alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit      32**

**CERTIFICATION      OF PERIODIC REPORT**

|   | (1) | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter year                ended                March 31, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of                Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15                U.S.C                78m or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| /s/                Geoffrey Donaldson  |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Geoffrey                Donaldson      |   |
| Chief                Executive Officer |   |

|   | (1) | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended                March                31, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section                13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C 78m                or                78o(d)); and |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| /s/                Karen Nazzareno |   |
|------------------------------------|--------|
| Karen                Nazzareno     |   |
| Controller                         |   |

----
From: Susan Miller [mailto:SMiller@bia.org]

Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 2:44 PM

To: Nizich, Sharon [mailto:Nizich.Sharon@epa.gov]

Subject: Brick MACT- OMB Follow-up

SharonFirst let me apologize for my absence at yesterday’s meeting. My 11-year old severely broke his 

leg (both bones in his lower leg, chipped one and put it all out of alignment) on Sunday and we 

were having to watch to be sure it was staying put and no surgery was required. I thought I was 

going to still make the meeting, but that was not to be.

One of our members who flew in from Nebraska for the meeting was unable to get into the building 

because his license has expired. He has a concern I believe he (and I know we) spoke of in our 

comments that he wanted to highlight. Specifically, he believes he can meet the PM limit as 

proposed in the rule, but cannot continuously meet the “no visible emissions” compliance 

demonstration. He is concerned that he could potentially be required to install an air pollution 

control device to meet the compliance demonstration requirement, even though he meets the 

underlying standard. While I know there is the general ability to apply for an alternative compliance 

demonstration, we are wondering if there is a way to handle this more directly as the issue. Ryan 

is traveling today, but we will be working to put what would have been his oral presentation into a 

letter and have that letter to you by early next week.

Again, sorry I missed speaking with all of you at the meeting. My thanks to all of you for taking the 

time to listen to our industry’s concerns.

Sincerely,

susan

Susan J Miller

Vice President, Environment, Health & Safety

Brick Industry Association

311 South Academy Street

Cary, North Carolina 27511

919 380-2191

smiller@bia.org

When you talk, you are only repeating what you already know; but when you listen, you may learn 

something new. 

-Dalai Lama
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
  1.
    
    The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010, to which
this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and
 2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Douglas ValentiDouglas ValentiChief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer) Date: May 12, 2010
Before the First Division,

September 10, 1940

No. 44278.

#### Protests 476514-G, etc., of Inter Ocean Millinery Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is bodies, hoods, forms, or shapes similar to those the subject of *Cohn*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 166, C. D. 314). The protests were therefore sustained.
**Exhibit 13.2**

----

Back to Contents

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES – OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, David John Grigson, Finance Director of Reuters Group PLC (the “Company”) hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes – Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

     a)  The Company’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the “Form 20-F”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     b)  The information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

 

| Dated: 23 March      2004  | By/s/  | David J Grigson                   |
|---------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------|
|                            |   |                              |
|                            |   | _____________________________     |
|                            |   | David J Grigson  Finance Director |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 90 (Thursday, May 10, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 26650]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9004]



[[Page 26650]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[SGA/DFA-PY 06-04]


Solicitation for Grant Applications (SGA); Migrants and Seasonal 
Farmworkers Program SGA--National Farmworker Jobs Program Addendum

AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice: Amendment to SGA/DFA-PY-06-04.

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

SUMMARY: The Employment and Training Administration published a 
document in the Federal Register on April 20, 2007, announcing the 
availability of funds for the operation of National Farmworkers Jobs 
Program (NFJP), under section 167 of the Workforce Investment Act of 
1998. This notice is an addendum to the SGA and it adds Section VIII, 
entitled ``Other Information.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Stockton, Grant Officer, 
Division of Federal Assistance, (202) 693-3335.

Addendum

VIII. Other Information

    OMB Information Collection No.: 1205-0458.
    Expires: September 30, 2009.
    According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are 
required to respond to a collection of information unless such 
collection displays a valid OMB control number. Public reporting burden 
for this collection of information is estimated to average 20 hours per 
response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing 
data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing 
and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding 
the burden estimated or any other aspect of this collection of 
information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the 
U.S. Department of Labor, the OMB Desk Officer for ETA, Office of 
Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503. PLEASE DO NOT 
RETURN YOUR COMPLETED APPLICATION TO THE OMB. SEND IT TO THE SPONSORING 
AGENCY AS SPECIFIED IN THIS SOLICITATION.
    This information is being collected for the purpose of awarding a 
grant. The information collected through this ``Solicitation for Grant 
Applications'' will be used by the Department of Labor to ensure that 
grants are awarded to the applicant best suited to perform the 
functions of the grant. Submission of this information is required in 
order for the applicant to be considered for award of this grant. 
Unless otherwise specifically noted in this announcement, information 
submitted in the respondent's application is not considered to be 
confidential.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 7th day of May, 2007.
James W. Stockton,
Grant Officer, Employment and Training Administration.
 [FR Doc. E7-9004 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

**LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES**

**United States Subsidiaries:**

LumenVu, Inc., a Delaware subsidiary 

**ForeignSubsidiaries:**

SonoSite, Ltd., a United Kingdom subsidiary 

SonoSite France SARL, a French subsidiary 

SonoSite GmbH, a German subsidiary 

SonoSite Iberica, S.L., a Spanish subsidiary 

SonoSite Italy S.r.l, an Italian subsidiary 

SonoSite (Asia) Limited, a Hong Kong subsidiary 

SonoSite Japan KK, a Japanese subsidiary 

SonoSite Australasia Pty Limited, an Australian subsidiary 

SonoSite Canada, Inc., a Canadian subsidiary 

SonoSite China Medical Ltd., a Hong Kong subsidiary 

SonoSite Limited, a Hong Kong subsidiary 

SonoSite Singapore Pte. Ltd., a Singapore subsidiary 

SonoSite India Pte Limited, an Indian subsidiary 

ABC 123 Ltd, a Hong Kong subsidiary
No. 6387.

#### R. P. HYAMS COAL CO. vs. E. J. RIXNER.

Syllabus.

Where the evidence is insufficient the plaintiff will be non-suited.

Appeal from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Division “B,’’ No. 106,196. Honorable F. D. King, Judge.

J. E. Zunts, H. R. Outlaw, for plaintiff and appellant.

Legier & Gleason, for defendant and appellee.

*334His Honor, JOHN ST. PAUL,

rendered the opinion and decree of the 'Court, as follows:

This is a suit for the price of certain coal which plaintiff, a wholesaler, claims to have sold to defendant and delivered to one Bazilique, a retailer.

The trial Judge after allowing plaintiff every reasonable opportunity to make out its case finally concluded that the suit was simply an effort to convert a collateral understanding, not provable by parol, into an original understanding, not open to the same objection; in other words, where defendant appears to have agreed orally to answer as surety for Bazilique, it is now sought to hold him as the principal debtor.

The writer thinks the District Judge-held rightly. The plaintiff put three witnesses on the stand, but established no nearer connection between defendant and the account sued on -than that he promised to pay for the coal delivered to Bazilique; whilst, on the other hand it was shown that defendant had not the slightest interest in the retail coal business conducted by Bazilique, but on the contrary bought coal from the latter and paid for it; that both before and since the account herein sued on, Bazilique <and plaintiff had business dealings with each other, and that the only change in their relations at this time was that the account was charged on plaintiff’s books to the defendant, instead of to Bazilique, but there is no proof nor attempt at proof that defendant had knowledge of the fact. Hence, to the writer the debt appears to have been that of Bazilique, and defendant’s undertaking to have been collateral, and hence not provable by parol. The writer therefore thinks that the judgment herein should be affirmed.

*335Opinion and decree, May 31st, 1915.

But a majority of the Court think otherwise. To them it appears that plaintiff has simply failed to make out a ease by a sufficiency of 'evidence.

They also think that defendant’s failure to take the witness stand in his own behalf has a bearing on tlie evidence; but they are of opinion that he should not be prejudiced by this in view of the attitude taken by the Judge a quo which rendered this testimony unnecessary.

They are, therefore, of opinion that a judgment of non suit herein will be fair to both parties.

It is, therefore, ordered that the judgment appealed from be amended and made one of non suit only, and that as thus amended it be affirmed; defendant to pay the costs of appeal and plaintiff those of the Court below.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 16, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00206

- CV

PMSALS 1, LLC, Appellant

v.

ROSENTHAL PAUERSTEIN SANDOLOSKI AGATHER L.L.P. and Jonathan Starr, Appellee s

From the 438th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- CI

- 17620 Honorable Olin B. Strauss, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The reporter’s record was originally due to be filed in this appeal on April 28, 2014. On May 2, 2014, this court notified the court reporter, Mr. Luis Duran, Jr., that the reporter’s record

was late. Mr. Duran was instructed to file a notification of la te record by May 12, 2014, if the record had not been filed because appellant had failed to pay the fee for preparing the record. Otherwise, Mr. Duran was instructed to file the reporter’s record by June 2, 2014. Because Mr. Duran failed to file the repo rter’s record by the extended deadline, a clerk of this court contacted Mr. Duran on June 9, 2014, and left a detailed message regarding the missed deadline and the unfiled record. As of this date, the reporter’s record still has not been filed, and Mr. D uran failed to respond to our clerk’s message.

It is therefore ORDERED that Mr. Duran file the reporter’s record in this court no later

than June 30, 2014 . If the record is not received by such date, an order may be issued directing

Mr. Duran to appea r and show cause why he should not be held in contempt for failing to file the

record. The clerk of this court shall cause a copy of this order to be served on Mr. Duran by certified mail, return receipt requested, or give other personal notice of this or der with proof of delivery. Because “[t]he trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed,” T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 35.3(c), the clerk of the court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Honorab le Gloria Saldana , Judge of the 438th Judicial District Court._________________________________ Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

cour t on this 16th day of June, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification Pursuant to**

**18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**As Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report of Inovio Biomedical Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the year ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned,in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

(1)          The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

| March 16, 2006 |   |                                              |   |
|---------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                |   | /s/ Avtar Dhillon                                 |   |
|                |   | Avtar Dhillon                                     |   |
|                |   | President and Chief Executive Officer             |   |
|                |   | (Principal Executive Officer)                |   |
|                |   |                                              |   |
|                |   | /s/ Peter Kies                                    |   |
|                |   | Peter Kies                                        |   |
|                |   | Chief Financial Officer                           |   |
|                |   | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |   |
|                |   |                                              |   |

 

----
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

SALVADOR QUINTANA-CENEJO, 

a/k/a Jose Jesus Ortega Hernandez, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 16-1060 

(D.C. No. 1:15-CR-00256-REB-DW-1) 

(D. Colo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before BRISCOE, O’BRIEN, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Following his acceptance of a plea agreement that included a waiver of his 

right to appeal, Salvador Quintana-Cenejo pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after 

removal and subsequent to a felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 

(b)(1). He was sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment. Despite his waiver, 

Quintana-Cenejo filed an appeal. The government moves to enforce 

Quintana-Cenejo’s appeal waiver. See United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1328 

(10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). 

 *

 This panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not 

materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 

10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law 

of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its 

persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

June 17, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

In evaluating a motion to enforce a waiver, we consider: “(1) whether the 

disputed appeal falls within the scope of the waiver of appellate rights; (2) whether 

the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights; and (3) whether 

enforcing the waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice.” Id. at 1325. 

Quintana-Cenejo’s counsel has filed a response, “conced[ing] that, under the standard 

announced in [Hahn], the plea agreement’s appeal waiver is enforceable with respect 

to this direct appeal.” Aplt. Resp. at 1. 

Our independent review confirms that Quintana-Cenejo’s appeal waiver is 

enforceable. The issue he seeks to raise on appeal—a challenge to the substantive 

and procedural reasonableness of his sentence—falls within the scope of his appeal 

waiver and is not subject to any of the exceptions to that waiver. The plea agreement 

also clearly sets forth the appeal waiver, stating that it was knowing and voluntary, 

and the district court confirmed Quintana-Cenejo’s understanding of his appeal 

waiver during his change of plea hearing. Moreover, we see no evidence 

contradicting Quintana-Cenejo’s knowing and voluntary acceptance of the appeal 

waiver. Finally, there is no indication that enforcing the waiver would result in a 

miscarriage of justice as defined in Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1327. 

The motion to enforce is granted and this matter is dismissed. 

Entered for the Court 

Per Curiam
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Employee contest yields ideas, projects to improve IT service

By Sara Moore, DLA Information Operations

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

## Related Stories

SIDEBAR: Innovation Pilot Projects

itJ6Information OperationscontestcompetitionProcess Excellencetechnologycomputersnetwork
Exhibit 32.3



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 The PBSJ Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert J. Paulsen, Chief
Operating Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.



|                |  |  | 
|--------------- |  |  | 
|August 14, 2003 |  |  | 
|                |  |  |
99-0626 (La. 4/23/99)

#### Jessie J. LEDET v. Dina Marie LEIGHTON, et al.

No. 99-C-0626.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1999.

IN RE: Ledet, Jessie J.; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Number CA98-0952; Parish of Lafayette 15th Judicial District Court Div. “A” Number 94-1656

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J. and KNOLL, J. would grant the "writ.

LEMMON, J. not on panel.