alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.01



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In
connection with the Report (as defined under the preceding Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, Walter Thomas Price III, Managing Member of Beeland Management Company, L.L.C., the general partner of Rogers
International Raw Materials Fund, L.P. (the Partnership), 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 Partnership.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/ Walter Thomas Price IIIWalter Thomas Price IIIManaging MemberNovember 12, 2004




E-3
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 50512 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
CATRINA MARIE CONNER, also known as Catrina Conner , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:04

- CR

- 194

- 2

Before JONES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Catrina Marie Conner has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Conner h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for

* 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 R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 1 5 , 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-50512 Document: 00513309437 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/15/2015No. 14

- 50512

2 appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to w ithdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 14-50512 Document: 00513309437 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/15/2015
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Drug Enforcement Administration 

                    By Notice dated December 14, 2006, and published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on December 22, 2006, (71 FR 77065-77066), Johnson Matthey Inc., Custom Pharmaceuticals Department, 2003 Nolte Drive, West Deptford, New Jersey 08066, made application by letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of 14-Hydroxymorphinone (9654), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II.                 

The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances in bulk as an intermediate for use in the production of another controlled substance. 

No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Johnson Matthey Inc to manufacture the listed basic class of controlled substance is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Johnson Matthey Inc to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with State and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic class of controlled substance listed. 

Dated: May 14, 2007. 

Joseph T. Rannazzisi, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration. 

 [FR Doc. E7-9617 Filed 5-17-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
# C_2013071EN.01002802.xml

| 9.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/28

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 28 January 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-92/12)

(Civil service - Article 34(1) of the Rules of Procedure - Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings signed by means of a stamp reproducing a lawyer’s signature or other means of reproduction - Action lodged out of time - Manifestly inadmissible)

2013/C 71/47

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision to withhold sums from the applicant’s invalidity allowance for the purpose of recovering the sum which the applicant was ordered to pay by way of legal costs by the Civil Service Tribunal.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs.

---
#### In re Irwin R. GILBERT, Respondent. A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

No. 97-BG-1928.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Submitted Sept. 30, 1998.

Decided Oct. 22, 1998.

Before SCHWELB and REID, Associate Judges, and BELSON, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM.

In this reciprocal discipline case, the Board on Professional Responsibility has recommended that Irwin R. Gilbert, a member of our Bar, be suspended from practice for one year, *nunc pro tunc*to April 7, 1995, the date on which Gilbert advised this court of his suspension in New York. The proceedings in New York arose from Gilbert’s unsolicited sexual advances to two female secretaries in his office and to two female clients. *See In re Gilbert,*194 A.D.2d 262, 606 N.Y.S.2d 478 (4th Dept.1993).

Bar Counsel has advised the court that he takes no exception to the Board’s Report and Recommendation. Gilbert’s attorney has advised the court that he likewise takes no exception. In light of the limited scope of our review under such circumstances, *see In re Goldsborough,*654 A.2d*961285, 1288 (D.C.1995), and given the presumption that, in reciprocal discipline cases, the discipline in the District of Columbia will be the same as that in the original disciplining jurisdiction, *see In re Zilberberg,*612 A.2d 832, 834 (D.C.1992), we follow the recommendation of the Board.1 Accordingly, Irwin R. Gilbert is hereby suspended from practice for a period of one year, *nunc pro tunc*to April 7, 1995.

*So ordered.*
      *2*
      *.*

. We need not and do not decide whether this sanction would have been appropriate if this case had originated in the District of Columbia, or if one or both parties had contested the sanction recommended by the Board.

. According to the Board’s Report, Gilbert “has filed both the affidavits under *In re Goldberg,*460 A.2d 982, 985 (D.C.1983) and Rule XI, Section 14(g)."
# C_2013114EN.01002201.xml

| 20.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 114/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 114/22

---

Appeal brought on 14 May 2012 against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber Chamber) delivered on 2 March 2012 in Case T-594/11 H-Holding AG v European Commission

(Case C-235/12 P)

2013/C 114/32

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: H-Holding AG (represented by: R. Závodný, advokát)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

The Court of Justice of the European Union (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal by order of 28 February 2013 and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.

---
# C_2013101EN.01000702.xml

| 6.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 101/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 101/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Genova (Italy) lodged on 24 December 2012 — Dresser Rand SA v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale Ufficio Controlli

(Case C-606/12)

2013/C 101/14

Language of the case: Italian

Requesting court

Requesting court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Genova

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dresser Rand SA

Applicant:

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale Ufficio Controlli

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the transfer of goods to Italy from another Member State for the purpose of verifying whether those goods may be adapted to other goods acquired within Italy, without anything being done to the goods brought into Italy, come within the notion of ‘work on the goods’ referred to in Article 17(2)(f) of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) and, in this connection, is it appropriate to assess the nature of the transactions which took place between F.B. ITMI and DR-IT? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the transfer of goods to Italy from another Member State for the purpose of verifying whether those goods may be adapted to other goods acquired within Italy, without anything being done to the goods brought into Italy, come within the notion of ‘work on the goods’ referred to in Article 17(2)(f) of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) and, in this connection, is it appropriate to assess the nature of the transactions which took place between F.B. ITMI and DR-IT?

1

| 2. | Is Article 17(2)(f) of Directive 2006/112/EC to be interpreted as precluding the Member States from providing in their legislation or practices that the dispatch or transport of goods is not to be treated as a transfer to another Member State except on condition that the goods are returned to the Member State from which they were initially dispatched or transported? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 17(2)(f) of Directive 2006/112/EC to be interpreted as precluding the Member States from providing in their legislation or practices that the dispatch or transport of goods is not to be treated as a transfer to another Member State except on condition that the goods are returned to the Member State from which they were initially dispatched or transported?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

1

---
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof MathStar, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the“Quarterly Report”), I, Douglas M. Pihl, President and Chief Executive Officerof the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.               The Quarterly Report fully complies with therequirements 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 Quarterly Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 

 
| Date:   November 7, 2007 |   | By:    |       /s/  Douglas M. Pihl |
|------------------------------------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------|
|                               |   |   | Douglas  M. Pihl                                         |
|                               |   |   | President  and Chief Executive Officer                   |

 

----
EXHIBIT 10.36

                           NEBRASKA BOOK COMPANY, INC.
                             4700 South 19th Street
                             Lincoln, NE 68501-0529

                                  March 4, 2004


Mr. [______]
c/o Nebraska Book Company, Inc.
4700 South 19th Street
Lincoln, NE  68501-0529

         Re:      Amendment to Memorandum of Understanding

Dear Mr. [____]:

         Reference is hereby made to the Memorandum of Understanding, dated as
of July 1, 1999, between Nebraska Book Company, Inc., a Kansas corporation (the
"Employer"), and ___________ (the "Memorandum"). Capitalized terms used herein
without definition shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the
Memorandum.

         We hereby agree with you to amend the Memorandum as follows:

1. The Memorandum shall be amended by adding the following new section
immediately after the Section titled "Term":

         "Termination of Employment Upon Expiration of Term:
          -------------------------------------------------

         If the Company has given the Executive notice of its intention to
         terminate the Executive's employment at the end of the then current
         Term, the Executive shall be entitled to (i) continued payment of base
         salary for a period of one year following the expiration of such Term
         and (ii) continuation of any health, life insurance and disability
         insurance benefits provided to the Executive immediately prior to such
         termination for a period of one year following the expiration of such
         Term to the extent permitted by the Company's benefit plans."

2. The Memorandum shall be further amended by deleting the sections titled
"Tag-Along and Drag-Along Rights" and "Non-Transferability of Stock".

         In all other respects, the Memorandum shall remain in full force and
effect.

         Please indicate your agreement to the foregoing by signing and
returning to the Employer a counterpart of this letter.



            [THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.]


<PAGE>

                                Very truly yours,

                                NEBRASKA BOOK COMPANY, INC.

                                ----------------------------------------------
                                By:
                                Title:



Agreed to and accepted by:



------------------------------
[-------]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-3152
In Re: CORLIA NAOMI GREEN, Debtor.

_________________________ CORLIA NAOMI GREEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, and JAMES GREEN, JR., Plaintiff, versus MIDLAND MORTGAGE COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee, and THOMAS L. LACKEY, Party in Interest.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-3524-AW, BK-95-1-1082-DK) Submitted: December 12, 1996 Decided: December 18, 199623 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Corlia Naomi Green, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Joseph DiPaula, COVAHEY & BOOZER, Towson, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals the district court's order denying as untimely her motion for leave to appeal from an order of the bankruptcy court granting relief from an automatic stay. Finding no reversible error, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Green v. Midland Mortgage Co. , Nos. CA-95-3524-AW; BK-95-1-1082-DK (D. Md. Dec. 1, 1995). We deny Appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal and we deny Appellant's motion to appoint counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 99.1

                    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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Advanced Technologies Group, Ltd.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending July 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Alex Stelmak, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 result of operations of the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
19th day of June 2003.


/s/ Alex Stelmak
------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 15038]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6140]

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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Alaska Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that the Alaska Advisory 
Committee (Committee) to the Commission will meet on Thursday, April 5, 
2012. The meeting will begin at 1 p.m. and adjourn on or about 4 p.m. 
The meeting will be held at the University of Alaska--Anchorage, 
Library Room 307, 3211 Providence Drive, Anchorage, AK 95508. The 
purpose of the meeting is to plan future Committee activities.
    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments. The 
comments must be received in the Western Regional Office of the 
Commission by Monday, May 7, 2012. The address is Western Regional 
Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 N. Los Angeles Street, 
Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Persons wishing to email their 
comments, or to present their comments verbally at the meeting, or who 
desire additional information should contact Angelica Trevino, Office 
Manager, Western Regional Office, at (213) 894-3437, (or for hearing 
impaired TDD 913-551-1414), or by email to atrevino@usccr.gov. Hearing-
impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services 
of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at 
least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced 
at the Western Regional Office, as they become available, both before 
and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory 
committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, 
www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Western Regional Office at the above 
email or street address.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.

    Dated in Washington, DC, March 9, 2012.
Peter Minarik,
Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 2012-6140 Filed 3-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```
No. 96-5874.

#### Margiotti *v.*United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
# C_2013026EN.01002402.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/24

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 de Ourense (Spain) lodged on 2 November 2012 — Vueling Airlines, S.A. v Instituto Galego de Consumo de la Xunta de Galicia

(Case C-487/12)

2013/C 26/46

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 de Ourense

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vueling Airlines, S.A.

Applicant:

Defendant: Instituto Galego de Consumo de la Xunta de Galicia

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

| 1. | Is Article 22(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community to be interpreted as precluding a national rule (Article 97 of Ley 48/1960 de Navegación Aérea) that requires passenger airlines to grant passengers the right always to check in a suitcase without paying a supplement or surcharge on top of the base price of the ticket purchased? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 22(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community to be interpreted as precluding a national rule (Article 97 of Ley 48/1960 de Navegación Aérea) that requires passenger airlines to grant passengers the right always to check in a suitcase without paying a supplement or surcharge on top of the base price of the ticket purchased?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 293, p. 3.

1

---
Before the Third Division,

January 19, 1939

No. 40475.

#### Protests 951144-G, etc., of De Long, Incorporated, et al. (Philadelphia, etc.).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.