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

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION






<PAGE>



                                  Exhibit 32.1

                     CERTIFICATION OF DISCLOSURE 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 Infinity  Capital Group,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  September 30, 2009 as filed with
the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report") I,
Gregory H. Laborde,  Principal  Executive  Officer,  President,  Chief Executive
Officer and  Chairman of the Board of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 USC
section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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: November 16, 2009


/s/Gregory H. Laborde
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory H. Laborde, Principal Executive Officer, President,
Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board


This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
No. 96-7913.

#### Alvarado Orozco *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 200 9-0 819

DCN: SE02129

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS I NFORMATION

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
No. 74-5706.

#### Orange *v.*North Carolina.

Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.
#### Fabian ERAZO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 99-0933.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 19, 1999.

*517Fabian Erazo, Lawtey, pro se.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Robert R. Wheeler, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Fabian Erazo appeals the summary denial of the postconviction motion he filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In his motion, he alleged that his negotiated plea, under which he agreed to an upward departure sentence of 34 m Ct. R. 7.onths, was rendered involuntary by the inclusion in his sentencing guidelines scoresheet of points for an offense for which he had not been convicted. If this allegation is true, the departure sentence exceeds the guidelines sentence not by two and a half months, but by seven months. Erazo claims that he would not have agreed to the plea had he known that the guidelines sentence shown on the scoresheet was wrong.

The State argues that even if there was an error on the scoresheet, a point that it does not concede, the error was harmless because Erazo agreed to the non-guidelines sentence that was imposed. That position has support, including this court’s opinion in *Gibson v. State,*619 So.2d 31 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). However, there is also authority allowing a defendant to challenge the voluntariness of his decision to enter such a plea, where he allegedly relied on a miscalculated scoresheet. *See Boerstler v. State, 622*So.2d 184 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); *Gainer v. State,*590 So.2d 1001 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

On the basis of the record that is available to this court, we cannot be certain that Erazo would have entered his plea if he had known the true extent to which the agreed sentence departed from the guidelines. We, therefore, reverse and remand for either attachment of record excerpts that conclusively refute the allegations in the motion, or for an evidentiary hearing to determine the voluntariness of the plea.

GUNTHER, POLEN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
No. 74-5499.

#### Carter *v.*Lee.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 93 (Tuesday, May 15, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 27311]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9264]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or 
Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than May 30, 2007.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Glenda Wilson, Community 
Affairs Officer) 411 Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:
    1. Atwood Holdings Limited Partnership, Trezevant, Tennessee, and 
George L. Atwood, Trezevant, Tennessee, as general partner; to gain 
control of F & M Bancshares, Inc., Trezevant, Tennessee, and thereby 
indirectly gain control of Citizens City and County Bank, Trenton, 
Tennessee, and Farmer's and Merchants Bank, Trezevant, Tennessee.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 10, 2007.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E7-9264 Filed 5-14-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
# C_2012184EN.01002303.xml

| 23.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/23

---

Action brought on 15 March 2012 — ZZ v EIB

(Case F-36/12)

2012/C 184/51

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: N. Thieltgen, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

(i) Annulment of the implied decision rejecting the applicant’s claim for compensation and (ii) compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered on account of the alleged administrative errors on the part of the defendant.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Order the EIB to pay compensation for physical, material and non-material damage caused to the applicant as a result of the unlawfulness of the administrative errors on the part of the EIB, together with default interest:






  — | for infringement by the EIB of its duty to have due regard for the welfare of officials and its duty of protection, EUR 114 100; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Order the EIB to pay compensation for physical, material and non-material damage caused to the applicant as a result of the unlawfulness of the administrative errors on the part of the EIB, together with default interest:

—

for infringement by the EIB of its duty to have due regard for the welfare of officials and its duty of protection, EUR 114 100;

| — | for infringement of Article 42 of the Staff Regulations, EUR 10 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

for infringement of Article 42 of the Staff Regulations, EUR 10 000;

| — | order the EIB to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EIB to pay the costs.

---
**EXHIBIT
      12.1**





I,
      Martin
      Ouellet, certify that:





1.
      I have
      reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of NB Finance, Ltd.;





2.
      Based
      on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
      fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
      in
      light of the circumstances under which such statements were made not misleading
      with respect to the period covered by this report;





3.
      Based
      on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
      included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
      condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for,
      the periods presented in this report;





4.
      The
      company’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
      maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
      Rules
      13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as
      defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company and
      have:





(a)
      Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
      controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
      material information relating to the company, including its consolidated
      subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
      during the period in which this report is being prepared;





(b)
      Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures
      and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
      disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by
      this
      report based on such evaluation; and





(c)
      Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over
      financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report
      that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
      the
      company’s internal control over financial reporting; and





5.
      The
      company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
      recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s
      auditors and the audit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons
      performing the equivalent functions):





(a)
      All
      significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
      of
      internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
      adversely affect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report
      financial information; and





(b)
      Any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
      who
      have a significant role in the company’s internal control over financial
      reporting.







/s/ Martin Ouellet
            Date: June 16, 2006Martin
                Ouellet
              President
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7566

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ERNEST LEE GRIMES, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Chief

District Judge. (CR-95-67-F, CA-96-127-7-F)

Submitted: May 29, 1997 Decided: June 5, 1997

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ernest Lee Grimes, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Bruce Charles Johnson,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Grimes, Nos. CR-95-67-F, CA-96-127-7-F

(E.D.N.C. Sept. 25, 1996). 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.

DISMISSED
No. 74-840.

#### Gulf Oil Corp. *v.*Wood.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
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

# National Preparedness Month 

By Dana ThornburyDLA Land and Maritime Public Affairs

                COLUMBUS, Ohio  –              
 

National Preparedness Month recognized each September, provides an opportunity to remind us that we all must prepare ourselves and our families now and throughout the year. This NPM will focus on planning, with an overarching theme: **Disasters Happen. Prepare Now. Learn How**.   

## 2018 Weekly Themes

**Week 1**

Sept. 1 – 8: Make and practice your plan

**Week 2**

Sept. 9 – 15: Learn lifesaving skills

Sept. 12: See Something/Say Something Day!

Sept. 13: Emergency information display/distribution

Sept. 15: CPR/AED Class

**Week 3**

Sept. 16 – 22: Check your insurance coverage

Sept. 20: Emergency information display/distribution

**Week 4**

Sept. 23 – 29: Save for an emergency

Sept. 26: Parent preparedness information

 

Download the FEMA app for disaster resources, weather alerts, and safety tips.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLA L&MProtect the Workforce L&MPeople & Culture L&M
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

    As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of our reports dated January 26, 2000, on the consolidated balance
sheets of U S WEST, Inc. (formerly known as USW-C, Inc., the "Company") as of
December 31, 1999 and 1998, and the related consolidated statements of income,
statement of stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the three years in
the period ended December 31, 1999, and on Schedule II, included in the
Company's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999, into the Company's
previously filed Registration Statements: the U S WEST, Inc. 1999 U S WEST
Non-Executive Stock Plan on Form S-8 (333-81567) filed June 25, 1999, the 1999
U S WEST Stock Plan (333-86227), as amended, filed August 31, 1999, the
U S WEST, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan on Form S-8 (333-53569), filed
May 26, 1998, the U S WEST, Inc. Long-Term Incentive Plan on Form S-8
(333-53567), filed May 26, 1998, the U S WEST, Inc. 1998 Stock Plan on Form S-8
(333-53565), filed May 26, 1998, the U S WEST, Inc. Savings Plan/ESOP on
Form S-8 (333-53563), filed May 26, 1998, the Shareowner Investment Plan on
Form S-3 (333-52781), filed May 15, 1998, the U S WEST Capital Funding, and the
U S WEST, Inc. Registration Statement on Form S-3 (333-51907), as amended, filed
May 6, 1998.

ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Denver, Colorado,
March 3, 2000.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1501
SANJEEV MALHOTRA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WATERGATE AT LANDMARK (WAL) CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, WAL Board of Directors and/or its assignees, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:05-cv-00076-LMB) Submitted: October 12, 2007 Decided: October 23, 2007 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sanjeev Malhotra, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Curtis Gartner, WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, LLP, Falls Church, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Sanjeev Malhotra appeals the district court’s orders denying his motions to reopen and for sanctions. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Malhotra v. Watergate at Landmark Condo. Assoc. , No. 1:05-cv-00076-LMB (E.D. Va. Apr. 4 & 6, 2007). We deny Appellee’s motion for sanctions. 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
No. 96-1198.

#### Foltice *v.*Guardsman Products, Inc., et al.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1951

OTIS A. KASHIF,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

AMERIGROUP CORPORATION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District 

Judge. (2:10-cv-00239-MSD-FBS)

Submitted: December 20, 2011 Decided: December 22, 2011

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Otis A. Kashif, Appellant Pro Se. William McCardell Furr, Bryan 

C. R. Skeen, WILLCOX & SAVAGE, PC, Norfolk, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Otis A. Kashif appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his age-based employment discrimination claim. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Kashif v. Amerigroup Corp., No. 2:10-cv-00239-MSD-FBS 

(E.D. Va. Aug. 1, 2011). 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 32.1

Certification by the Principal Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2003


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, each of the undersigned officers of Iroquois Gas
Transmission System, L.P., a limited partnership organized under the laws of the
State of Delaware (the "Partnership"), does hereby certify that, to the best of
such officer's knowledge:


     1.   The accompanying Quarterly Report of the Partnership on Form 10-Q/A
          for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies
          with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
          Exchange Act of 1934; and

     2.   Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
          Partnership.



                                          /s/ E.J. Holm
                                          ---------------------------
                                          E. J. Holm
                                          President
                                          June 22, 2005



                                          /s/ Paul Bailey
                                          ---------------------------
                                          Paul Bailey
                                          Vice President and Chief
                                          Financial Officer
                                          June 22, 2005
No. 47669.

#### Protest 29842-K of New York Mdse. Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *United States*v. *Minami*(29 C. C. P. A. 169, C. A. D. 188), the claim at 35 percent under paragraph 353 was sustained.
<PAGE>


                                                              Exhibit 23.2


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration 
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-58315, 333-58319, 333-58323) of Aztec 
Technology Partners, Inc. of our report dated June 7, 1996, except for Note 
9, as to which the date is October 24, 1996, relating to the financial 
statements of Fotran Corp., appearing on page F-3 of this Form 10-K.


Rubin, Koehmstedt and Nadler, PLC
Springfield, Virginia
March 31, 1999
#### The May Co. *v.*United States

No. 7719.

Entry No. 384.

(Decided July 26, 1949)

*Tompkins & Tompkins (Walter Auster*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

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

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the issues in Reappraisement Appeal 166262-A-2870 covering Entry 384 of 9/16/47 are the same in all material respects as the issues decided in *C. J. Tower & Sons v. United States,*R. D. 7624, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appraised value of the merchandise involved in this case, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the price, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise is freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise is no higher.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this case may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

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.