alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit32.1**

**UNIVERSAL COMPRESSION HOLDINGS,INC.**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

In connection with theReport of Universal Compression Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K forthe period ending December 31, 2006 (the “Report”), I, Stephen A. Snider, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to myknowledge:

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

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

 
| /s/ STEPHEN A. SNIDER   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Stephen A. Snider       |
| Chief Executive Officer |
| February 28, 2007       |

 

 

In connection with theReport of Universal Compression Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K forthe period ending December 31, 2006 (the “Report”), I, J. Michael Anderson,Chief Financial 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 to myknowledge:

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

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

 
| /s/ J. MICHAEL ANDERSON |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| J. Michael Anderson     |
| Chief Financial Officer |
| February 28, 2007       |

 

1

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6615

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BRYANT KELLY PRIDE, a/k/a Pride,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District 

Judge. (1:08-cr-00024-JPJ-2; 1:11-cv-80408-JPJ-RSB)

Submitted: November 2, 2012 Decided: November 7, 2012

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bryant Kelly Pride, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R. Bockhorst, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Bryant Kelly Pride seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order treating his motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 15(c)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) as a successive 28 

U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion, and dismissing it on 

that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Pride has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
3

Additionally, we construe Pride’s notice of appeal and 

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive 

§ 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 

(4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a 

successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on 

either: (1) newly discovered evidence, not previously 

discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to 

establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for 

constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found 

the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of 

constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by 

the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review. 28 U.S.C.A. 

§ 2255(h) (West Supp. 2012). Pride’s claims do not satisfy 

either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to 

file a successive § 2255 motion.

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
Case No. 10,044.

#### NATIONAL HAY-RAKE CO. v. HARBERT et al.

[2 Wkly. Notes Cas. 100.]

Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

Oct. 28, 1875.

Pleading in Equity — Patents — Bill fob Injunction and Discovery — Cobpobation.

1. Bill not sworn to. praying injunction and discovery under oath, *held*sufficient on demurrer.

2. Statement of locality or place of business of a corporation not required.

Hearing on-bill and demurrer. This was a bill filed by complainants for infringement of certain letters patent praying injunctions, both preliminary and final, and an account of profits and assessment of damages. Interrogatories were appended, to which an answer under oath was required. Defendants demurred because (11 the bill did not state where the corporation complainant was located, nor where it had any place of business; (2) the bill was not sworn to.

Strawbridge, for complainants,

cited Dorsey Harvester Rake Co. v." March [Case No. 4,014], Woodworth v. Edwards [Id. 18,014],

Mr. Fraley, for defendants,

cited Mitf. Eq. PI. 43; Dauiell, Ch. PI. & Prae. 302; Howe v. Harvey, S Taige, 73; Curt. Pat. § 40G; Pond v. Hudson River R. Co.. 17 How. Prac. 343; Rogers v. Abbot [Case No. 12,004]; rule 20 in equity.

Demurrer overruled.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 169 

To prohibit appropriated funds from being used in contravention of section 

642(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility 

Act of 1996. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 25 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 2011 

Mr. VITTER (for himself, Mr. GRASSLEY, and Mr. COBURN) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

A BILL 

To prohibit appropriated funds from being used in contravention of section 642(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform 

and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. RESTRICTION OF COPS FUNDING FOR SANC4 TUARY CITIES. 

5 None of the amounts appropriated in any Act for the 

6 Community Oriented Policing Services Program may be 

7 used in contravention of section 642(a) of the Illegal ImVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:07 Feb 01, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S169.IS S169

tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 169 IS

1 migration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 

2 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373(a)). 

Æ 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with BILLS
No. 42098.

#### Protests 947597-G, etc., of Wilson & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

On the authority of Abstract 40880’ the protests were-sustained.
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, David H. Clarke, certify that:



| | 1. |  | I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of Jacuzzi Brands,
Inc. (formerly U.S. Industries);                                                                                                                                                                                                                
| | -- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | 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; and
|
| | 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in
this report.                       

November 25, 2003

|                                                  |  | 
|------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ DAVID H. CLARKE                               |  | 
|                                                 
|David H. Clarke                                   |  | 
|Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer |  | 
|(Principal Executive Officer)                     |  | 

76
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.  SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Al  Kozak,  as  Chief  Executive  Officer  of  SmarTire  Systems,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  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:

(1) the  accompanying  Form 10-KSB report for the period ending July 31, 2005 as
filed with the U.S.  Securities and Exchange  Commission  (the  "Report")  fully
complies  with the  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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





Dated: February 24, 2006         /s/ Al Kozak
                                 ----------------------------
                                 Al Kozak, President and Chief Executive Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

DAMON WHEELER, SR.,

Appellant

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Appellee

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 31 WAP 2022

Appeal from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court entered June 

1, 2022 at No. 196 MD 2021.

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 23rd day of November, 2022, the Order of the Commonwealth 

Court is affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part. We affirm the Order to the 

extent it affirms the trial court as to the 340 days of credit for time served and the 

imposition of financial penalties. We otherwise vacate the Order and remand solely for a 

determination of the merits of Damon Wheeler, Sr.’s request for credit for time served 

from his arrest in Philadelphia County on May 11, 2019, until his transfer to Cambria 

County on July 19, 2019. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9760(1) (providing that a defendant is entitled 

to credit for time served “for all time spent in custody as a result of the criminal charge”).
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), 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 Remifentanil (9739), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II.                 

The company plans on producing this item for sale to its customers, who are final dosage manufacturers. 

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 9, 2007. 

Joseph T. Rannazzisi, 

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

[FR Doc. E7-9634 Filed 5-17-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
Exhibit 32.1

   Certification of CEO and CFO Furnished 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 Annual Report of Samaritan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Dr. Janet Greeson,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify for the purposes of section 1350
of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code that, to the best of my
knowledge,

          (i) the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the year ended
          December 31, 2006 (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements
          of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

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



                                           Date:         April 13, 2007

                                             By:     /s/ Dr. Janet Greeson
                                                         -----------------
                                          Title:         Chief Executive Officer
                                                         and President



A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                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  Amendment  No. 2 to the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB of
China Energy Savings Technology,  Inc. for the fiscal quarter ended December 31,
2004, as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof
(the  "Report"),  I, Kam Wah  Poon,  Chief  Financial  Officer  of the  Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

     (1)  The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

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

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906,  another
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 China Energy  Savings  Technology,
Inc. and will be retained by China Energy Savings Technology, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



/s/ Kam Wah Poon
---------------------------------
Kam Wah Poon
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
Date: June 15, 2005
EXHIBIT 31.2

I, Paul Bailey, the chief financial officer of the Company, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Iroquois Gas
Transmission System, L.P.;

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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer 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)) for the registrant 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 registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report
is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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 registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting; and

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

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant'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 registrant's internal
control over financial reporting.

DATE: November 14, 2003



/S/ PAUL BAILEY
_________________________________________
PAUL BAILEY
VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
Before the Second Division,

April 8, 1942

No. 47048.

#### Protests 9470-K, etc., of Jas. McCutcheon & Co. (New York).

*485Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following Abstract 44055 the claim at 60 percent under paragraph 1209 was sustained.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-1440

MINNEAPOLIS COMM UNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY

and THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS,

Appellants,

v.

David L. Bibb,

ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, GENERA L SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,

Appellee.

Charles N. Nauen , Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L. P., of Minneapolis, Minnesota,

argued for appellants. With him on the brief was William A. Gengler . Of counsel on the

brief were Susan L. Segal and Peter W. Ginder , Office of Minneapolis City Attorney, of

Minneapolis, Minnesota.

John S. Groat , Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigatio n Branch, Civil Division, United

States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for appellee. With him on the

brief were Tony West , Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson , Director, and

Bryant G. Snee , Deputy Director.

Appealed from: Civilian B oard of Contract Appeals

Administrative Judge Martha H. DeGraffNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-1440

MINNEAPOLIS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY

and THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS,

Appellants,

v.

David L. Bibb,

ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, GENERA L SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,

Appellee.



## Judgment

ON APPEAL from the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals

in CASE NO(S). 385

This CAUSE having been hear d and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

Per Curiam (MICHEL, Chief Judge and NEWMAN and RADER, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

DATED January 11, 2010 /s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly, Clerk
Attachment 2-Procedure for Generation of SN Curve from Labor atory Test Data

The SN curve for the part is generated using a step procedur e. In step 1, the mean and working endurance limits are computed from the test data. In ste p 2, the SN curve is generated from the equation: [1 ]

endurance s f f E N γ

α = + For each failure point, a SN curve of the form

-6 Characteristic Curve Endurance Limit N=Number of Cycles to Failure x 10 =Material Constant =Material Shape Parameter S=Stress Amplitude s

s S E N where E γ α

α γ = +

=

was passed through each test data point to compute the imputed endurance limit. The imputed endurance limit corresponding to the data point is determined from the relationship:

1 test endurance

s test

S S E N γ

α = +

The SN curve parameters used for 4340 steel with ch afing are: 7.6 4 0.666 s E α γ =

=

= The SN curve parameters used for 4340 steel without chafing are: 31 1 1 s E α γ =

=

= These are the values Sikorsky uses for steel. Whil e the values are ostensibly proprietary to Sikorsky, they are well known in the helicopter ind ustry as they have appeared in numerouspapers presented at AHS meetings by Dave Adams, the then Chief of Mechanical Testing at

Sikorsky. The mean endurance limit for the specimen is found from:

1 1 n endurance endurance

i f f

n = = 

# ∑
The working endurance limit is:

working endurance endurance f RF f

= • where RF is the reduction factor to account for spe cimen variability and is 0.7 for titanium and steel components which must have “three nines”(0.99 9) reliability.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

DOMINIQUE BRICE

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 20

- 2264

[ March 25, 2021 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County ; Dan L. Vaughn

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 312008CF000743A

.

Dominique Brice, Ocala, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

D AMOORGIAN

, F ORST and A RT AU , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.