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

I, Bryan Miller, hereby 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Sunergy, Inc. for the period
          ended September 30, 2010 (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 Sunergy, Inc.

Dated: July 18, 2011

                                          /s/ Bryan Miller
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Bryan Miller
                                          President and Director
                                          (Principal Executive Officer)
                                          Sunergy, Inc.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Sunergy, Inc. and will be retained
by Sunergy, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
Draft Proposal CA-19 

This concept has been developed by the DOE Building Energy Codes Program (BECP) as a possible code

change proposal to the Commercial provisions of the 2012 International Energy Conservation Code

(IECC).   Interested parties are asked to submit any and all comments on DOE's initial concepts and draft

code change proposals. For instructions on submitting comments, visit:

www.energycodes.gov/development/commercial/codes/iecc/concepts/

Limited Application of Air-Cooled Chillers (CA-19) 

Objective:  Require buildings with 300 tons or greater peak cooling load to have no more than 100 tons

served by air‐cooled systems.  Include exceptions for high‐efficiency air‐cooled systems and systems

with thermal storage.

Add Section C403.4.8 as follows:

C403.4.8 Limitation of Air-Cooled Chillers. Chilled water plants with more than 300 tons (85 kW) 

total capacity shall not have more than 100 tons (30 kW) provided by air-cooled systems.

Exceptions: 

1. Where the water quality at the building site fails to meet manufacturer’s specifications for the 

use of water-cooled chillers as approved by the code official.

2. Chillers that are used to charge a thermal energy storage system with a design temperature of 

less than 40°F (4°C).

3. Air-cooled systems with minimum efficiencies 15% greater than efficiencies required by 

section C402.3 or section C406.2, whichever is used.

Reason:  Water‐cooled chillers are significantly more efficient than air‐cooled chillers, using about

30 percent less energy.  Once a chiller plant reaches a certain size, it is reasonable to install the more

complex water‐cooled equipment.  The code change proposal limits the capacity of air‐cooled chillers in

larger chilled water plants.   

Cost Impact:  There would be a cost increase associated with this code change for buildings with chiller

plants larger than 300 tons in capacity that are not subject to the exceptions because those buildings

currently do not require more complex water‐cooled systems.  A detailed cost analysis conducted in

support of similar provisions in the 2008 California Title 24 (the California energy code) found that this

requirement was cost effective.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

MTGLQ INVESTORS, L.P.,

Respondent

v.

JONATHAN VALENTIN,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 2 EM 2020

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 17th day of March, 2020, the “Request for Leave to Fle a Nunc 

Pro Tunc Petition for Allowance of Appeal” is DISMISSED. Petitioner previously sought 

and was denied nunc pro tunc relief. See MTGLQ Investors, L.P. v. Valentin, 41 EM 2019 

(order dated Aug. 1, 2019)
Before the First Division,

January 14, 1942

No. 46816.

#### Protests 16975-K, etc., of Hammond Cedar Co., Ltd., et al. (New York).

*440Opinion by

Walker, J.

It was stipulated that the lumber in question is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Seaboard Lumber Sales Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 161, C. D. 391). In accordance therewith it was held that no addition should have been made to the imported quantity for planing, tonguing, and grooving. The protests were therefore sustained.
## Comments in Response to "Final rule; request for comments" Docket: FAA-2015-4381 Directorate Identifier 2015-SW-009-AD Comments have been received in response to: "Final rule; request for comments," Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket and Directorate Identifier entered above. (Project engineer: Please review any comments to determine 

### if additional action is warranted. Once you have made your determination,please jill in the commenter(s) name(s) and check the appropriate response below. Include additional information following the appropriate response, 

### if

necessary. Then includeyour name and the date in the spacesprovid ed , and return it to the AD directoratefocal. The FAA has reviewed comment(s) related to the above FAA Docket that we received from: Jean Louis Horcholle (Please check one) 1Z1 These comments have not been found to contain any information to warrant reconsideration or change ofthis AD . 

### D These comments have been found to contain information that warrants consideration of additional regulatory action . 

### (SEE Airworthiness Directives Manual F

AA-IR-M-8040.1 FOR ADDITIONAL ACTION.)



# ~ Name: DavidHaijield 06/02/20 16 Date:
(This form is part ofthe official docket file for this AD action.)

Rev 0 (9/08)
Exhibit 32.2

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 on Form 10-Q of The Medicines Company (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Donald R. Peck, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





| | /s/ Donald R. Peck
Donald R. Peck
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The First Marblehead Corporation and will be retained by The First
Marblehead Corporation and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.

---

QuickLinks
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6048

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

KELVIN D. SHERMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (CR-95-464, CA-97-1086)

Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 22, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kelvin D. Sherman, Appellant Pro Se. William Neil Hammerstrom, Jr.,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. United States v. Sherman, Nos.

CR-95-464; CA-97-1086 (E.D. Va. Nov. 7, 1997). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### The Bowery Savings Bank, *Plaintiff, v.*John Keenan, *Defendant.*

— Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, to be paid by the appellant Broekway. Opinion by Davis, P. J.
JACK KINGSTON 

1st District, Georgia 

WASHINGTON OFFICE 

2368 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

(202) 225-5831 

(202) 226-2269 FAX 

BRUNSWICK OFFICE 

Federal Building, Room 304 

805 Gloucester Street 

Brunswick, GA 31520 

(912)265-9010 

(912) 265-9013 FAX 

Committee On Appropriations 

Ranking Member, Agriculture Subcommittee 

Defense Subcommittee 

Cogren of the 'United ~tatcs 

lAouue of `Repreuentatines 

Lisa P. Jackson 

Administrator 

Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 

Washington, DC 20460-3300 

Dear Administrator Jackson, 

August 9, 2010 

SAVANNAH OFFICE 

One Diamond Causeway, Suite 7 

Savannah, GA 31406 

(912) 352-0101 

(912) 352-0105 FAX 

BAXLEY OFFICE 

P.O . Box 40 

Baxley, GA 31515 

(912)367-7403 

(912) 367-7404 FAX 

VALDOSTA OFFICE 

Federal Building, Room 218 

P.O. Box 5264 

Valdosta, GA 31603 

(229) 247-9188 

(229) 247-9189 FAX 

I strongly oppose the EPA's current proposed rule EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329. This rule 

presents an insurmountable barrier to many in the renewable energy industry . 

In Georgia's First District, Appling County Pellets currently manufactures wood pellets to fuel 

residential pellet stoves as well as boilers across the United States . The company employs 45, 

people in Appling County and the surrounding areas. Appling County has suffered during the 

economic downturn and currently has an 11 .6 percent unemployment rate . This rule would 

threaten the viability of Appling County Pellets . The "Alternative Approach" within the 

proposed rule classifies sawdust as solid waste . While the environmental community argues that 

any secondary material burned for energy should be classified as solid waste, this 

characterization is inaccurate. The process by which sawdust is made into wood pellets is a 

refined method. The sawdust is handled as a valuable and inimitable ingredient for the 

production of a traditional fuel source . The EPA should recognize the value of sawdust in the 

production process of wood pellets . 

As our nation struggles to recover from the current recession, I am deeply concerned that the 

potential impact of this pending regulation. I urge the EPA to abandon this rule and others that 

threaten American jobs. 

Sincerely, 

Kingston 

ember of Congress
# 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 Gryphon Gold Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period
ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Allen S. Gordon, President 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:  August 11, 2006 | By:   /s/ Allen S. Gordon 
        ________________________
        Allen S. Gordon      
            President
|---------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
(Reap. Dec. 10522)

#### Henry A. Wess, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 989, etc.

(Decided May 27, 1963)

*Tomplcins & Tompkins*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Richardson, Judge:

The reappraisement appeals enumerated in the attached schedule of cases, designated schedule A, have been submitted upon a stipulation, reading as follows:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between counsel for the Plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, Defendant, that the items marked “A” and initialed LEM or JEJ by Examiner Louis E. Mangett or J. F. Jedlieka on the invoices accompanying the entries covered by the reappraisement appeals listed in the Schedule A below, which Schedule A is made a part of this stipulation, consist of mechanical robot calendars exported from Denmark to the United States during the period from April 1959 through July 1959, appraised *481on the basis of “constructed value” as defined in Section 402(d) Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, at $1.95, each net packed, plus a royalty of $0.36 each to Gleerup Moller, of the same kind in all material respects, and sold to the importer herein under the same marketing and sales conditions, (except there was no sales commission to Hanson & Co.) as the merchandise and market and sales conditions involved in the case of *United States*v. *Henry A. Wess, Inc.*A.R.D. 142, wherein it was held that the royalty should not be included as a part of the “cost of production” dutiable value as defined in Section 402a (f) of said Act as amended.

> That at or about the time of exportation, neither such nor similar merchandise was freely sold or offered for sale for exportation to the United States, nor freely sold or offered for sale in the United States.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that the record in the case of *United States*v. *Henry A. Wess, Inc.,*A.R.D. 142, be incorporated in the record in this case, and that the reappraisement appeals be submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find:

1. That cost of production, as that value is defined in 19 U.S.C.A., section 1402(f) (section 402a(f), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended), is the proper basis for determination of the value of the merchandise described in the invoices accompanying the entries covered by the re-appraisement appeals listed in schedule A, attached hereto.

2. That the cost of production of such merchandise does not include a royalty of 2.4776 Danish kroner per piece.

3. That the cost of production of such merchandise is 13.7809 Danish kroner per piece.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 47417.

#### Protests 50918-K, etc., of E. R. Mellenger et al. (Portland, Maine).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

An examination of the record in each case failed to disclose anything that would warrant the court in disturbing the finding of the collector. The protests were therefore overruled.
4I0'268-S050-PH0N E 

LAW OFFICE OF 

ROBERT HENRY WALDMAN 

113 RiDGELY AVENU E 

ANNAPOLIS , MARYLAN D 21401 

rhwaldman(a)rhwaldman.com 

OCT" h i m 

410-269-1544~FAX 

September 20, 2010 

By Fax: 202-493-5142 and US Mail 

FAA 

800 Independence Ave., SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk - Ms. Stephanie McClain 

AGO - 430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

,._ j 

''-: > 

4=r 

CO 

o 

0-5 

Re: In the Matter of Mary Wootten CP 09 EA 0010 ( f/ ^ ,;2oC^ '^ ^ ^'^ 

Dear Ms. McClain, 

Please forward to me five blank signed subpoenas for the above matter. 

Robert H. Waldman
! "


#$		
%&
	'()*+,-"	 ./

/		
	/		/
-

	





	
	

	

	

	




	

	
	
	
		

	



 
!	

					


	

	


!
	
	

	
	
	

	

	

	


	 	

	

	!		



!	

	







	



"#$%	!	



&
'	 

(		
	

	
	

		
)

	
	*
 
	

	

+
	

!

,-


	
 '
!

	
	 *
	

	.


		
		
		
	
	

(
	


			

	

	



	/

● '

	

	
	
	 	

*	 

	

● 		

	
	

	0	
	





	

	


● '
	
	

	

!1	

	
	

		 



,	

-0	,	
-


	

	
	

● 2		
	
	
	
	




	
	







!	

(/'	


	
	

		


'
	 


	
	
	
	
	! 

	

	

(	
	
	
	 

	
!
 
		


	

	 
	

	
!
 


!	




	
	

#3%	
!

	!#455(67&8#45594$:935;!	




	


 (
	'
	
!
	
!





	
	

	


	
!	!
Before the Third Division,

May 19, 1955

No. 59090.

protests 117515-K, etc. (San Francisco).

#### Bellmar Liquor Company et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Etcwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33. C. D. 1155) and *United States*v. *The Josebra*
      *382
      *Company*(41 C. C. P. A. 206, C. A. D. 552), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Brian E. Schaaf, certify that:

 

1.                                    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Ford Credit Auto Owner Trust 2010-A (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.                                    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.                                    Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.                                    I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

 

5.                                    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The Bank of New York Mellon, as indenture trustee of the issuing entity, and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as owner trustee of the issuing entity.

 
| Dated   March 22, 2013 |   |                                               |
|-----------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                        |   |                                               |
|                        |   | /s/   Brian E. Schaaf                              |
|                        |   | Brian   E. Schaaf                                  |
|                        |   | Vice   President and Assistant Treasurer           |
|                        |   | Ford   Motor Credit Company LLC, as Servicer       |
|                        |   | (senior   officer in charge of servicing function) |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8729 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8729

 To ensure that institutions of higher education that withhold certain 
   transcripts are eligible to participate in title IV of the Higher 
             Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 13, 2024

    Mr. Green of Tennessee introduced the following bill; which was 
        referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To ensure that institutions of higher education that withhold certain 
   transcripts are eligible to participate in title IV of the Higher 
             Education Act of 1965, 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 ``No Backdoors for Student Debt 
Cancellation Act''.

SEC. 2. TITLE IV ELIGIBILITY.

    The Secretary of Education may not determine an institution of 
higher education (as such term is defined in section 102 of the Higher 
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002)) ineligible for participation in 
title IV of such Act (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.) because such institution 
withholds from a student, for any reason, transcripts that include all 
credit or clock hours for payment periods in which the student received 
funds under such title and for which all institutional charges were 
paid.
                                 <all>
```