RE2 STRICTIONS FOR VESSELS ARRIVING AT OR 

3 DEPARTING FROM THE PORT OF BALTIMORE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding sections 55102, 

5 55109, and 55110 of title 46, United States Code, any 

6 vessel that, after the date of enactment of this Act, arrives 

7 at or departs from the Helen Delich Bentley Port of Balti8 more shall be exempt from— 

9 (1) the requirements of section 55109 of title 

10 46, United States Code; 

11 (2) the requirements of section 55110 of such 

12 title; and 

13 (3) the requirements of section 55102 of such 

14 title, with respect to the transportation of valueless 

15 material or dredged material as described in such 

16 section 55110. 

17 (b) APPLICABILITY.—This section, and any exemp18 tion under this section, shall cease to have effect on the 

19 day that is 5 years after the date of enactment of this 

20 Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
County of El Dorado Air Quality Management District 330 Fair Lane, Placerville Ca 95667 Tel. 530.621.7501 Fax 530

.295

.2774 www

.edcgov

.us/ AirQualityManagement February 23, 2016 Carol Sutkus

,Manager South Coast Air Quality Planning Air Resources Board 1 001 I Street P.O

.Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812 RE: Ozone Emergency Episode Plan Dear Ms Sutkus:

Dave Johnston Air Pollution Contr ol Officer Attached
is the Ozone Emergency Episode Plan adopted by the El Dorado County Air Quality Management District Board of Directors on January 12 ,2016. We request that on yourreview and concurrence, the attached information be submitted
tothe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for review and inclusion in the State Implementation Plan. If youhave and questions

,please contact meat (530) 621-7578. Respectfully, Dave Johnston Air Pollution Control Officer Attachments: ARB SIP Completeness Checklist ARB Rule Evaluation Form EDCAQMD Executed Resolution 010-2016 Ozone Emergency Episode Plan

,adopted January 12 ,2016 Proof of Notice
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NORMAN TIMOTHY GREGORY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2523 DFL PAN P

vs.

T. AYERS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

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

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On March 3, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. No

objections were entered in the record, and on March 31, 2006, this court adopted the findings and

recommendations in full. 

On April 20, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s

March 31, 2006 order. Plaintiff’s motion is predicated on his contention that he did timely file

objections to the findings and recommendations. A copy of objections to the findings and

Case 2:04-cv-02523-RRB-EFB Document 43 Filed 03/30/07 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

recommendations, dated March 21, 2006, is appended to plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.

For reasons that are not apparent in the record, the objections appended to

plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration were not filed in this action prior to the filing of the motion

for reconsideration. Nonetheless, good cause appearing, the court will, in accordance with the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, conduct a de novo review of this

case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s objections, the court finds

the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s April 20, 2006 motion for reconsideration is granted;

2. This court’s March 31, 2006 order is vacated;

3. The findings and recommendations filed March 3, 2006 are adopted in full;

4. Defendants’ August 29, 2005 motion to dismiss is denied as to plaintiff’s

retaliation claims against defendants Reuter, Glensor, and Coombs, and granted in all other

respects; and

5. Plaintiff’s claims arising out of his June 30, 2004 disciplinary conviction on

charges of making false allegations against a peace officer are dismissed without prejudice.

DATED: March 29, 2007

/s/ David F. Levi 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/greg2523.850

Case 2:04-cv-02523-RRB-EFB Document 43 Filed 03/30/07 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 48 (Tuesday, March 13, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 11345]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4482]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP05-160-003]


El Paso Natural Gas Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

March 7, 2007.
    Take notice that, on March 1, 2007, El Paso Natural Gas Company 
(EPNG) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, with an effective 
date of April 1, 2007:

First Revised Sheet No. 290B.01
First Revised Sheet No. 290C
Original Sheet No. 290D
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 419

    EPNG states that the filing is being made in compliance with the 
Commission's order issued February 15, 2007 in the above referenced 
proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance 
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests 
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of 
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest 
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the 
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu 
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons 
unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies 
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First 
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#abedeef9e8e4c5c7c2c5cef8dedbdbc4d9dfebcdced9c885ccc4dd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="662023342529080a0f080335131616091412260003140548010910">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-4482 Filed 3-12-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>