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

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the quarterly report of BioVeris Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Samuel J. Wohlstadter, 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.

                                                                                                                                      
| Dated: February 10, 2006 | /s/ Samuel J. Wohlstadter            |
|--------------------------|--------------------------------------|
|                     | Samuel J. Wohlstadter                |
|                     | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

                

 

A signed copy of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
Table      of      Contents

**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      OF PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | (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: July 14, 2006 | /s/ Timothy G. Wahlberg Timothy                  G. WahlbergPresident |
|---------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: July 14, 2006 | /s/ John A. Irwin John                    A. IrwinChief                    Financial Officer |
|---------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 64 (Wednesday, April 4, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16384-16385]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6278]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 731-TA-706 (Second Review)]


Canned Pineapple Fruit From Thailand

Determination

    On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject five-year 
review, the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) 
determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act), that revocation of the antidumping duty 
order on canned pineapple fruit from Thailand would be likely to lead 
to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the 
United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).
    \2\ Commissioners Irving A. Williamson and Dean A. Pinkert did 
not participate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Commission instituted this review on April 3, 2006 (71 FR 
16585) and determined on July 7, 2006 that it would conduct a full 
review (71 FR 47523, August 17, 2006). Notice of the scheduling of the 
Commission's review and of a public hearing to be held in connection 
therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of 
the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and 
by publishing the notice in the Federal Register on August 8, 2006 (71 
FR 45073). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on January 18, 2007, 
and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear 
in person or by counsel.
    The Commission transmitted its determination in this review to the 
Secretary of Commerce on March 29, 2007. The views of the Commission 
are

[[Page 16385]]

contained in USITC Publication 3911 (March 2007), entitled Canned 
Pineapple Fruit from Thailand (Inv. No. 731-TA-706 (Second Review)).

    Issued: March 30, 2007.

    By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
 [FR Doc. E7-6278 Filed 4-3-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
POWER OF ATTORNEY
 FOR
 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 AND RELATED FILINGS
 
 
 EachoftheundersignedDirectors ofFIRSTHAND TECHNOLOGY VALUE FUND, INC. (the “Fund”) hereby appoints KEVIN LANDIS hisattorneys-in-factandagents,in allcapacities,toexecuteand to file any documentsrelating to the RegistrationStatements on Form N-2 under theInvestmentCompany Act of 1940,under theSecuritiesAct of 1933 of the Fund and under the laws of the states and otherjurisdictions,including any and all amendments thereto,covering the registration and the sale of shares by the Fund,includingallexhibits and any and alldocumentsrequired to be filed with respect thereto with any regulatory authority, including proxy statements, 10-Ks, and applications for exemptive orders or rulings.Each of the undersigned grants to each of said attorneysfullauthorityto doeveryactnecessaryto be done in order to effectuate the same as fully, to all intents and purposes, as he could do if personallypresent,thereby ratifying all that saidattorney-in-facts and agents may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.
 
 TheundersignedDirectorsherebyexecute this Power of Attorney as of this 10th day of March, 2014.
 
 /s/ Greg BurglinGreg Burglin/s/ Mark FitzGeraldMark FitzGerald/s/ Kimun LeeKimun Lee
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Be th Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 28, 2015

t0420 

# Order

Clerk April 28, 2015

148994

DAVID A. CHERRY,

Plaintiff

- Appell ant,

v SC: 148994

COA: 319071

Genesee CC: 13

- 100137

- CZ

RICHMOND M. RIGGS,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 14, 2014

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-30979 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CHRISTOPHER VON NORMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CR-86 A

- - - - - - - - - - October 23, 1997 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Court-appointed counsel for Christopher Von Norman has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and we have independently reviewed counsel's brief and the record and found no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS
DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Norman’s motion for production of the record, entitled “Petition Request under the Freedom of Information Act,” is DENIED.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In re D. Houston, Inc. D/B/A Treasures

Appellate case number: 01-18-00732-CV

Trial court case number: 2017-71771

Trial court: 133rd District Court of Harris County

On August 15, 2018, relator, D. Houston, Inc. D/B/A Treasures, filed a petition for 

writ of mandamus and an emergency motion to stay pending mandamus, requesting that 

we stay the trial court’s “Order Denying Defendant’s Motion To Quash and for Protective 

Order” entered July 3, 2018. We grant relator’s emergency motion to stay the trial court’s 

July 3, 2018 order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(b). This stay is effective until the case in 

this Court is finally decided or the Court otherwise orders the stay lifted. Any party may 

file a motion for reconsideration of the stay. See id. 52.10(c).

Further, the Court requests that the real parties in interest respond to the petition for 

writ of mandamus. It is ordered that the response of any interested party, if any, shall be 

due no later than 20 days from the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Chief Justice Sherry Radack

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: August 16, 2018
(Reap. Dec. 8591)

#### Otto Kadmon *v.*United States

Entry Nos. W-82852; 727755-1/2.

(Decided June 15, 1956)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

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

WilsoN, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon tbe following stipulation of counsel for tbe parties hereto:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise covered by the Appeals to Reappraisement enumerated above consists of electric bulbs imported from Japan.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the market value or the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Japan in the usual wholesale quantity and in tbe ordinary course of trade for export to the United Stated including the costs of containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise ready for shipment to the United States equals the appraised value less *7%*covering the item of buying commission. There was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise herein at the time of exportation thereof.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the Appeals to Re-appraisement enumerated above may be submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On tbe agreed facts I find tbe export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of tbe Tariff Act of 1930, to be tbe proper basis for tbe determination of tbe value of tbe mercbandise bere involved, and that sucb values were tbe appraised values, less 7 per centum covering the items of buying commission.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Keith E. Gunther, : 

Plaintiff : Civil Action 2:10-cv-00997

v. : Judge Economus

Ed Castineta, et al., : Magistrate Judge Abel

Defendants :

Report & Recommendation

Plaintiff Keith E. Gunther has failed to file proof of service of the summons and

complaint on defendant Officer Lucal within 120 days after filing the complaint. Plaintiff 

has failed to respond to the Court's May 2, 2014 Order to show cause why defendant

should not be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m), Fed. R. Civil. P. for

failure to obtain service on him.

Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that defendant Lucal be 

DISMISSED without prejudice, under Rule 4(m), Fed. R. Civil. P. for failure to obtain

service on defendant Lucal.

If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within

fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties a motion for reconsideration by the Court,

specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part thereof in question,

1

Case: 2:10-cv-00997-PCE-MRA Doc #: 33 Filed: 06/05/14 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
as well as the basis for objection thereto. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B); Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ.

P.

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and

Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Judge

and waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. Thomas v. Arn, 474

U.S. 140, 150-152 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981); United States

v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005); Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995). 

Even when timely objections are filed, appellate review of issues not raised in those

objections is waived. Willis v. Sullivan, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991).

s/Mark R. Abel 

United States Magistrate Judge

2

Case: 2:10-cv-00997-PCE-MRA Doc #: 33 Filed: 06/05/14 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION




Exhibit 10(a)  


April 19, 2001 


Board
of Directors

Protective Life Insurance Company

2801 Highway 201 South

Birmingham, Alabama 35223 


Directors:



    We
hereby consent to the reference to our name under the caption "Legal Matters" in the statement of additional information filed as part of post-effective amendment number 11
to the registration statement on Form N-4 (File No. 33-70984) filed by Protective Life Insurance Company and Protective Variable Annuity Separate Account with the Securities and Exchange
Commission. In giving this consent, we do not admit that we are in the category of persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933. 













Sincerely,

SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP

By: /s/ DAVID S. GOLDSTEIN  








David S. Goldstein
No. 54173.

#### Norman G. Jensen *v.*United States,

protest 109323-K (Pembina).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
1 OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION **UNITED STA TES ENVIRONMENTA**  **L PROTECTION A GENCY** 

WA SHINGTON, D.C. 20460

April 16 , 2012 **PC Code: 129131**  **MEMORANDUM DP Barcode: 3**  **9 2472**  **SUBJECT :**  **Fenpyroximate :**  Drinking Water Exposure Assessment for a Proposed New Use

on Corn and Proposed Label Amendments for Uses on Mint , Melons, Fruiting Vegetables, and Citrus in Texas **FROM :**  Greg Orrick, Environmental Scientist

ERB2 /EFED (7507P) **THROUGH :**  James Lin, Environmental Engineer

Brian Anderson , Chief ERB2 /EFED (7507P) **TO :**  George Kramer, Ph.D., Senior Chemist

Dana Vogel, Chief RAB1/HED (7509P) Sidney Jackson , Risk Manager Barbara Madden , Team Leader , RM Team 5 RIMUERB /RD (7505 P) Mark Suarez , Product Manager , RM Team 13 Marion Johnson , Chief IB /RD (7505 P) The Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) has completed its drinking water exposure assessment for the proposed new use of fenpy roximate on corn (field, pop , silage, and seed; limited to States of California, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas ) and proposed l abel amendments to increase the maximum application rate per growing season for use on mint from 0.10 to 0.20 pounds of active ingredient per acre (lbs a.i./A) and to add aerial application as an option to uses on melons, fruiting vegetables, and citrus in Texas

. Preliminary

exposure modeling indicates that none of these proposed actions will result in higher exposure estimates than were calculated in the previous drinking water assessment (DP barcode 391431; USEPA, 2012). Therefore, the results of the previous assessment (repeated in **Table 1** and the following paragraph) remain unchanged for this assessment. For additional detail, please refer to the previous assessment.2

**Table 1 .**  **Maximum Screening Drinking Water Exposure Estimates for Current and**  **Proposed Fenpyroximate**  **Uses A**  **Source (Tier: Model) Use (Maximum Annual**  **Rate) Peak Exposure**  **(μg/L) Annual Mean** 

**Exposure (μg/L)** Surface water (Tier I: FIRST) Ornamentals ( 0.69 lbs a.i./A) 29 1.9 Surface water (Tier I: Cranberry model) Cranberries (0.20 lbs a.i./A) **43 8.6**  Ground water (Tier I: SCI

- GROW) Ornamentals (0.69 lbs a.i./A) ≤0.27 A Maximum values in bold. A maximum screening exposure estimate in fish that may be consumed b y humans was also calculated with the Provisional Cranberry Model and KABAM, at 30 mg/kg

-bw (ww). **References** U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012. Fenp yroximate: Drinking Water Exposure Assessment for Proposed New Uses on Snap Beans and Tropi cal Fruits including Avocado and a Proposed Outdoor Use on Cucumbers . DP barcode 391431. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Environmental Fate and Effects Division. M emorandum to the Health Effects Div ision and Registration Division

. Jan. 2 3, 2012

.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

Certification of Principal Executive Officer

 

I, Charles C. Huffman, certifythat:

 

1)              Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Pelican Financial, Inc.;

 

2)              Basedon my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterlyreport;

 

3)              Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant asof, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

 

4)              Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) [Intentionally Omitted] for the registrant andwe have:

 

a)              designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this quarterly report is being prepared;

 

b)             [IntentionallyOmitted];

 

c)              evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

d)             disclosedin this quarterly report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;

 

5)              Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):

 

a)              allsignificant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b)             anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

 
| Date: August  13, 2004                 |
|----------------------------------------|
|                                   |
| /s/ Charles  C. Huffman                |   |
| President  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8532 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8532

  To identify and address barriers to coverage of remote physiologic 
  devices under State Medicaid programs to improve maternal and child 
           health outcomes for pregnant and postpartum women.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 23, 2024

 Ms. Lois Frankel of Florida (for herself, Ms. Salazar, Ms. Castor of 
   Florida, and Ms. Letlow) introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To identify and address barriers to coverage of remote physiologic 
  devices under State Medicaid programs to improve maternal and child 
           health outcomes for pregnant and postpartum women.

    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 ``Connected Maternal Online Monitoring 
Act'' or the ``Connected MOM Act''.

SEC. 2. COVERAGE OF REMOTE PHYSIOLOGIC MONITORING DEVICES AND IMPACT ON 
              MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH OUTCOMES UNDER MEDICAID.

    (a) Report to Congress.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall 
submit to Congress a report containing information on authorities and 
State practices for covering remote physiological monitoring devices, 
including limitations and barriers to such coverage and the impact on 
maternal health outcomes, and to the extent appropriate, 
recommendations on how to address such limitations or barriers related 
to coverage of remote physiologic devices under State Medicaid 
programs, including, but not limited to, pulse oximeters, blood 
pressure cuffs, scales, and blood glucose monitors, with the goal of 
improving maternal and child health outcomes for pregnant and 
postpartum women enrolled in State Medicaid programs.
    (b) State Resources.--Not later than 6 months after the submission 
of the report required by subsection (a), the Secretary shall update 
resources for State Medicaid programs, such as State Medicaid 
telehealth toolkits, to be consistent with the recommendations provided 
in such report.
                                 <all>
```