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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the
Quarterly Report of Tessera Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Bruce M.
McWilliams, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Bruce M. McWilliams              
|Bruce M. McWilliams                  
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|November 10, 2006                    



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Tessera Technologies, Inc, a Delaware
corporation (the Company), on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Michael A. Forman, Acting Chief Financial Officer and Vice President,
Finance of the Company, certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to my knowledge:

(1) The Report
fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Charles A. Webster                              
|Charles A. Webster                                  
|Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President
|November 10, 2006
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2004, (the Report) of UTEK Corporation (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Clifford M. Gross, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the
best of my knowledge, that:



(1) The Report fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/    CLIFFORD M.
GROSSName:

Clifford M. GrossDate:

February 24, 2005
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 5064 

To amend title 46, United States Code, to require applicants for grants 

that propose to use digital infrastructure or a software component to 

certify the applicant has an approved security plan that addresses the 

cybersecurity risks of such digital infrastructure or software, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 

Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Mr. PETERS) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To amend title 46, United States Code, to require applicants 

for grants that propose to use digital infrastructure or 

a software component to certify the applicant has an 

approved security plan that addresses the cybersecurity 

risks of such digital infrastructure or software, 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 ‘‘Protecting Investments 

5 in Our Ports Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 5064 IS

1 SEC. 2. PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 

2 APPLICATION PROCESS. 

3 Section 54301(a)(5)(A) of title 46, United States 

4 Code, is amended— 

5 (1) by striking ‘‘To be eligible’’ and inserting 

6 the following: 

7 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—To be eligible’’; 

8 and 

9 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

10 ‘‘(ii) ENSURING CYBERSECURITY.—If 

11 an applicant for a grant under this sub12 section is applying to use the grant to ac13 quire digital infrastructure or a software 

14 component, such applicant shall— 

15 ‘‘(I) certify the applicant has an 

16 approved security plan pursuant to 

17 section 70103(c) that addresses the 

18 cybersecurity risks of such digital in19 frastructure or software; or 

20 ‘‘(II) provide a brief description 

21 in the application of how the applicant 

22 will address the cybersecurity risks of 

23 such digital infrastructure or software 

24 if the applicant does not have such 

25 approved security plan. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 5064 IS

1 ‘‘(iii) UPDATE OF FACILITY SECURITY

2 PLAN.—An applicant for a grant under 

3 this subsection applying to use such grant 

4 to acquire digital infrastructure or a soft5 ware component that does not have an ap6 proved security plan pursuant to section 

7 70103(c) that addresses the cybersecurity 

8 risks of such digital infrastructure or soft9 ware shall ensure that the security plan 

10 under section 70103(c) of such applicant is 

11 updated to address the cybersecurity risks 

12 described in clause (ii)(II) in the next up13 date required under paragraph (3)(G) of 

14 such section.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
(Reap. Dec. 8871)

Entry No. 34733, etc.

#### Barnett Int. Forwarders, Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided June 25, 1957)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, 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 STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that at the time of exportation of the merchandise embraced in the entries covered by the Appeals to Reappraisement noted above, there was no foreign value, export value or United States value, as defined in Section 402 (c) (d) (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, for such or similar merchandise;

> That cost of production is the proper basis of value;

> That the cost of production of said merchandise as defined in Section 402 (f) is equivalent to the invoice unit values, packed, and that there was no higher value;

> That the appeals to reappraisement herein may be submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were the invoice unit values, packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Before the Third Division,

April 27, 1949

No. 53082.

#### American Express Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 38993-K/ 89548, etc. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the issue herein is the same in all material respects as that presented in *Mammy Bros., Inc.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 135, C. D. 1142). In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying -rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries. The protests were sustained to this extent.
#### Michael Reynolds et al., Respondents, v Standard Fire Insurance Company, Doing Business as Aetna Life & Casualty, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 163]

—In an action to recover damages pursuant to a homeowner’s insurance policy, the defendant appeals from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Henry, J.), dated July 20, 1994, which, *inter alia,*granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ cross motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of coverage under the homeowner’s insurance policy and denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the branch of the plaintiffs’ cross motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of coverage under the homeowner’s insurance policy is denied, the defendant’s motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The homeowner’s insurance policy in the instant case contained an exclusion for "loss resulting directly or *indirectly*from: * * * water damage” (emphasis added), except in situations of, *inter alia,*"[d]irect loss by * * * explosion * * * resulting from water damage”. The Supreme Court found that the water damage exclusion did not preclude coverage because the plaintiffs’ losses were caused primarily by oil damage and secondarily by water damage. We disagree.

It is well settled that where the provisions of an insurance contract are clear and unambiguous, they should be given their plain meaning *(see, Goldman & Sons v Hanover Ins. Co.,*80 NY2d 986; *Commissioners of State Ins. Fund v Insurance Co.,*80 NY2d 992). Here, two theories were advanced as to how the plaintiffs’ losses occurred. According to one theory, water flooded the basement of the plaintiffs’ house, lifted their fuel oil tank from the floor, and broke the oil supply line, causing oil to escape through the broken supply line into the basement. *617According to the other theory, water flooded the plaintiffs’ basement, entered the vent pipe of the fuel oil tank, and displaced the oil in the tank, causing oil to escape into the basement. Under either theory, the plaintiffs’ losses due to oil damage were caused indirectly by water. Thus, given the clear and unambiguous exclusion contained in the homeowner’s insurance policy for loss resulting directly *or indirectly*from water damage, coverage was precluded. Furthermore, none of the explanations offered by the plaintiffs as to how the damage occurred establish that the loss was caused by an explosion. Joy, J. P., Hart, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.
# Sincerely, p. 1



# Che nours

- The Chemours Company FC, LLC

67 Canal Road, P. 0. Box 9001

Deepwater, New Jersey 08023



# CBIC Control Number



# 366106

August 19, 2015 rr.) 

# e=,



# Director, Chemical Control Division

US Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

EPA East

Room 4146

1201 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20004

Re: EPA — HQ — OPPT — 2003 — 0012

Chemours Chambers Works NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005100

PFOA Data Submittal — Outfall DSN662 Weekly Grab Samples

July 2015 Sample Data

Dear Chemical Control Division:

Attached please find summaries of PFOA analytical results for the Chemours Chambers Works

weekly grab samples taken at internal outfall DSN662A in July 2015.

In accordance with the current site NJPDES permit (NJ0005100, effective September 2011),

these results are provided to NJDEP on a monthly basis via electronic discharge monitoring

reports. The enclosures include two paper and two electronic copies of the analytical results

from this monitoring period.

NJDEP has asked The Chemours Company FC, LLC to analyze for and report monthly Spot

662 PFNA concentrations for the next 12 months. The laboratory analyzed both the 7/13/2015

and the 7/20/2015 samples but going forward we expect to analyze and report one sample per

month.

R/1415



# Amu a Jeyarajasingam

Area Manager-Secure Environmental Treatment

Chemours Chambers Works

AJ/cic

Enclosures

# , p. 2



# Copy to:

Document Control Office

US Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

EPA East

Room 6428

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Ms. Heather Genievich (cover letter only)

NJDEP Division of Water Quality

Bureau of Surface Water Permitting

Mail Code 401-02B

401 E. State Street

P.O. Box 420

Trenton, NJ 08625-0420

# P. 3represent asingleanalysis,exceptforthesamplecollected on7/20115.lumberforCriticalPathServicesLLC isPA072.Jo4swimpepodeiau}puepaule;qosemuo!speldeiqe4degovqeijoebeleneeqweseadaigl./OZ/L uopepenoceidweseul1662-GRAB 

# 0 0 1-LVZVN 

# , 

# IIIL662-GRABL7/20/15 

# 0 0Izz's[Z0170PFNA= PerfluorononanoicAcidPFOA=PerfluorooctanoicAcidug/L =microgramsperLiterug/L = microgramsperliterorpartsperbillio1LOQ =limit of quantification= 0.100 ug/LiticalPathSend662-GRAB17/13/15 

# 0 019L'Ei-ct7•0=notanalyzedduplicateresults.TheNJDEP lab certificationrI662-GRABl./9/L 

# 0 0ILvo1VNlateidwes,ewa1(41)dolwouosj#aw3tidna



# I/COielO1(a) •s5161 

# Isiiun1/5n-On



# .91.Are-Ukf- 

# < < 0 Z

-L LL

10 

# a.<and ND = Nondetect at stated reportinglimit
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

Public Warehousing Company K.S.C. ) 

) 

Under Contract Nos. SP0300-03-D-3061 ) 

SPM300-05-D-3119 ) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 56022 

Michael R. Chamess, Esq. 

Adrianne L. Goins, Esq. 

Bryan T. Bunting, Esq. 

Vinson & Elkins LLP 

Washington, DC 

Daniel K. Poling, Esq. 

DLA Chief Trial Attorney 

Keith J. Feigenbaum, Esq. 

Trial Attorney 

DLA Troop Support 

Philadelphia, PA 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Pursuant to the unopposed motion of appellant Public Warehousing Company 

K.S.C. dated 8 June 2017, this appeal is dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 13 June 2017 

JAMES R. SWEET 

Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 56022, Appeal of Public Warehousing 

Company K.S.C., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
Case No. 14,508.

#### UNITED STATES v. The BALTIC.

[The case reported under the above title in 7 Int. Rev. Rec. 77, is the same as Case No. 821.]
(V. D. 56)

Entry No. 965679.

#### Manca, Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided December 11, 1957)

*Eugene R. Pickrell*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

This matter is presently before me on a remand from a classification proceeding decided by the first division in *533
      *Manca, Inc.*v. *United States,*35 Cust. Ct. 227, Abstract 59247. The judgment entered therein stated: *“* *** that the matter be remanded to a single judge in reappraisement pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)

The matter has been submitted for decision upon an agreed statement of facts entered into by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto.

Upon the agreed facts, I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), to be the proper basis for determining the values of the involved merchandise and that such values were as follows:

> Merchandise United States dollars per each

> 1 microscope_ $400. 56

> Wooden container to fit_ 13. 44

I further find such values to be the dutiable values of said merchandise.

Insofar as the matter relates to all other merchandise, it is hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
[No. 19206.

Department Two.

January 3, 1894.]

#### O. J. BARKER et al., Respondents, *v.*JOHN MASKELL et al., Defendants, JOHN MASKELL, Appellant.

Chattel Mortgage—Furniture of Lodging-House—Purchase Price— Pleading—Ambiguity.—A mortgage upon the furniture and upholstery of a lodging-house is valid as between the parties to it, regardless of whether or not it is given for the purpose of securing the purchase price of the property therein described; and a demurrer to a complaint, in an action to foreclose the mortgage, on the ground that the complaint is ambiguous in that it fails to show that the mortgage was given to secure the payment of the purchase price of the property is properly overruled.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

*Hugh J. & William*Crawford, for Appellant.

*Albert M. Stephens,*for Respondents.

De Haven, J.

The action is for the foreclosure of a mortgage upon certain furniture and upholstery used in a lodging-house in the city of Los Angeles. The mortgage was executed to the plaintiffs by one of the defendants for the purpose of securing a promissory note made by himself and the other defendant.

*10We think it sufficiently appears from the complaint that the note was given for the purchase price of the property mortgaged, and, therefore, the mortgage is one to secure the purchase money of the articles mortgaged, and valid under section 2955 of the Civil Code. But even if it should be conceded that the complaint is ambiguous, and fails to show that the mortgage was given for the purpose of securing the purchase price of the property therein described, still the mortgage is valid as between the parties to it, and the complaint states a good cause of action from either point of view.

There was no error in overruling the demurrer.

Judgment affirmed.

Fitzgerald, J., and McFarland, J. concurred.
No. 52688.

protests 830040-G, etc. (New York).

#### Louis Meyers & Son, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim of the plaintiff was therefore sustained.
No. 53643.

protests 130908-K, etc. (New York).

#### Tropical Creations et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of sisal handbags similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Goldberg & Seltzer, Inc.*(36 C. C. P. A. 64, C. A. D. 399), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****1995 assisted reproductivetechnology success rates [electronic resource]: national summary and fertilityclinic reports**
 
V1: Eastern United States | V2: CentralUnited States | V3: Western United States
 
SuDoc Number:HE 20.7602:98014992
Item Number:0494-H-04 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000482843
 
February 6, 2020
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Louis Lorenzi, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 76]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James Leff, J.), rendered September 23, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 2 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s knowledge that the vehicle he was driving had been stolen was proven by legally sufficient evidence, including his exclusive possession of it less than three weeks after it was stolen from the auto dealer *(see, People v Rogers,*186 AD2d 438, *lv denied*81 NY2d 765; *cf., People v Richlia,*41 AD2d 955), the positioning of the front license plate in the front window, attachment of the rear license plate to the rear bumper with a wire hanger, and the damage to the dashboard of this brand new vehicle due to the removal of the radio. Defendant’s explanation that he rented this brand new vehicle worth over $24,000 from a complete stranger for $40 was properly placed before the jury, and we find no reason to disturb its determination. Defendant’s remaining contentions *263are unpreserved, and in any event, without merit. We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Aeolus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, John L. McManus, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, and Russell Skibsted, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, each certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:
 
 1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 Date: August 15, 2011
 
 
 /s/ John L. McManus
 John L. McManus
 President and Chief Executive Officer
 (Principal Executive Officer)
 
 
 
 Date: August 15, 2011
 
 /s/ Russell Skibsted
 Russell Skibsted
 Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
 (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
 
 
 
 THIS CERTIFICATION “ACCOMPANIES” THE QUARTERLY REPORT, IS NOT DEEMED FILED WITH THE SEC AND IS NOT TO BE INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO ANY FILING OF THE COMPANY UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED, OR THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED (WHETHER MADE BEFORE OR AFTER THE DATE OF THE ANNUAL REPORT), IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY GENERAL INCORPORATION LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN SUCH FILING. A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS CERTIFICATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE COMPANY AND WILL BE RETAINED BY THE COMPANY AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeals of -- )

)

Titan One Zero, LLC ) ASBCA Nos. 63106, 63424

)

Under Contract No. N00014-20-C-2043 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Matthew R. Keller, Esq. 

Kristen L. Loesch, Esq.

 Praemia Law, PLLC

 Reston, VA

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Craig D. Jensen, Esq.

 Navy Chief Trial Attorney

Adam A. Orr, Esq.

Catherine M. Kellington, Esq.

 Trial Attorneys

 Arlington, VA

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE O’CONNELL

The parties have resolved their dispute and request that the Board enter 

judgment in favor of appellant. The parties have stipulated that the property under the 

subject contract was incorrectly added to the contract and that the contract ended on 

July 30, 2021.

It is the Board’s decision, pursuant to 41 U.S.C. §§ 7105(e), 7108(b), and the 

parties’ stipulation and agreement, that the appeal is sustained. In the nature of a 

consent judgment, the Board makes a monetary award to appellant in the amount of

$1,800,000. Appellant has agreed to waive Contract Disputes Act interest.

Dated: October 19, 2022

Michael N. O’Connell

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

(Signatures continued)
2

I concur

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD

Administrative Judge

Acting Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

I concur

OWEN C. WILSON

Administrative Judge

Vice Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the 

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 63106, 63424 Appeals of 

Titan One Zero, LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: October 20, 2022

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals