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, Georgios Polyhronopoulos, 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 Healthmed Services
      Ltd. for the period ended March 31, 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 Healthmed Services Ltd.                                                                 

Dated: May 17, 2010

| | /s/
      Georgios Polyhronopoulos                             
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------
| | Georgios Polyhronopoulos                                       
| | President, Secretary, Treasurer and Director                   
| | (Principal Executive Officer, Principal
      Financial Officer
| | and Principal Accounting Officer)                              
| | Healthmed Services Ltd.                                        

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 Healthmed
Services Ltd. and will be retained by Healthmed Services Ltd. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 65 (Thursday, April 5, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 16709]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6300]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2006-24858; Airspace Docket No. 06-ASO-8]
RIN 2120-AA66


Establishment of Class E Airspace; Mooresville, NC

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This technical amendment corrects a final rule published in 
the Federal Register on August 1, 2006 (71 FR 43355), Docket No. FAA-
2006-24858, Airspace Docket No. 06-ASO-8. In that rule, the reference 
to FAA Order 7400.9 was published as FAA Order 7400.9N. The correct 
reference is FAA Order 7400.9P. Also, the corresponding dates that 
refer to the Order should state ``* * * September 1, 2006, and 
effective September 15, 2006 * * *'' instead of ``* * * September 1, 
2005, and effective September 16, 2005''. This technical amendment 
corrects those errors.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, April 5, 2007. The Director of the Federal 
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR 
part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and 
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tameka Bentley, Airspace and Rules, 
Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 
telephone: (202) 267-8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On August 1, 2006, a final rule was published in the Federal 
Register, Docket No. FAA-2006-24858, Airspace Docket No. 06-ASO-8, that 
amended Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations part 71 by establishing 
Class E Airspace; Mooresville, NC (71 FR 43355). In that rule, the 
reference to FAA Order 7400.9 was published as FAA Order 7400.9N. The 
correct reference is FAA Order 7400.9P. In addition, the corresponding 
dates that refer to the Order are incorrect. Instead of ``* * * 
September 1, 2005, and effective September 16, 2005'', the dates should 
read ``* * * September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006 * * 
*''.

Amendment to Final Rule

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the reference 
to FAA Order 7400.9 for Docket No. FAA-2006-24858, Airspace Docket No. 
06-ASO-8, as published in the Federal Register on August 1, 2006 (71 FR 
43355), is corrected as follows:
0
On page 43356, column 1, lines 19, and 20, and column 2, lines 17, 19 
and 20, amend the language to read:


Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

* * * * *
    ``* * * FAA Order 7400.9P'' instead of ``FAA Order 7400.9N * * *''.
    ``* * * September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006 * * *'' 
instead of ``* * * September 1, 2005, and effective September 16, 2005 
* * *''.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, March 23, 2007.
Edith V. Parish,
Manager, Airspace and Rules.
 [FR Doc. E7-6300 Filed 4-4-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONSPURSUANT TO**

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

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Monitronics International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael R. Haislip,President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

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

(2)               The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|                          | By:    | /s/ Michael R.  Haislip                |
|--------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|                     |   | Michael R.  Haislip                    |
|                     |   | Chief Executive  Officer and President |
|                     |   | (Principal  Executive Officer)         |
| Date: November 14,  2006 |   |                                   |

 

 

----
Searched for **https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/ES-05-10927.pdf**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/ES-05-10927.pdf**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
Exhibit 4.3


                              GLOBAL NETWORKS, INC.
                                575 Madison Ave.
                          New York, New York 10022-2511


                                          April 4, 2001


Mr. Arnold Behrman
301 Pleasant Valley Road
Morganville, New Jersey 07751

Mr. John F. Grant
221 East 21 Street, Apt. 2A
New York, New York 10010

Dear Sirs:

     Reference  is  made  to the  Separation  and  Share  Repurchase  Agreements
(collectively,  the  "Agreements"),  dated as of March 1, 2001,  between  Global
Network,  Inc. (the "Company") and each of you.  Capitalized terms not otherwise
defined  in  this  letter  shall  have  the  meanings  assigned  to  them in the
Agreements.

     Notwithstanding  anything to the contrary set forth in Section  3(a)(ii) of
each of the  Agreements,  the Company shall purchase shares of Common Stock from
each of you and shall make payment for such shares as follows:

     (i) the April 2001 payment, shall be made on or before April 16, 2001; and

     (ii)  payments  for all  subsequent  months  shall be made on or before the
tenth day of such month; provided,  however, that if the tenth day of such month
is not a Business Day,  then such payment  shall be made on the next  succeeding
Business Day. For the purposes of the foregoing sentence, a "Business Day" shall
mean any day other than Saturday, Sunday or a day on which banks in the State of
New York are  authorized or obligated by law,  executive  order or  governmental
decree to be closed.

     Except as modified by this letter, the terms of the Agreements shall remain
in full force and effect.

     This letter may be executed in one or more counterparts each of which shall
be deemed an original,  and all of which shall  together  constitute one and the
same instrument.

<PAGE>

     Kindly  indicate  your  consent  to the  foregoing  by  countersigning  the
enclosed copy of this letter and returning it to me as soon as possible.

                                          Very truly yours,

                                          GLOBAL NETWORKS, INC.


                                          By: /s/ James Mason
                                              ------------------------------
                                              James Mason
                                              President & CEO

ACCEPTED AND AGREED:


/s/ Arnold Behrman
------------------------------
        ARNOLD BEHRMAN


/s/ John F. Grant
------------------------------
        JOHN F. GRANT
#### John Hudson Moore, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7349.

Invoice dated Walsall, England, December 6, 1945.

Certified December 7, 1945.

Entered at New York, N. Y., January 22, 1946.

Entry No. 734030.

(Decided July 23, 1947)

*Jordan & Klingaman*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Cline, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) 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 are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
## IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL A PPE ALS OF TEXAS

N O . W R - 8 6 , 2 2 0 - 0 1

I N R E E N R I Q U E A R O C H I , R e l a t o r ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF M ANDAM US

CAUSE NO. 4 0 1 - 8 0 5 1 3 - 2 0 1 5 I N T H E 4 0 1 D I S T R I C T C O U R T O F C O L L I N C O U N T Y

S T

P e r c u r i a m . K e l l e r , P . J . w o u l d f i l e a n d s e t . O P I N I O N

Relator has filed a motion for leave to file a writ of mandamus pursuant t o t h e orig inal jurisdiction of this Cour t. He reque sts that this Court order the district court to vacate its order removing appointed counsel and appointing differ ent counsel on the pending appea l, Arochi v. State , 05-16-01208- CR (Tex. App.—Dallas). On J anuar y 25, 2017, this Court held this application in abey ance and order ed the Honora ble Mark Rusch to respond. J udg e R u s ch s tated that he believed he could not permit trial counsel to

rema in as appointed counsel on appea l and compensa te him in that capa city beca use afte r Relator’st ri al , he no longe r met the require ments to be appointed in Colli n County

. Howeve r, he m et t h e

require ments to be appointed at the time he was appointed to Relator’s case , and this Court does not find that go o d cause exis ts to remove him as Relator’s counsel. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O . art. 26.04(j)(2) ; Stearnes v. Clint on , 780 S.W .2d 216 (Tex. Crim

. Ap p . 1 989); Stotts v. W isser , 894 S.W .2d 366 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). We conditionally g rant mandamus relief and direc t the Resp o n d en t t o vacate his order appointing Pamela L akatos as appellate counsel, t h er eb y allowing Steven Miears to continue as counsel for Relator on his pending appea l. The wr it of mandamus will issue only in the event the Respondent fa ils to comply within thirty

day s of the date of this opinion.

Deliver ed: April 12, 2017 Do not publish
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

JAN 19 2011 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Mr. Bill Wemhoff 

Senior Principal, Environmental Policy 

National Rural Electric Cooperative Association 

4301 Wilson Boulevard 

Arlington, Virginia 22203 

Dear Mr. Wemhoff: 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has received the Petition for 

Reconsideration of the final National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines that you submitted on October 19,2010. 

This letter is to inform you that we have already initiated a reconsideration process to address the 

issues raised in your petition regarding the provision allowing emergency engines to operate for 

15 hours per year as part of an emergency demand response program. A notice announcing our 

reconsideration of and requesting public comment on that issue was published in the Federal 

Register on December 7, 2010. At this time, we are not taking action on the other issues raised 

in your petition. 

We received a total of six petitions for reconsideration of the August 20, 20 10 final 

NESHAP for stationary RlCE. We are granting reconsideration on the following issues raised in 

the petitions: 

• 	 continuous parametric monitoring system requirements; 

• 	 emission standard for existing four-stroke lean burn spark ignition engines; 

• 	 methodology for considering emissions variability and establishing the floor for the 

maximum achievable control technology; 

• 	 use of co-benefits of non-hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions reductions when 

determining maximum achievable control technologies and generally available control 

technologies; 

• 	 use of total hydrocarbons rather than formaldehyde as a surrogate for HAP emissions; 

and 

• 	 allowance for emergency engines to operate up to 15 hours per year as part of an 


emergency demand response program. 


At this time, we are not taking action of the following issues raised in the petitions: 

• 	 provisions prohibiting use of emergency engines for peak shaving operation; 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.go\' 


Recycled/Recyclable. Printed With Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer. Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper 

• 	 EPA's decision not to distinguish between engines located in urban and rural areas in 

establishing emission standards; and 

• 	 EPA's decision not to have separate standards that would apply during periods of 


shutdown and malfunction. 


EPA plans to initiate a reconsideration process to allow for greater public participation on 

the issues raised in the six petitions for reconsideration. A more detailed description of the 

particular issues to be reconsidered and specific information about the process to be followed 

will be set out in a forthcoming Federal Register notice. If you have any questions regarding the 

reconsideration process, please contact Melanie King of my staff at (919) 541-2469. We thank 

you for your continuing interest in this rule and look forward to hearing from you during the 

reconsideration process. 

Gina McCarthy 


Assistant Administrator
WILLIE MATHIS

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 4463

__________ ___________________/

Opinion filed January 6, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Baker County

. Mark W. Moseley , Judge

.

Willie Mathis, pro se

, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Quentin Humphrey, Assistant Attorney

General , and Trisha Meggs Pate, Bureau Chief, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS , OSTERHAUS, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

BARBARA MOSS-SCHULZE,

 Appellant,

v.

EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

 § 

No. 08-07-00098-CV

Appeal from the

73rd Judicial District Court

of Bexar County, Texas 

(TC# 2005-CI-06777 ) 

O P I N I O N

Pending before the Court is Appellee, EMC Mortgage Corporation’s (“EMC”) motion to

dismiss this appeal. Finding that the property which was the subject of the underlying lawsuit

has been sold, we will dismiss the appeal as moot.

Appellant, Ms. Barbara Moss-Schulze purchased the property at issue in January of 2003. 

She financed the purchase with a mortgage loan from EMC. This appeal arises from EMC’s

attempt to foreclose on the property after Ms. Schulze failed to make payments. In its motion to

dismiss, EMC represents to the Court that the foreclosure proceeded and the property has been

sold. The motion includes an authenticated copy of the Substitute Trustee’s Deed executed at the

foreclosure sale.

When the judgment of this Court can have no effect on an existing controversy, a case

becomes moot and should be dismissed. See F.D.I.C. v. Nueces County, 886 S.W.2d 766, 767

(Tex. 1994); Restrepo v. First Nat’l Bank of Dona Ana County, New Mexico, 888 S.W.2d 606,

607 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1994, no writ). Because the property which was the subject of this
-2-

appeal has been sold, any judgment issued by the Court would have no effect as there is no

longer a controversy to resolve. See F.D.I.C., 886 S.W.2d at 767. Thus, Appellant’s case has

become moot. Accordingly, we grant Appellee’s motion and dismiss the appeal.

May 22, 2008

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Chief Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Carr, JJ.
Searched for **http://www.ssa.gov/international/Agreement_Pamphlets/ireland.html**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://www.ssa.gov/international/Agreement_Pamphlets/ireland.html**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
----

| (a) | a review of SLC’s activities during the calendar year ended December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”) and of SLC’s performance under the Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision; and |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (b) | to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, SLC has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By:    | /s/ Timothy Schmidt |                                                                |
|--------|--------|---------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Name:               | Timothy Schmidt                                                     |   |
|   |   | Title:              | Senior Vice President and Treasurer of The Student Loan Corporation |   |

----
Order filed February 13, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-00022-CV

____________

IN THE INTEREST OF A.B., a child

On Appeal from the 314th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2010-070773

ORDER

This is an accelerated appeal from a judgment in a suit in which the termination of 

the parent-child relationship is at issue (“parental termination case”). Appellant=s brief 

was due February 9, 2012. No brief has been filed. 

Unless appellant files a brief with the clerk of this court within 10 days of the date 

of this order, the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM
Before the Second Division,

April 10, 1952

No. 56541.

protest 151520-K (Detroit).

#### Max Schlossberg Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in controversy at the time of entry consisted of articles of which metal was the component material of chief value and were not ores or concentrates or crude metal; that said articles were imported to be used in remanufacture by melting; and that since entry, said articles were melted and remanufactured by melting. An examination of the papers disclosed that affidavits have been filed in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to Public Law 869, *supra.*Upon the record presented, it was held that the merchandise comes within the provisions of Public Law 869, *supra,*and is properly entitled to free entry.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-86,220-01

IN RE ENRIQUE AROCHI, Relator

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

CAUSE NO. 401-80513-2015

IN THE 401 DISTRICT COURT OF COLLIN COUNTY

ST

Per curiam. Keller, P.J. would file and set.

OPINION

Relator has filed a motion for leave to file a writ of mandamus pursuant to the original

jurisdiction of this Court. He requests that this Court order the district court to vacate its order

removing appointed counsel and appointing different counsel on the pending appeal, Arochi v. State,

05-16-01208-CR (Tex. App.—Dallas). 

On January 25, 2017, this Court held this application in abeyance and ordered the Honorable

Mark Rusch to respond. Judge Rusch stated that he believed he could not permit trial counsel to

remain as appointed counsel on appeal and compensate him in that capacity because after Relator’s
trial, he no longer met the requirements to be appointed in Collin County. However, he met the

requirements to be appointed at the time he was appointed to Relator’s case, and this Court does not

find that good cause exists to remove him as Relator’s counsel. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. art.

26.04(j)(2); Stearnes v. Clinton, 780 S.W.2d 216 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989); Stotts v. Wisser, 894

S.W.2d 366 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995).

We conditionally grant mandamus relief and direct the Respondent to vacate his order

appointing Pamela Lakatos as appellate counsel, thereby allowing Steven Miears to continue as

counsel for Relator on his pending appeal. The writ of mandamus will issue only in the event the

Respondent fails to comply within thirty days of the date of this opinion. 

Delivered: April 12, 2017

Do not publish
#### Frank Castleman, *Respondent, v.*Joseph M. Simpson and another, *Appellants.*

— Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered before another referee, costs to abide event, unless plaintiff shall stipulate to modify the judgment by making the sum to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant, J. M. Simpson, fifty-two dollars and eighteen cents, instead of thirty-two dollars and eighteen *143cents, and in that case the judgment, as so modified, affirmed, with costs to the respondent. Opinion by Smith, P. J.