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

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AD CHIEF FINANCIAL
  OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Steven Vestergaard, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
  1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
  that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Destiny Media Technologies, Inc. for
  the year ended August 31, 2009 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 the Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents,
  in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
  of Destiny Media Technologies, Inc. (the Company)





| | By:    | /s/ Steve
      Vestergaard
| | ------ | ---------------------------
| |        |                            
| | Name:  | STEVEN VESTERGAARD         
| |        |                            
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer    
| |        |                            
| | Date:  | November 30, 2009          



This written statement is being furnished to the Securities
  and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Companys Annual Report on
  Form 10-K. A signed original of this statement 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.

This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form
  10-K pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
  except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for
  purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 10934, as amended (the
  Exchange Act). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated
  by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or
  the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates
  it by reference.

---
#### Daria J. Mirkin, Petitioner *v.*Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent.

Argued May 6, 1981,

before Judges Craig, Mac-Pit a tt, and Palladino, sitting as a panel of three.

*538June 8, 1981:

*Roger A. Lee,*for petitioner.

*John Kupchinsky,*Assistant Attorney General, with him *Elsa D. Newman-Silverstein,*Assistant Attorney General, *Richard Wagner,*Chief Counsel, and *Harvey Bartle, III,*Attorney General, for respondent.

Opinion by

Judge Craig,

In this unemployment compensation appeal, the claimant1 questions a denial of compensation by the board,2 affirming a referee’s ruling that the claimant, a juvenile counselor, was ineligible for compensation because she was not available for work.3 We affirm.

On June 30,1978 the claimant was terminated from her last full-time employment as a youth counselor because of the closing of the youth center4 at which she had worked. Thereafter the claimant filed for compensation benefits, and on August 28, 1978, while in a continuing claim status with the compensation authorities, she became a full-time student. After completing her freshman classes, the claimant reopened her claim on April 22, 1979, but the compensation authorities denied eligibility on the ground of unavailability for work.

There is a presumption that a full-time student is not available for work, but a claimant can rebut the presumption if she can establish that she is attached to the labor force and that her primary purpose is to work, rather than to obtain an education. *Reardon v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review,*30 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 139, 373 A.2d 146 (1977).

*539Based on the evidence in the record, we cannot hold that the referee and board erred in concluding that this claimant did not rebut the presumption.

The claimant’s work record before and during the period she was a full-time student cannot be said to establish an attachment to the labor force. The record reveals that the claimant’s last full-time employment before she became a student lasted just six months, and that during the school year her only employment was a part-time work-study job organized around her class schedule. Although she applied for full-time employment for the summer of 1979, the compensation authorities concluded that two student loans, guaranteed to her for the 1979-80 school year, indicated an intention to remain a student in the fall. Thus, the evidence provides no support for the proposition that the claimant’s education was secondary to her desire for employment.

Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the board.

Order

And Now, June 8, 1981, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review at No. B-175028 is hereby affirmed.

1

 Daria J. Mirkin.

2

 Unemployment Compensation Board of Review.

3

 Section 401(d) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, *as amended,*43 P.S. §801 (d).

4

 Youth, Incorporated.
6998

#### CUNNINGHAM v. CLARENDON CO.

Appeal — Return—Evidence.—The county board op commissioners in passing on a claim against the county acts in a judicial capacity, from whose judgment the only remedy is appeal. The board may dispense with oral evidence and act on affidavits alone, and on appeal no affidavits can be heard by appeal court on behalf of county than those used at the hearing before the board. Where the minutes of the county board were taken as a return, without objection from the county, it cannot object here.

Before Prince, J., Clarendon.

Affirmed.

Action by J. H. Cunningham against Clarendon County. From judgment reversing judgment of County Board of Commissioners, defendant 'appeals.

*Mr. J. H. Lesesne,*for appellant,

cites: Code 1902, 769, 806; 40 S. C., 276; 22 S. E., 772.

*Mr. L. D. Jennings,*contra,

cites: 24 S. C., 543; 1 S. C., 403, 146, 622; 18 S. C., 150; 21 S. C., 414; 40 S. C„, 276; 42 S. C., 321; 55 S. C., 502.

*202September 1, 1908.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Woods.

The claim! of the plaintiff against the County of Clarendon for four thousand nine hundred thirty-two feet of heart lumber at $20 per M, $98.64, was considered by the county board of commissioners on 6th July, 1908, and allowed at the price of only $12 per M, for the lumber, $59.18. The plaintiff appealed, and the Circuit Court 'held the whole amount claimed should have been allowed, and so adjudged.

We are unable to see any ground upon which the judgment can be assailed. The county board of commissioners in passing upon the claims was not only acting in a judicial capacity, but it had exclusive original jurisdiction of the matter; and the only method by which the plaintiff could bring this judgment under review was by appeal to the Circuit Court. *Jennings*v. *Abbeville Co.,*24 S. C., 543.

The county board of commissioners might have required the plaintiff to have his witnesses appear in person to testify, but on the hearing before them' the plaintiff was allowed, without objection, to introduce in evidence affidavits in support of his claim, and it was too late to object to such evidence on appeal.

The objection that the Circuit Court could not hear the appeal without a formal return from the county board of commissioners, as required by statute, can not avail the appellant, because the minutes of the county board of commissioners were taken as the return by the Circuit Court without objection on behalf of the county.

It is equally clear the Circuit Judge could not consider affidavits on behalf of the county, which were not before the county board of commissioners when the claim was adjudicated by the board. *Moses*v. *Sumter Co.,*55 S. C., 502, 33 S. E., 581.

The judgment of this Court is that the judgment of the Circuit Court be affirmed.
No. 59080.

protest 215020-K (New York).

#### Geigy Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *John P. Herber & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 193, C. D. 1519), the protest was dismissed, and the matter was remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)).
Skip to main contentSkip      to footer site map

|  |
|--|
|  |  |

        -  DOJ Home 
        -  DOJ Archive 

This is an archive of US Department of Justice Web site documents.  These documents are no longer updated.  They may contain outdated information and links may no longer function.  Please contact the DOJ Webmaster if you have any questions about the DOJ archive site.

Agency Financial Reports2013

Performance & Accountability Reports:FY 2012  |  FY 2011  |  FY 2010  |  FY 2009 |  FY 2008 | FY 2007 | FY 2006 | FY 2005 | FY 2004 | FY 2003

FY 2002 Performance Report & FY 2003 Revised Final, FY 2004 Performance Plan

FY 2001 Performance Report & FY 2002 Revised Final Performance Plan, Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Plan

The Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Report and Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Plan

FY 2001 Summary Performance Plan

FY 2000 Summary Performance Plan

FY 1999 Summary Performance Plan

 

|                                                                                                                                |        |  ArchiveAccessibilityAdobe ReaderFOIANo FEAR ActInformation QualityPrivacy PolicyLegal Policies & Disclaimers Social MediaFor Employees Office of the Inspector GeneralPlain WritingUSA.govBusinessUSA  |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                |
| **ABOUT**The Attorney GeneralBudget & PerformanceHistoryPrivacy Program**AGENCIES**Organzational ChartAlphabetical Listing |   | **RESOURCES**BusinessFormsPublicationsInformation for Victims Large Cases**NEWS**Press ReleasesPublic ScheduleVideosPhotos                                                                                                 |   | **CAREERS**Legal CareersInterns, Recent Graduates, and Fellows**CONTACT** |
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, John A. Scarlett, M.D., certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Tercica, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Tercica, Inc.

Date: May 10, 2006



By:

/s/ John A. Scarlett, M.D.John A. Scarlett, M.D.Chief Executive Officer


This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Tercica, Inc. 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 Form
10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
## Where do we go from here? • Evaluating Pathways for Conceptual Models for Frac Fluid Release • Evaluating Chemicals for Relative Risk of Release and Potential Harm • Evaluating Geochemical Processes and Assessing Relative Risk • Quantifying Chemicals in Potential Sources • Designing Monitoring

## Evaluating Pathways for Conceptual Models for Frac Fluid



## Release • Assign relative risk of occurrence • Assign relative risk of mass migration • Prioritize type of contamination risk • ???

## Evaluating Chemicals for Relative Risk of Release and Potential

Harm • Toxicity • Concentration infracfluidvs toxicity levels • Mobility • Persistence • Aquifer characteristics • ???

## Evaluating Geochemical Impacts of

Sources

• Methane induced anaerobic conditions • TDS/Brine • NORM • Frac Fluid

## Quantifying Amount of Chemicals in Potential Sources
• Frac Fluid • Methane • Brine • NORM

## Designing Monitoring • Priorityanalytes • Analytical methods • Potential for false positives • Timing of analysis • Frequency of analysis • Rationale for expanding analysis

## Model for Future Workshops

• Have each preceding group provide notes/summary of workshop discussion • Provide direction with respect to material discussed • Provide direction with respect to priorities for each subject area/theme`
#### In the Matter of the New York, Lackawanna and Western Railway Company, to Acquire Real Estate of Minnie Van Zandt and others.

— Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, payable out of the income of the fund. Opinion by Hardin, J.
Before the First Division,

May 25, 1960

No. 64234.

protest 59/2 (New Tork).

#### Kurt S. Adler, Inc. *v.*United States,

*485Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

At the trial, it was stipulated that the items in question consist of separate entities; that one article, representing one-third of the value of the entire item, is a bell; and that the other article, representing two-thirds of the value of the entire item, is a manufacture of wood, not specially provided for. On the agreed facts, it was held that the bell in each of the items is dutiable, as assessed, on the basis of one-third of the value, and that the wooden article in each of the items is dutiable, as claimed, on the basis of two-thirds of the value.
#### KAMEN v DEPARTMENT OF STATE HIGHWAYS (KAMEN v STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION) (KAMEN v MICHIGAN)

Docket No. 55671.

Argued October 6, 1977

(Calendar No. 2).

Decided November 28, 1977.

Geneva M. Kamen and Herman Kamen, her husband, brought an action against the State Highway Commission and the state for damages arising when Geneva Kamen was injured while walking on a pedestrian walkway near the intersection of Five Mile Road and Telegraph Road in Wayne County, where the Department of State Highways was engaged in road repair and construction work. The Court of Claims, James J. Kelley, Jr., J., granted judgment for the defendants on the ground that the pedestrian walkway is not an "improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel” for which the state is liable within the terms of the governmental tort liability act. The Court of Appeals, Bronson, P. J., and Quinn and Van Valkenburg, JJ., affirmed per curiam (Docket No. 17291). Plaintiffs appeal. *Held:*

Leave to appeal was granted to consider a question under the governmental tort liability act. However, when the case was presented to the Court, the central issue concerned a procedural matter.

Therefore, the order granting leave to appeal is vacated as improvidently granted.

*Fieger, Golden & Cousens*for plaintiffs.

*Frank J. Kelley,*Attorney General, *Robert A. Derengoski,*Solicitor General, and *Louis J. Caruso*and *Myron A. McMillan,*Assistants Attorney General, for defendants.

Per Curiam.

Leave to appeal was granted to consider a question under the governmental liability act., However, when the case was presented to *82the Court, the central issue concerned a procedural matter.

We therefore believe leave to appeal was improvidently granted. The order of February 14, 1977 reported at 399 Mich 836 is vacated and leave to appeal is denied.

Kavanagh, C. J., and Williams, Levin, Coleman, Fitzgerald, Ryan, and Blair Moody, Jr., JJ., concurred.
Exhibit 32.3

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.§1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Winton/Graham Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund on Form 10-Q for the
period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, 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 Winton/Graham Series.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                                                                
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                              
|Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                                  
|President and Chief Executive Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of Winton/Graham Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund
|                                                                                                                                                
|/s/ Brent Bales                                                                                                                                 
|Brent Bales                                                                                                                                     
|Chief Financial Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of Winton/Graham Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund              

Date: November 26, 2008
- 1

- 

### S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

**C O U R T O F A P P E A L S**

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee, UNPUBLISHED July 27, 2017

v No. 331954 Saginaw Circuit Court LARRY DUANE CURRINGTON, LC No. 14

- 040592

- FC

Defendant

- Appellant.

Before: M ARKEY

, P .J., and R ONAYNE K RAUSE and B OONSTRA , JJ.

R ONAYNE K RAUSE

, J

. (concurring)

.

I concur with the majority in all respects but one. Because I agree that the challenged

statement from Detective Scott was harmless irrespective of whether it was hearsay, I would simply presume that it was hearsay and decline to decide that issue. The majority includes a paragraph that begins with “Further, even if the challenged testimony were hearsay an d thus

admitted in error

. . . ” i t did not affect “the outcome of the trial. ” Thus

, I see no reason to make

that decision with the limited facts in this case. In all other respects, I concur.

/s/ Amy Ronayne Krause
cc: Jeffrey Darrisaw 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2
#### In the Matter of the New York Elevated Railway Company.

Order appointing commissioners granted.
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 on Form 10-Q of The First Marblehead Corporation (the "Company") for the
quarter ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Daniel Meyers, Chief Executive Officer and President 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, to my knowledge:



Dated: November 6, 2009

/s/ DANIEL MEYERS Daniel Meyers Chief Executive Officer and President


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
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8480 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8480

     To require agencies to update mortgage underwriting programs, 
 guidelines, standards, and systems to require lenders to consider, in 
 the mortgage credit evaluation process, any amounts a borrower has in 
    any brokerage account associated with a cryptocurrency exchange.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 21, 2024

 Ms. Mace (for herself and Mr. Khanna) introduced the following bill; 
   which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in 
  addition to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To require agencies to update mortgage underwriting programs, 
 guidelines, standards, and systems to require lenders to consider, in 
 the mortgage credit evaluation process, any amounts a borrower has in 
    any brokerage account associated with a cryptocurrency exchange.

    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 ``American Homeowner Crypto 
Modernization Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. CONSIDERATION OF CRYPTOCURRENCY EXCHANGE BROKERAGE ACCOUNT 
              AMOUNTS.

    (a) In General.--Not later than the expiration of the 24-month 
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, each head of 
a covered agency shall, update the automated mortgage underwriting 
programs, guidelines, standards, and systems of such covered agency in 
a manner to require participating mortgage lenders to consider, in the 
mortgage credit evaluation process, any amounts in United States 
dollars a borrower has in any brokerage account associated with a 
cryptocurrency exchange.
    (b) Covered Agency.--The term ``covered agency'' means--
            (1) the Department of Housing and Urban Development;
            (2) the Department of Agriculture;
            (3) the Department of Veterans Affairs; and
            (4) the Federal Housing Finance Agency, except that any 
        requirement imposed by this section on such Agency or the 
        Director of such Agency shall be treated as a requirement with 
        respect to the mortgage underwriting programs or systems of the 
        Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan 
        Mortgage Corporation, to be imposed and enforced pursuant to 
        the authority of such Director and Agency to supervise and 
        regulate such enterprises.
                                 <all>
```