alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32



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 Fruit Of The Loom Unsecured Creditors Trust (the UCT) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, W. Edward Clingman, Jr., a principal of Clingman & Hanger Management Associates, LLC, Trust Administrator of the UCT, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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



|                         |  |     |  |                                                                                                                       
|------------------------ |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: September 14, 2005 |  | By: |  | Clingman & Hanger Management Associates, LLC as
Trust Administrator of the Fruit Of The Loom Unsecured Creditors Trust
|                         |  |    
|                         |  |     |  | /s/ W. Edward Clingman, Jr.                                                                                           
|                         |  |     |  | W. Edward Clingman, Jr.                                                                                               
|                         |  |     |  | Principal
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4909 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4909

    To clarify the use of direct deposit for contributions to ABLE 
                               programs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 31, 2024

   Mr. Casey (for himself, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Welch, Mr. Van 
 Hollen, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Sanders, and Ms. Duckworth) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                                Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To clarify the use of direct deposit for contributions to ABLE 
                               programs.

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

SECTION 1. USE OF DIRECT DEPOSIT FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO ABLE PROGRAMS.

    No provision of law shall be construed to prevent the use of direct 
deposit for making contributions to qualified ABLE programs (as defined 
in section 529A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986).
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TOSECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the annual report of AcuNetx, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "Report"), I, Acting Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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




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


Date:
      April 12, 2010
              By:
              /s/ Robert S.
      Corrigan
                  Robert
      S. Corrigan,
                  Acting
      Chief FinancialOfficer
 This
Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, and shall not be deemed "FILED" by the Company for purposes of Section
18 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective
of any general incorporation language contained in such
filing.
No. 63153.

#### Walborg Corporation *v.*United States,

protest 58/17318 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 52 (Monday, March 19, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 12813]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4904]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs


Indian Gaming

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Approved Tribal-State Compact.

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

SUMMARY: This notice publishes approval of the compact between the 
Sovereign Indian Nation of the Omaha Tribe of Nebraska and the 
Sovereign State of Iowa.

DATES: Effective Date: March 19, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George T. Skibine, Director, Office of 
Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary--Policy and 
Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2710, the 
Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the Federal Register notice 
of approved Tribal-State Compacts for the purpose of engaging in class 
III gaming activities on Indian lands. This compact allows for the 
extension of the current compact and clarifies the regulatory scheme.

    Dated: March 7, 2007.
Michael D. Olsen,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. E7-4904 Filed 3-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-4N-P
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration # 10780]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Missouri (FEMA-1673-DR), dated 12/29/2006. *Incident:*
                         Severe Winter Storms. *Incident Period:*
                         11/30/2006 through 12/02/2006 *Effective Date:*
                         12/29/2006. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         02/27/2007.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 12/29/2006, private non-profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: Primary Counties: Boone, Cole, Greene, Iron, Reynolds, St. Francois, St. Louis, St. Louis (City), Ste. Genevieve, Washington. *The Interest Rates are:* PercentOther (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available Elsewhere
5.250Businesses And Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 10780. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008). Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. E7-480 Filed 1-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     USD

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         35,896
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  40,688
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    19,734
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               119,829
<PP&E>                                         1,343,384
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (326,042)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,725,411
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          92,834
<BONDS>                                        1,045,241
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     392,280
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,725,411
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               340,683
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  112,801
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               62,463
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             72,537
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                92,882
<INCOME-TAX>                                   30,912
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            61,970
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (17,478)
<CHANGES>                                      44,492
<NET-INCOME>                                   0
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
Case No. 3,4,498.

#### UNITED STATES v. BAKER.

[See Gase No. 14,501.]
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v CLARK E. HARTSOCK, Jr., Airman Second Class, U. S. Air Force, Appellant

14 USCMA 221, 33 CMR 433

No. 17,016

September 5, 1963

*222
      *Colonel Daniel E. Henderson, Jr.,*and *Major Hugh J. Dolan*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Emanuel Lewis*was on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

Pleading guilty in each instance to the lesser included offense of wrongful appropriation, in violation of Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 121, 10 USC § 921, the accused was found guilty of larceny, as charged, in violation of the same Article. He was sentenced to bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of $55.00 per month for six months, confinement at hard labor for six months, and reduction to airman basic, which punishment has been affirmed below.

Following his instructions to the special court-martial on the elements of larceny and those of the lesser offense of wrongful appropriation, the president advised the members as follows:

> “Should you fail to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused *did not intend to permanently deprive or defraud*. . . [his victims] of the use or benefit of the property alleged, or to permanently, appropriate the same to his own use or the use of any other person other than the true owner, then you may not find him guilty of larceny; however, you may, by appropriate exceptions (and substitutions)' find him guilty of the lesser offense of wrongful appropriation, if you are satisfied that each of the elements of such lesser offense has been established by legal and competent evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.” [Emphasis supplied.]

The instruction is prejudicially erroneous as, in conflict with the earlier advice, it permitted the court to find accused guilty of larceny even though it determined he did not have the intent to steal. United States v Noe, 7 USCMA 408, 22 CMR 198; United States v Skonberg, 10 USCMA 57, 27 CMR 131; United States v Holloway, 10 USCMA 595, 28 CMR 161.

The decision of the board of review is reversed and the record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force. In light of accused’s provident plea of guilty to wrongful appropriation, the board may, as to both specifications, reduce the findings of ghilty to that offense and reassess the sentence, or it may order a rehearing.
# C_2008162EN.01008602.xml

| 25.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 162/86 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 162/86

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation (EC) No .../... of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the general rules on the definition, description and presentation of aromatised wines, aromatised wine-based drinks and aromatised wine-product cocktails (Recast)

COM(2007) 848 final — 2007/0287 (COD)

(2008/C 162/20)

On 22 January 2008 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Articles 37 and 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a Regulation (EC) No .../... of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the general rules on the definition, description and presentation of aromatised wines, aromatised wine-based drinks and aromatised wine-product cocktails (Recast)

Proposal for a Regulation (EC) No .../... of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the general rules on the definition, description and presentation of aromatised wines, aromatised wine-based drinks and aromatised wine-product cocktails (Recast)

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the contents of the proposal and has already set out its views on the subject in its earlier opinion CESE 413/1996, adopted on 27 March 1996 (1), it decided, at its 442nd plenary session, held on 13 and 14 February 2008 (meeting of 13 February), by 131 votes to 1 with 8 abstentions to issue an opinion endorsing the proposal and to refer to the position it had taken in the above-mentioned document.

1

Brussels, 13 February 2008.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

---

(1)  Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) to amend Regulation (EEC) No 1601/91 laying down general rules on the definition, description and presentation of aromatised wines, aromatised wine-based drinks and aromatised wine-based cocktails — COM(1995) 570 final (OJ C 174 of 17.6.1996, p. 30).

1

---
Exhibit 4.3


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the
reference made to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Part B of the Prospectus
and to the use of our report dated March 17, 2015, in this Registration Statement (Form S-6 No. 333-201718) of Smart Trust, New
York Municipal Portfolio of Closed-End Funds Trust, Series 9 .


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


March 17, 2015
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles Mikel, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 1006]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The inadvertent viewing by four jurors of defendant when he was handcuffed and in the custody of a Sheriff’s Deputy does not require reversal of the conviction of defendant for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the second degree and other related crimes. The court questioned each juror individually with counsel and defendant present, properly determined that each would remain impartial and gave each an appropriate instruction *(see, People v Hart,*197 AD2d 405, *lv denied*82 NY2d 925; *People v McCummings,*195 AD2d 880, 881; *People v Brown,*157 AD2d 790, 791, *lv denied*76 NY2d 731). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mark, J.—Unauthorized Use Motor Vehicle, 2nd Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Wesley, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
#### L. H. Vinnedge v. Atlantic Shell Company

179 So. 164.

Division A.

Opinion Filed February 5, 1938.

Rehearing Denied March 4, 1938.

*134*Denison & Sample*and *Vocelle & Mitchell,*for Appellant;

*Fred M. Valz*and *Sam B. Stearns,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

In this case the appeal is from decree granting writ of assistance pursuant to foreclosure and sale of property in proceedings to foreclose a mortgage or trust deed.

Appellant was one of the defendants in the foreclosure suit.

When petition was filed praying writ of assistance appellant was in possession of at least a part of the property of which he'was in possession at the time of the institution of the suit and at all times during the progress of the suit, as is shown by his answer.

The appellant filed answer in opposition to the writ of assistance.

Motion was made to strike paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the answer, which motion was granted.

The allegations of the answer were insufficient to show any defense to the issuance of the writ of assistance.

The order granting motion to strike was without error and is affirmed.

So ordered.

Ellis, C. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.

Wi-iitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
November 15, 2012

Mr. David W. Sullivan Balloonacy, L td. , LLC School of Applied Aerostation

125 Redwood Circle Fayetteville, GA 30214

Dear Mr. Sullivan :

Th is is in response to your August 13, 2012 le tter ( D ocket No. FAA

- 20 12

- 0816 ) petitioning

the Federal Aviation Admi nistration on behalf of Balloonacy, L td

. , LLC School of Applied

Aerostation (Balloonacy) to amend 14 CFR p art 1, Definitions and Abbreviations, to include

the definition for “Thermal Airship”

.

The definition for thermal airship , as proposed by the petit ioner, would be an engine

- driven lighter

- than

- air aircraft t hat can be steered , and derives its lift using an airborne heater. The proposed amendment , if granted, would be the first step in the process of amending 14 CFR

p art 61

, as necessary
, to provide for pilot certification of thermal airship pilots within the United States regulatory structure.

The petition for rulemaking submitted by Balloonacy pertains to an aircraft certification issue rather than a pilot certification issue . Part 1, section 1.1 d efines an “ A irship ” as an engine

driven lighter

- than

- air aircraft t hat can be steered ; t he petitioner’s proposed term “Thermal Airship” currently meets that definition. Airmen certification for the privilege of operating an airship is clearly defined in 1 4 CFR p art 61 for both private and commercial lighter

- than

air airship

.
Aircraft, including airships, which are not manufactured to a type design, are not eligible for

a standard airworthiness certificate. Aircraft that have been issued a special airwor thiness certificate in the experimental category are restricted from certain types of operations. In § 91.319(a), it states that no person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental certificate for other than the purpose for which the certificate wa s issued ; or carrying persons or property for compensation or hire . Aircraft that have a standard airworthiness certificate

do not have the § 91.319(a) restriction.2
When considering your petition for rulemaking, the FAA uses guidance outlined in 14 CFR § 11.73. As stated in that section, the FAA uses the following criteria when making a decision as to whether or not to amend current regulations based on a petition for rulemaking:

1) immediacy of the safety or security concerns you raise; 2) the priority of other issues the FAA must deal with; and 3) the resources we have available to address these issues.

After reviewing the request for rulemaking submitted by Balloonacy, the FAA do es not consider there is an immediate safety or security concern and do es no t have the available

resources at this time to initiate this regulatory project at this time. T herefore , we will take no further action on this petition

.

Sincerely,

/s/

John M. Allen Director, Fligh t Standards

Service
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to 18 United States Code § 1350

The undersigned hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 of Jafra Worldwide Holdings (Lux) S.àr.l.
(the Company) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained
in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

| |  |                        
| |  | -----------------------
| |  | /s/ RONALD B. CLARK    
| |  | Ronald B. Clark        
| |  | Chief Executive Officer

August 14, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Jafra Cosmetics International, Inc. and will be retained by it
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

58
# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 January 17, 2007 Before Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge Hon. KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge Hon. ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge
No. 05-3510
RITA J. M C CONVILLE, Petitioner , v. UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,Respondent
. Petition for Review of an Order of the Securities and Exchange Commission
No. 3-11330

O R D E R On November 27, 2006, McConville filed a petition fo r rehearing en banc. On consideration of the petition for rehearing, the slip opinion i ssued in the above-entitled cause on October 11, 2006 is hereby amended as follows. On page 11, the following footnote is added to the paragraph that currently ends with “ Id. at 142.”: McConville is not being found liable under an aiding and abetting theory of liability. It should be noted, however, that the Secur ities Exchange Act provides that in certain actions brought by the SEC, liability attach es to “any person that knowingly provides substantial assistance to another” in violation of the statute. See 15 U.S.C. § 78t(e). Congress enacted this provision subsequent to the Supreme Court’s decision in Central Bank of Denver, N.A. v. Fi rst Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A. , which holds that there is no aiding and abetting liability in private actions under § 10(b) and RuleNo. 05-3510 Page 2

10b-5. See 511 U.S. 164, 191 (1994). In all other respects, the members of the original panel have voted to D ENY the petition for rehearing. No judge in regular active service re quested a vote on the petition for rehearing en banc. Accordingly, the petition for rehearing is D ENIED .