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 Cano Petroleum, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, S. Jeffrey Johnson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

 
| May 16, 2005 |   |   | /s/ S. Jeffrey Johnson  |   |
|--------------|--------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|         |   |   | S. Jeffrey Johnson      |   |
|         |   |   | Chief Executive Officer |   |
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

27

28

VICTOR S. HALTOM

Attorney at Law

State Bar No. 155157

428 J Street, Suite 350

Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone: (916) 444-8663

Facsimile: 444-1546

e-mail: vshjah@aol.com

Attorney for Petitioner

ANTOINE N. WATIE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 IN AND FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTOINE N. WATIE, ) CIV-S-04-1289 FCD PAN P

)

Petitioner, ) ORDER

)

v. )

)

THOMAS L. CAREY, Warden, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

________________________________ )

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s application for an enlargement of

time until July 5, 2005 is granted. On or before July 5, 2005, petitioner shall file his

traverse herein.

Dated: June 7, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01289-FCD-CHS Document 32 Filed 06/08/05 Page 1 of 1
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 17, 2021

No. 04-21-00558-CV

IN RE Rogelio LOPEZ, Jr., Relator

Original Proceeding

ORDER

Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

On December 16, 2021, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. After considering 

the petition, the appendix, and the responses from respondent Monica Alcantara and real party in 

interest Michele Carey Garcia, this court concludes relator has not shown himself to be entitled 

to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 52.8(a). 

This court’s opinion will issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on December 17, 2021.

 PER CURIAM PER CU

.

 ATTESTED TO: ______________________________

 MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4946 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4946

  To address the plea agreements for certain individuals detained at 
                  Guantanamo, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 1, 2024

  Mr. Cotton (for himself and Mr. McConnell) introduced the following 
   bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To address the plea agreements for certain individuals detained at 
                  Guantanamo, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Justice for 9/11 Act''.

SEC. 2. TRIAL AND POST-TRIAL MATTERS RELATING TO CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS 
              DETAINED AT GUANTANAMO.

    (a) Plea Agreements and Judgments.--Notwithstanding the provisions 
of section 949h of title 10, United States Code, any plea agreement 
entered into by Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak 
Bin `Attash, or Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi for actions involving the 
terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, and its related judgment, shall 
not preclude the trial of such individual under chapter 47A of such 
title or any other provision of law for that terrorist attack.
    (b) Sentencing.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in any 
trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin 
`Attash, or Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi under chapter 47A of title 
10, United States Code, or any other provision of law for the terrorist 
attack of September 11, 2001, a sentence of death shall be available.
    (c) Conditions of Confinement; Transfer.--Notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, in the case of any sentence imposed on Khalid Shaikh 
Mohammad, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin `Attash, or Mustafa Ahmed 
Adam al Hawsawi, such individual--
            (1) shall be--
                    (A) held at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo 
                Bay, Cuba, in solitary confinement;
                    (B) provided no contact with foreign nationals; and
                    (C) provided no psychological treatment except that 
                specifically authorized by medical authorities at 
                United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay; and
            (2) shall not be transferred to the continental United 
        States or any other country.
                                 <all>
```
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

27

28

[Proposed Order] re Defendant’s First Request for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES WHITTENBERG,

Plaintiff,

v.

V. BORTOLAMEDI, ET AL. ,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 2:04-CV-2225 GEB

PAN P

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS'

FIRST REQUEST FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO

RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

Defendants’ First Request for an Extension of Time to file their responses to plaintiff’s

Complaint was considered by this Court, and good cause appearing.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants have 30 days from the date of service of

this order to file their responses to the complaint.

Dated: April 18, 2006.

/001; whit2225.eot

Case 2:04-cv-02225-GEB-EFB Document 17 Filed 04/19/06 Page 1 of 1
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

ANDREW OTTON, JR., 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1914 GEB PAN P

vs.

CLAUDE E. FINN, Warden, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has

filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. 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 June 8, 2005, 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. 

Case 2:04-cv-01914-GEB-PAN Document 19 Filed 07/05/05 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

Petitioner has filed objections to the findings and

recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 8,

2005, are adopted in full; and

2. Respondent’s January 13, 2005, motion to dismiss is

granted and this action is dismissed without prejudice. 

Dated: July 1, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01914-GEB-PAN Document 19 Filed 07/05/05 Page 2 of 2
304(m) CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0824

DCN CBM00687 

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
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

KEVIN J. IKES,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2747 FCD KJM P

vs.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT, 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 May 11, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has not filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the findings and

recommendations was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility

to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 83-182(f),

service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.

Case 2:04-cv-02747-FCD-KJM Document 8 Filed 06/27/05 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

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that: 

1. The findings and recommendations filed May 11, 2005, are adopted in full; and

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice.

DATED:June 24, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02747-FCD-KJM Document 8 Filed 06/27/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 52308.

protests 8448-K, etc. (San Francisco).

#### China Importing Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of kumquats similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Fung Chong Co.*(34 C. C. P. A. 40, C. A. D. 342). In accordance therewith the claim at 1 cent per pound under paragraph 743 was sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 8245)

#### T. W. Holt & Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 31, etc.

(Decided July 30, 1953)

*John F. Kavanagh*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule *“A,”*hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto that the merchandise covered by the appeals to re-appraisement set forth in Schedule A hereto attached and made a part hereof, consists of canned corned beef imported from Argentina;

> That the issues involved in said appeals to reappraisement are similar in all material respects to the issues involved in *United States*v. *International Commercial Co., Inc.,*and *Armour & Co.,*Reappraisement Decision 8112.

> *393IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the value or price, at the time of exportation of the involved merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of Argentine 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 costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed, ready for shipment to the United States, was eleven ($11.00) dollars per case of 48 tins of 12 ounces each, f. o. b. Buenos Aires, less 9.4% for nondutiable charges.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that on or about the date of exportation of the merchandise here involved, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale for home consumption in Argentina.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the record in *United States*v. *International Commercial Co., Inc.*and *Armour & Co.,*Reappraisement Decision 8112, be incorporated in the record in the reappraisement appeals set forth in the attached schedule of cases, which are submitted for decision on this stipulation.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeals are abandoned as to any other merchandise listed on the invoices in any of these appeals for reappraisement.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the canned corned beef here involved, and that such value was $11 per case of 48 tins of 12 ounces each, f. o. b. Buenos Aires, less 9.4 per centum for nondutiable charges.

The appeals having been abandoned insofar as they relate to all other merchandise, to that extent the appeals are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
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

ANDRE RIDER,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1809 GEB CMK P

vs.

S. KERNAN, Warden, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma

pauperis.

Examination of the in forma pauperis affidavit reveals that petitioner is unable to

afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Since petitioner may be entitled to the requested relief if the claimed violation of

constitutional rights is proved, respondents will be directed to file a response to petitioner’s

application. 

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01809-GEB -CMK Document 6 Filed 05/26/05 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

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted;

2. Respondents are directed to file a response to petitioner’s application within

thirty days from the date of this order. See Rule 4, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. An answer

shall be accompanied by any and all transcripts or other documents relevant to the determination

of the issues presented in the application. See Rule 5, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases;

3. Petitioner’s traverse, if any, shall be filed and served within thirty days of

service of an answer;

4. If the response to petitioner’s application is a motion, petitioner’s opposition or

statement of non-opposition shall be filed and served within thirty days of service of the motion,

and respondents’ reply, if any, shall be filed within fifteen days thereafter; and

5. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order together with a copy of

petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on Jo Graves,

Senior Assistant Attorney General.

DATED: May 25, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01809-GEB -CMK Document 6 Filed 05/26/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 21





SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT





The following list sets forth subsidiaries of Katy Industries, Inc. as of March 31, 2011, as well as operating divisions of such subsidiaries, with successive indentation indicating parent/subsidiary relationships of such subsidiaries.  The state of jurisdiction or incorporation of each such subsidiary is stated in parentheses.  All such subsidiaries are 100% owned, directly or indirectly, by Katy Industries, Inc.  Omitted subsidiaries do not, in the aggregate, constitute a “significant subsidiary”.





American Gage & Machine Company (Illinois)


WP Liquidating Corp. (Illinois)


Ashford Holding Corp. (Delaware)


Continental Commercial Products, LLC (Delaware)


Continental (division)


Contico (division)


Container (division)


Disco (division)


Gemtex (division)


Glit (division)


Wilen (division)


CEH Limited (U.K.)


2155735 Ontario, Inc. (Canada)
 Glit/Gemtex, Ltd. (Canada)
 Gemtex Canada (Division)
 KMG Canada (Division)


GCW, Inc. (Delaware)


HPMI, Inc. (Delaware)


Hermann Lowenstein, Inc. (Delaware)


Katy International, Inc. (British Virgin Islands)


Katy Teweh Inc. (Delaware)


Wabash Holding Corp. (Delaware)


W.J. Smith Wood Preserving Company (Texas)


WII, Inc. (Delaware)


TTI Holdings, Inc. (Delaware)
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4853 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 449
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4853

To prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from promulgating or 
    enforcing rules regarding disclosure of artificial intelligence-
             generated content in political advertisements.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 30, 2024

Mr. Lee (for himself and Mr. Budd) introduced the following bill; which 
                        was read the first time

                             July 31, 2024

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from promulgating or 
    enforcing rules regarding disclosure of artificial intelligence-
             generated content in political advertisements.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Ending FCC Meddling in Our Elections 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION RULES 
              REGARDING DISCLOSURE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE-GENERATED 
              CONTENT IN POLITICAL TV AND RADIO ADVERTISEMENTS.

    (a) Definition.--In this section, the term ``rule'' has the meaning 
given the term in section 804 of title 5, United States Code.
    (b) Prohibition.--The Federal Communications Commission may not--
            (1) finalize or enforce the proposed rule adopted under the 
        Notice of Proposed Rulemaking entitled ``In the Matter of 
        Disclosure and Transparency of Artificial Intelligence-
        Generated Content in Political Advertisements'' (FCC 24-74; MB 
        Docket No. 24-211), adopted July 10, 2024; or
            (2) promulgate or enforce any rule that is substantially 
        similar to the proposed rule described in paragraph (1).
                                                       Calendar No. 449

118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 4853

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from promulgating or 
    enforcing rules regarding disclosure of artificial intelligence-
             generated content in political advertisements.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             July 31, 2024

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar
```
Case No. 8,481.

#### LONG v. ONEALE.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 233.]1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1804.2

Bond — Alteration—Interlineation—New Ob-ligor.

An interlineation of an appeal-bond, by inserting the name of a new obligor, and his executing ■the bond as a surety, without the consent of the other sureties, makes the bond void.

[NOTE. Mr. .Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the supreme court, in which he said that “the judges did not all agree upon the same grounds, some being of opinion that the bonds were void by reason of the interlineation, and others that they were vacated by the rejection of them by the magistrate, and could not hr set up again without a new delivery.” The last point was not considered in the opinion rendered in the circuit court above.]

Debt on an appeal-bond — plea, non est factum.

On the trial, Mr. Key, for defendant [William Oneale], prayed the court to instruct the jury, “That if they should be satisfied, by the evidence, that the bond was signed, sealed and delivered by Mary Sweeny, and by J. T. Frost and the defendant, as her sureties, and was afterwards presented to Cornelius Coningham, (the justice who had rendered the judgment,) for his approbation and acceptance of the sureties, and was by him refused and rejected; and after which objection was interlined, without the license, privity, and knowledge of the defendant, by inserting the name of Lund Washington, as a co-obligor, who, on the following day, without the privity, knowledge, and consent of the defendant, signed, sealed, and delivered the bond, which was afterwards approved by the justice, then such interlineation and execution of the said bond, by the said Lund Washington, rendered it void as to the defendant, and the plaintiff cannot recover in this suit” '

Mr. Key,, who argued the cause for the defendant,

cited the following authorities, viz.: Pigot’s Case, 11 Coke, 27; Shep. Touch. 63, 67, 69; Markham v. Gonaston, Cro. Eliz. 626; Esp. 223, 224; Zouch v. Claye, 2 Lev. 35; Maryland v. Gantt, in the general court of Maryland (not reported).

Mr. Mason, for plaintiff,

cited St. Md. 1791, c. 68, § 5, and Esp. 224.

2

 [Reversed in 4 Cranch (8 U. S.) 60.]

CRANCH, Circuit Judge,

was of opinion that the instruction prayed by Mr. Key ought to be given; but KILTY, Chief Judge, being of a different opinion, and FITZ-HUGH, Circuit Judge, being absent, the instruction was not given.

The defendant took a bill of exceptions, and upon a writ of error, the judgment was reversed by the supreme court ef the United States. See 4 Cranch [8 U. S.] 60.
---

---

Exhibit 13.(a).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 Partner Communications Company Ltd. (the
Company) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned hereby certify that to the best of our 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.

Date: May 18, 2006

| |  | /s/ Amikam Cohen
Amikam CohenChief Executive Officer
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 18, 2006

| |  | /s/ Alan Gelman
Alan GelmanChief Financial Officer
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------



---

---