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

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to, and asrequired by, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Nathaniel EnergyCorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31,2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information containedin such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

Dated:March 29, 2006

|        | By:    | /s/ George A. Cretecos                      |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------|
|   |   | George A. Cretecos  Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4738 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4738

  For the relief of Vichai Sae Tung (also known as Chai Chaowasaree).

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 23, 2024

Ms. Hirono (for herself and Mr. Schatz) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  For the relief of Vichai Sae Tung (also known as Chai Chaowasaree).

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE STATUS FOR VICHAI SAE TUNG.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et 
seq.), Vichai Sae Tung (also known as Chai Chaowasaree) shall be held 
and considered to have been lawfully admitted to the United States for 
permanent residence as of the date of the enactment of this Act upon 
payment of the required visa fees.
    (b) Reduction of Number of Available Visas.--Upon the granting of 
permanent residence to Vichai Sae Tung (also known as Chai Chaowasaree) 
pursuant to subsection (a), the Secretary of State shall instruct the 
proper officer to reduce by one, during the current or subsequent 
fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas available to natives 
of the country of the alien's birth under section 203(a) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)).
                                 <all>
```
No. 58065.

protests 202399-K, etc. (Boston).

#### Kenneth W. Marriner Co., Division of Winslow Bros. & Smith Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

It was stipulated that for duty purposes the clean content of the wool in question was determined in accordance with the instructions contained in T. D. 53159. Said T. D. 53159 was issued following the decision in *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*v. *United States*(27 Cust. Ct. 168, C. D. 1365), affirmed in *United States*v. *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 19, C. A. D. 492), wherein the statutory language, clean content of wool, as used in *483paragraph 1102 (b), was construed to mean the product commercially usable as wool and from which all the weight of grease and foreign material has been removed, including the wool fibers which are unavoidably and irrevocably lost as a result of commercially applied cleaning processes. Accordingly, the wool in question was held dutiable at the rate applied by the collector on the basis of the percentages of clean content as set forth in the column headed “ Clean Content under T. D. 53159” in the schedule of protests attached to and made a part of the decision in this case.
Case No. 6,763.

#### HOWARD v. UNITED STATES.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 259.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Oct. Term, 1821.

Appeal. — Profane Swearing.

Appeal [by Gustavus Howard] from the judgment of a justice of the peace, imposing a fine, for profane swearing in his presence.

THE COURT

dismissed the appeal, saying that no appeal lies in such a case (CRANCH, Chief Judge, doubting).
Exhibit 31.1
 Certification
      (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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;(c)
    
    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; and(d)
    
    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 (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
  (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;
and(b)
    
    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 reporting.
 /s/ Paul A. LangPaul A. LangPresident
Date: May 17, 2010
Before the Third Division,

March 1, 1951

No. 55284.

#### Raphael H. Elmaleh et al. *v.*United States,

protests 140982-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Exhibit 31.1

I, Lawrence Schaffer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Case Financial, Inc.;

2. Based on my  knowledge,  this  annual  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 quarterly
report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included in this quarterly  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 quarterly report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officer  and  I  are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and 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  company,  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  company'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; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the company's  internal  control over
financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report
that has materially affected,  or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
company's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's   board  of  directors  (or  persons   performing   the  equivalent
functions):

a) all significant  deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which  could  adversely  affect the  registrant's  ability  to record,  process,
summarize and report  financial data and have  identified  for the  registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any  fraud,  whether  or not  material,  that  involves  management  or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. I have  indicated in this  quarterly  report  whether there were  significant
changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect
internal  controls  subsequent  to the  date  of  our  most  recent  evaluation,
including any  corrective  actions with regard to significant  deficiencies  and
material weaknesses.


/s/ Lawrence Schaffer
------------------------
Lawrence Schaffer
Chief Financial Officer
January 31, 2005
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4829 

To direct the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 

to clarify that implanted active middle ear hearing devices are prosthetics 

and are not subject to the hearing aid coverage exclusion under the 

Medicare program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 29, 2024 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Mr. LANKFORD) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To direct the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare 

& Medicaid Services to clarify that implanted active middle ear hearing devices are prosthetics and are not subject to the hearing aid coverage exclusion under the 

Medicare program. 

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 ‘‘Hearing Device Cov5 erage Clarification Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4829 IS

1 SEC. 2. ACTIVE MIDDLE EAR IMPLANT COVERAGE. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 60 days after the 

3 date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the 

4 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services shall clarify that 

5 implanted active middle ear hearing devices are pros6 thetics that are not subject to the hearing aid coverage 

7 exclusion under section 1862(a)(7) of the Social Security 

8 Act (42 U.S.C. 1395y(a)(7)). 

9 (b) PROSTHETIC DEFINED.—The term ‘‘prosthetic’’ 

10 has the meaning given such term in section 414.202 of 

11 title 42, Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regu12 lation). 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
No. 56450.

protest 152971-K (Cleveland).

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

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the merchandise consist of articles of which metal is the component material of chief *416value, other than ores or concentrates or crude metal, which were imported to be used in remanufacture by melting, and that they have been used in remanufacture by melting. An examination of the papers disclosed that affidavits have been filed in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to Public Law 869, *supra.*Upon the record presented, it was held that the merchandise comes within the provisions of Public Law 869, *supra,*and is properly entitled to free entry.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 6 A1 95 0

. MARCUS A

. W ATKI N S v . R ALPH CHERRY, W A RDEN OF THE ROBERT A. DEYTON CORRECTI ONAL FACI LI TY et a l

.
On Ap ri l 5 , 2 0 1 6 , t h i s Co u rt g ran t ed M arcu s A. W at k i n s ’ s ap p li cat i o n fo r d i s cret i o n ary

ap peal

. Th e o rd er n o ti fi ed W at k i n s t h at h e h ad 1 0 d ay s fro m t h e d at e

o f t h e o rd er t o fi l e h i s n o t i ce o f ap p eal

. See OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (g ). Si x t een d ay s l at er,

o n Ap ri l 2 1 , 2 01 6 , W at k i n s fi l ed h is n o t ice o f ap p eal

. Th e t i m el y fi l i n g o f a n o t i ce o f ap p eal i s an ab s o lu t e req u irem en t t o co n fer ju ri s d i ct i on o n t h i s Co u rt

. See W h i t e v. W h i t e , 1 8 8 Ga. Ap p

. 5 5 6 , 5 5 6 (3 73 SE2 d 8 2 4 ) (1 9 8 8 ). Becau s e W at k in s fai l ed t o fi l e h i s no t i ce o f ap peal wi t h i n 1 0 day s o f o u r

o rd er g r a n t i n g h i s ap p l i cat i o n , h i s n o t i ce o f ap p eal i s u n t im el y

. Acco rd i n g l y , t h i s ap p eal i s DISM ISSED fo r l ack o f ju ri s d i ct i on

. See OCGA § 5 -6 -4 8 (b ) (1 ); Ba r n es v. Ju s t i s , 2 23 Ga. Ap p

. 6 7 1, 6 7 1 -6 7 2 (4 7 8 SE2 d 4 02 ) (1 9 9 6).

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m
t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 07/01/2016 July 01, 2016
No. 47396.

#### Protests 970481-G, etc., of H. A. Caesar & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following the authorities eitied in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
ChiefJustice ^^^i*^^ Clerk

James T. Worthen ^aims^ Cathy S.Lusk

Twelfth Court of Appeals

Justices Chief Staff Attorney

Sam Griffith Margaret i ii issey

Diane DeVasto

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Tommie Denson Mr. John Michael Orton

#687907 Assistant Attorney General

Clements Unit Law Enforcement Defense Division - 012

9601 Spur 591 P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station

Amarillo, TX 79107-9601 AUSTIN, TX 78709-1144

RE: Case Number: 12-04-00037-CV

Trial Court Case Number: 38,355

Style: Tommie Denson

v.

T.D.C.J.-I.D., et al

Enclosed is a copy of the Memorandum Opinion issued this date in the above styled and

numbered cause. Also enclosed is a copy ofthe court's judgment.

Very truly yours,

CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK

Bv: fltfaiM. Mfi&i

Katrina McClenny, Chief Deputy Clerk

CC: Hon. John Ovard

Judge James N. Parsons III

Ms. Janice Staples

1517 West Front Street • Suite354 • Tyler,TX 75702 • Tel: 903-593-8471 • Fax: 903-593-2193

Serving Anderson, Angelina. Cherokee, Gregg, Henderson. Houston. Nacogdoches. Rains. Rusk. Sabine. San Augustine Shelhw Smith. Triatt}. I'pshur.

Van Zandt and Wood Counties

www.12thcoa.courts.state.tx.us
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

THOMAS BURTON WATSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV. S-04-2615 GEB KJM PS

vs.

COUNTY OF SHASTA, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By an order filed March 29, 2006, plaintiff was served with an application to

proceed in forma pauperis and was ordered to complete the application and file it within thirty

days. Plaintiff was cautioned that his failure to comply with the March 29th order would result

in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice. The thirty day period has

now expired, and plaintiff has not responded to the court's order. 

Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the order was returned,

plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his

current address at all times. As provided by Local Rule 83-182(d), service of documents at the

record address of the party is fully effective.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

without prejudice.

Case 2:04-cv-02615-GEB -KJM Document 7 Filed 05/31/06 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

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections

with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: May 30, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

wats2615.fifp

Case 2:04-cv-02615-GEB -KJM Document 7 Filed 05/31/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 66859.

#### Ataka, New York, Inc., and John L. Westland & Son, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/31043 (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of black polyvinyl chloride tape, is not a manufacture of synthetic textile, and is similar in use to friction tape in chief value of cotton, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alvin Ortiz, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 961]

—Judgments, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Frank Torres, J.), rendered on or about May 17, 1993, unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s application to be relieved pursuant to *Anders v California*(386 US 738) and *People v Saunders*(52 AD2d 833) is denied. No opinion. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Wallach, Ross and Williams, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Charles G. Tinsley; a Stenographer, etc.

Order appealed from reversed. Opinion by

Haight, J.
**
**Exhibit 31.1**

**Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) andRule 15d-14(a)**

**of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934**

I, Charles E. Drimal, Jr., certify that: 

 
1.
I have reviewed this Amendment to the Annual Report on Form 10-K ofPrimeEnergy Resources Corporation; and 

 
2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial 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. 

 
Date: May 12, 2020   
/s/ Charles E. Drimal, Jr.
   Charles E. Drimal, Jr.   Chairman, President
 
**
No. 57338.

protests 787316-G, etc. (New York).

#### Kung Chen Fur Corpn. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the kidskin plates are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Kung Chen Fur Corpn.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 266, C. D. 1480), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

Ford, J., concurred.

Mollison, J., dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in C. D. 1480, *supra.*
- i - House Engrossed

State of Arizona House of Representatives Fiftieth Legislature Second Regular Session
2012



# CHAPTER 235



# HOUSE BILL 2073

AN ACT

AMENDING LAWS 2008, CHAPTER 64, SECTION 2, AS AMENDED BY LAWS 2010, CHAPTER 42, SECTION 1; RELATING TO VEHICLE EMISSIONS TESTING.

(TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE)H.B. 2073

- 1 - Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona: 1 Section 1. Laws 2008, chapter 64, section 2, as amended by Laws 2010, 2 chapter 42, section 1, is amended to read: 3
Sec. 2. Conditional enactment; notice 4 A. Section 49-542, Arizona Revised Statutes, as amended by Laws 2008, 5 chapter 64, section 1, does not become effective unless on or before July 1, 6
2012 2014 the United States environmental protection agency issues a vehicle 7 emissions testing exemption for motorcycles in area A for purposes of the 8 state implementation or maintenance plan for air quality. 9 B. The director of the department of environmental quality shall 10 promptly notify in writing the director of the Arizona legislative council of 11 the date on which the condition prescribed in subsection A of this section is 12
met or if the condition is not met. 13
Sec. 2. Emergency 14 This act is an emergency measure that is necessary to preserve the 15 public peace, health or safety and is operative immediately as provided by 16
law. 17

APPROVED BY THE GOVERNOR APRIL 11, 2012.

FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE APRIL 12, 2012.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OFFORREST A. GARB & ASSOCIATES, INC.,**

**INDEPENDENTPETROLEUM ENGINEERS**

 

As independent petroleumengineers, we hereby consent to our estimates of reserves included in thisQuarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Cano Petroleum, Inc. and to allreferences to our firm included in this Quarterly Report.

 

 
|   | /s/ Mark A. Murray                           |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | FORREST A. GARB & ASSOCIATES,  INC. |

 

 

Dallas, Texas

 

May 10,2006

 

30

----
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellant,

v.

BRUNO WILLIAM TYREE,

 Appellee.

'

'

'

'

'

'

No. 08-11-00260-CR

Appeal from the

120th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20110D01872)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is the State’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to 

TEX.R.APP.P. 42.2(a). Finding that the State has complied with the requirements of Rule 

42.2(a), we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

April 18, 2012

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, J., and Antcliff, J.

(Do Not Publish)
January 23, 1963

Reap. Dec. 10437.

#### William Pearson Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

REHEARING MOTION GRANTED

Entered at New York, N.Y. (Not published.) Motion by plaintiff.
No. 41815.

#### Protests 945332-G, etc., of Oldetyme Distillers, Inc.

C. D. 184. Motion of Government for rehearing denied.
**EXHIBIT 6**
**CONSENT OF APPOINTED ACTUARY**
I consent to the use and incorporation by reference of the following report in this Annual Form40-F of Sun Life Financial Inc. (the “Company”):
My report dated February 14, 2005 on the valuation of the policy liabilities of the Company for itsConsolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002 and their change in its ConsolidatedStatement of Operations for the years then ended.
Dated February 14, 2005 /S/ “Robert Wilson”Robert W. WilsonVice-President and Appointed ActuaryFellow, Canadian Institute of ActuariesToronto, Canada
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Din-eCiOl-ate identifier: 2008-NM-205-AD

Execut"1ve Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"?

YES () explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES () explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entit.ies?

YES () explain NO (X)

HnEf"astate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of

transportation?

YES ( ) explam NO (X)