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



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of (18 U.S.C. 1350), the undersigned officer of EarthFirst Technologies, Incorporated (the Company), does hereby certify, to the best of such officers knowledge and belief,
that:



(1) The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended
December 31, 2003 (the Form 10-KSB) of the Company 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 Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all materials respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |                                                    
|-------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------
|Date: April 13, 2004 |  | /s/ John Stanton                                   
|                     |  | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer



This certification
shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the
Securities Act or the Securities Exchange Act.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1752 

To nullify certain regulations regarding the removal of essential-use 

designation for epinephrine used in oral pressurized metered-dose inhalers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 20, 2011 

Mr. ROBERTS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To nullify certain regulations regarding the removal of essential-use designation for epinephrine used in oral pressurized metered-dose inhalers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Freedom to Breathe 

5 Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. NULLIFICATION OF FINAL RULE; PROHIBITION. 

7 (a) NULLIFICATION OF FINAL RULE.—As of the date 

8 of enactment of this Act, the final rule entitled ‘‘Use of 

9 Ozone-Depleting Substances; Removal of Essential-Use 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1752 IS

1 Designation (Epinephrine)’’ (73 Fed. Reg. 69532 (No2 vember 19, 2008)) shall have no force or effect. 

3 (b) PROHIBITION ON FUTURE REGULATIONS.—In no 

4 case may the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

5 reissue the final rule described in subsection (a) in sub6 stantially the same form, or issue a new rule that prohibits 

7 the production and distribution of oral pressurized me8 tered-dose inhalers because such inhalers may emit 

9 chlorofluorocarbons or other green house gas emissions, 

10 unless the reissued or new rule is specifically authorized 

11 by a law enacted after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Carl PICURRO, III, Appellant, v. Susan R. PICURRO, Appellee.

No. 98-2525.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 26, 1999.

*528Sheldon Engelhard of Sheldon Engel-hard, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellant.

No brief filed for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion for rehearing of order of commitment. Appellant asserts that the trial court erred by entering an order of commitment without conducting a hearing to determine his present ability to pay. Moreover, the' trial court’s order did not contain any findings of appellant’s present ability to pay. Appellant filed a motion for rehearing, which was denied. We reverse.

“[I]nearceration for civil contempt cannot be imposed unless the trial court finds a present ability to purge himself of contempt.” *Pompey v. Cochran,*685 So.2d 1007, 1014 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Civil contempt proceedings in family support cases involve a two part process. *See id.*In the first step, once a movant comes forward with evidence showing that a party was court ordered to pay and has defaulted, a presumption exists that the defaulting party has the present ability to pay. *See Bowen v. Bowen,*471 So.2d 1274, 1278 (Fla.1985); *Pompey,*685 So.2d at 1014. The burden then shifts to the defaulting party to show lack of present ability to pay. *See Bowen,*471 So.2d at 1278-79. The court must then weigh the evidence to determine whether contempt has occurred. *See id.*at 1279.

In the second step, if the court has determined that contempt has occurred, the court must evaluate the alternatives to determine whether incarceration is appropriate. *See id.; Pompey,*685 So.2d at 1014. “If incarceration is deemed appro priate, the court must make a separate, affirmative finding that the contemnor possesses the present ability to comply with the purge conditions set forth in the contempt order.” *Bowen,*471 So.2d at 1279. In addition, “the presumption of ability to pay which exists in the first step is not a substitute for the ‘separate, affirmative finding’ of ability to pay required for incarceration.” *Pompey,*685 So.2d at 1014.

In the present case, while the trial court’s order stated that appellant was in willful contempt, it did not address appellant’s present ability to pay. Because the trial court was required to make a “separate, affirmative finding” of appellant’s present ability to pay before imposing incarceration, we reverse and remand for a hearing on the appellant’s present ability to pay.

REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS OPINION.

GUNTHER, FARMER and GROSS, JJ., concur.
No. 46465.

#### Protests 59553-K, etc., of Volupte, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise.is the same as that passed upon in *Volupte, Inc.*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 130, C. D. 445), the claim at 20 percent under paragraph 1558 was sustained.
Exhibit 32


                            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  California  Clean Air, Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report")  the
undersigned  hereby  certifies  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; 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: June 28, 2004                /s/ STEPHEN D. WILSON

                                    Stephen D. Wilson
                                    Title: President, Chief Executive Officer,
                                    Secretary, Chief Financial Officer, Chief
                                    Accounting Officer, Director
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DOMINIQUE BRICE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-2264

[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.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, FORST and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Abercrombie & Fitch Co. *v.*United States

No. 6493.

Entry No. 720440, etc.

Invoices dated Northampton, England, September 17, 1941, etc.

Certified September 18, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., October 20, 1941, etc.

(Decided November 7, 1946)

*Lane & Wallace*and *Lane, Young & Fox*for the plaintiff.

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

Kincheloe, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 46472.

#### Protest 36440-K of Melchers, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Brachman*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 153, C. D. 389) the claim, for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Veeco Instruments Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David D. Glass,Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 
| /s/ DAVID D. GLASS                                                                 |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| David D. Glass                                                                     |   |
| Executive Vice  President and Chief Financial Officer  Veeco Instruments Inc. |   |
| April 28, 2010                                                                |   |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Veeco Instruments Inc. and willbe retained by Veeco Instruments Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming 

Regional Administrator 

US EPA, Region 4 

Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303 

May 16, 2011 

Subject: State Implementation Plan Revisions to Significant Deterioration and New 

Source Review Provisions Incorporating PM2.5 Provisions 

Dear Ms. Fleming: 

On November 18, 2010, the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) approved amendments to 

15A NCAC 02D .0530, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, and 02D .0531 Sources in Nonattainment Areas, 

to incorporate PM2.5 as a regulated pollutant. These rule amendments were the subject of a public hearing held 

on August 31, 201 0, were approved by the State Rules Review Commission at its December 16, 20 10 meeting, 

and became effective January 2, 2011. 

Enclosed is the hearing record for this public hearing and a copy of the rules for which approval is 

requested. Note that the rules for which approval is requested differ from the rules in Chapter II of the hearing 

record as a result of changes made by the Environmental Management Commission post production of the 

hearing record. The hard copies of the rules and hearing record are identical to the .pdf files recorded on the CD. 

Please proceed to approve the aforementioned rule amendments as part of the federally-approved State 

Implementation Plan. 

If you need additional information or have any questions, please contact Ms. Joelle Burleson of my staff at 

(919)733-1474 

Enclosures 

SCH/jb 

c: Beverly Banister 

Dick Schutt 

Lynorae Benjamin 

N acosta Ward 

Hearing Record File 

North Carolina 27699-1641 

An 

Sincerely, 

Sheila C. Holman 

N~rth Carolina 

)Vaturallu
Exhibit 32

     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of California Clean Air, Inc.("Company")
on Form 10- QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 ("Report") I, Stephen D.
Wilson, President of the Company, certify that to the best of my knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of the 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.


         Date:  June 28, 2003.                        /s/ STEPHEN D. WILSON

                                                      Stephen D. Wilson
March 8 , 2012



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

CHARLES ANTHONY ALLE N , Appellant

NO. 14

- 11

- 00103

- CV V.
GEORGE STEPHENSON, A USTIN ETHEREDGE, AND NATALIE ALFORD , Appellees

____________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellees, GEORGE STEPHENSON, AUSTIN E THEREDGE, AND NATALI E ALFORD , signed November 24, 2010, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED

.

We order this decision certified below for observance.
#### W. X. Huber Co. *v.*United States

No. 7650.

Invoices dated Antwerp, Belgium, November 23, 1938, etc.

Certified November 25, 1938, etc.

Entered at Los Angeles, Calif., December 29, 1938, etc.

Entry Nos. 5519; 5957.

(Decided January 24, 1949)

*Mary Rehan (Philip Stein*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General *(Richard F. Weeks,*special attorney), for the defendant.

*389Mollison, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the respective parties, subject to the approval of the court, as follows:

> (1) That the merchandise, cotton rugs from Belgium, and the issues involved in the Reappraisement Appeals 129710-A-4931 etc., listed in annexed Schedule A, which is referred to and made a part of this stipulation, are the same in all material respects as the merchandise and the issues which were passed upon in the case of *United States*v. *Stephen Bug Mills, Inc.,*Reappraisements 131005-A etc., R. D. 6283, wherein, it was hold that there was no foreign value for the merchandise; that export value was the proper basis for determining dutiable value, and that the export values for the merchandise were the entered values.

> (2) That the record in said case, Reappraisements 131005-A etc., R. D. 0283, may be and hereby is received in evidence as a part of the record in this case.

> (3) That the prices at the time of exportation of the merchandise in suit to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, plus, when not included in such price, the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, are the appraised values less the amounts added on entry because of advances made by the appraiser in other eases then pending on appeal for reappraisement.

> (4) The appeals listed in the annexed schedule A are hereby submitted for decision upon this 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 for the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the amounts added on entry because of advances made by the appraiser in other cases then pending on appeal for reappraisement.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 45269.

#### Protests 540829-G, etc., of Banca Commerciale Italiana et al. (New York).

*524Opinion by

Bbown, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is similar to that the subject of *Cohn*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 166, C. D. 314). The protests were therefore sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 9897)

#### Haddad & Sons, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 47916; 5426; 5458.

(Decided January 10, 1961)

*James*(7. *MoG-oldriok*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

'Counsel for the parties have submitted the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached schedule of re-appraisements for decision upon a stipulation reading as follows:

> (1) That the merchandise covered by the appeals to reappraisement herein, consist of footwear imported from Japan, and that such articles are identified in Schedule A, attached hereto and made part hereof;

> (2) That export value, as defined in section 402a (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis of value for the merchandise herein;

> (3) That such statutory export value for the merchandise covered by the appeal for reappraisement herein, is the invoiced unit price, ex-factory, net, packing included;

> (4) That there is no higher foreign value for the herein merchandise.

*562On the agreed facts, I find export value, as defined in section 402a (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the articles identified in schedule “A,” also attached hereto, and that such value in each case is the invoiced unit price, ex-factory, net, packing included.

Judgment will issue accordingly.

Schedule A

The manufacturer and seller of the merchandise herein is:

Chuo Chemical Co., Ltd.

Kobe, Japan

R60/7979 (Export Date: April 26, 1959)

Los Angeles Collector’s No. 24448

Los Angeles Entry No. 47916 (May 18,1959)

Sandals with vinyl uppers and sponge rubber soles

Article SR — 160—for ladies

432 dozen pairs, invoiced at US $4.40 per dozen pair, ex-factory, net, packed.

R60/7980 (Export Date: July 12, 1959)

Los Angeles Collector’s No. 24449

Los Angeles Entry No. 5426 (July 30, 1959)

Sandals with vinyl uppers and sponge rubber soles

Article # CH-002 — for children — 117 6/12 dozen pair, invoiced at US $4.97 per dozen pair, net, packed.

Article #CH-002 — for youths — 97 6/12 dozen pair, invoiced at US $7.17 per dozen pair, net, packed.

R60/7981 (Export Date: July 13, 1959)

Los Angeles Collector’s No. 24450

Los Angeles Entry No. 5458 (July 30, 1959)

Article # CH-003 (Style 17) — for ladies— 1,000 dozen pair, invoiced at US $4.68 per dozen pair, net, packed.
# C_2013252EN.01004601.xml

| 31.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/46

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 26 June 2013 — Achab v EESC

(Case F-21/12) (1)

1

(Civil Service - Officials - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Condition laid down in Article 4(1)(a) and (b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Recovery of sums unduly paid)

2013/C 252/79

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mohammed Achab (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lhoest, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) (represented by: M. Arsène and G. Boudot, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision withdrawing the award of expatriation allowance to the applicant and seeking retroactively to recover that allowance.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Economic and Social Committee of 9 June 2011 in so far as it orders the recovery of the expatriation allowance paid to Mr Achab from 1 July 2010; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Economic and Social Committee of 9 June 2011 in so far as it orders the recovery of the expatriation allowance paid to Mr Achab from 1 July 2010;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders the European Economic and Social Committee to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Mr Achab; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Economic and Social Committee to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Mr Achab;

| 4. | Orders Mr Achab to bear half of his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Mr Achab to bear half of his own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 133, 5.5.2012, p. 30.

1

---
No. 49527.

#### Protest 106560-K of Biddle Purchasing Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

At the trial counsel for the Government moved in evidence the memorandum of the collector relative to the shortage claimed, and agreed to allowance of shortage as recommended by the collector, viz, for *3393 cases not found, a timely shortage affidavit having been filed by the importer. The surveyor’s office endorsed the permit for delivery to show th^t the 240 tins were delivered in good order, and that there was no record of the cases from which the tins are claimed short ever having been recoopered on the dock, or being landed recoopered. In accordance therewith the court directed the ■collector to reliquidate the entry, making allowance in duties for the 3 cases of anchovies not found.
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 3.2


            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

                                       OF

                                  VALESC INC.


             (Pursuant to Section 242 of the Corporation Law of Delaware) It is
hereby certified that:

       1. The name of the corporation (hereinafter called the "corporation") is
Valesc Inc.

       2. The certificate of incorporation of the corporation is hereby amended
by striking out Article FIRST thereof and by substituting in lieu of said
Article the following new Article:

          "FIRST: The name of the corporation shall be Valesc Holdings Inc."

       3. The amendment of the certificate of incorporation herein certified has
been duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the corporation in a resolution
dated March 19, 2003 and by the stockholders in a special meeting dated
April 11, 2003.



Signed on April 21, 2003



/s/ Samuel Cohen
-------------------------------------
Samuel Cohen, President
#### Darene REED v. COLUMBIA/HCA INFORMATION SERVICE, INC., et al.

No. 98-CC-2750.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 18, 1998.

IN RE: Reed, Darene; — Plaintiffs); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial *641Writ; Parish of Jefferson 24th Judicial District Court Div. “0” Number 477-591; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Number 98-CW-1001.

Denied.

MARCUS, J. not on panel.

JOHNSON, J. would grant the writ.