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

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SEC. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002.

 

In connection with the quarterlyReport of IWT Tesoro Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Henry J. Boucher, Jr., ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresult of operations of the Company.

 

The foregoingcertification shall not be deemed to be filed for the purposes of Section 18of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to liabilityunder this section.  This certification shallnot be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under theSecurities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act except to the extent that this Exhibit 32.1is expressly incorporated by reference in any such filing.

 
| Dated: September 2,  2005 | /s/ Henry J. Boucher, Jr. |   |
|--------------------------------|--------------------------------|--------|
|                           | Henry J. Boucher, Jr.     |
|                           | Chief Executive Officer        |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided to the Company and will beretained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

----
No. 50763.

#### Protest 748274-G of V. O. Milling Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of ground kelp the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Centennial Flouring Mills Co.*v. *United States*(29 C. C. P. A. 264, C. A. D. 200) and *United States*v. *Nippon Co.*(32 id. 164, C. A. D. 303). In accordance therewith the claim for free entry under paragraph 1705 was sustained.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 96 (Friday, May 18, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 28087]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9574]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 
20549.

Extension:
    Form 15; OMB Control No. 3235-0167; SEC File No. 270-170.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of 
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this 
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and 
Budget for extension and approval.
    Form 15 (17 CFR 249.232) is a certification of termination of a 
class of security under Section 12(g) or notice of suspension of duty 
to file reports pursuant to Sections 13 and 15(d) of the Securities 
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.). We estimate that 
approximately 3,000 issuers file Form 15 annually and it takes 
approximately 1.5 hours per response to prepare for a total of 4,500 
annual burden hours.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will 
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of 
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to 
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; 
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
respondents, including through the use of automated collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will 
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o 
Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or 
send an e-mail to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#66363427392b070f0a04091e2615030548010910"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b9e9ebf8e6f4d8d0d5dbd6c1f9cadcda97ded6cf">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: May 11, 2007.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-9574 Filed 5-17-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 23

                          CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Form S-3 (No. 333-83755)
pertaining to the registration of shares of common stock for the former
stockholders of Debitek Holdings Limited; Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Form
S-4 Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-83743) pertaining to the
registration of shares of common stock for issuance upon the exercise of options
issued under the National Transaction Network, Inc. 1995 Director Stock Option
Plan and the National Transaction Network, Inc. 1988 Stock Plan; Form S-8 (No.
333-83829) pertaining to the IVI Checkmate Electronics, Inc. 401(K) Plan; Form
S-8 (No. 333-65749) pertaining to the Plourde Computer Services, Inc. 1991 Stock
Option Plan; Form S-8 (No. 333-65259) pertaining to the IVI Checkmate Corp. 1998
Long-Term Incentive Plan and the IVI Checkmate Corp. Amended and Restated 1998
Directors Stock Option Plan; Post-Effective Amendment No. 2 to Form S-4
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-53629) pertaining to the Checkmate
Electronics, Inc. 1998 Employee Incentive Stock Option Plan, Checkmate
Electronics, Inc. 1993 Stock Option Plan, Checkmate Electronics, Inc. 1994
Director's Stock Option Plan, International Verifact Inc. 1997 Stock Option Plan
and Checkmate Electronics, Inc. Non-Incentive Stock Option Agreement; and Post-
Effective Amendment No. 5 to Form S-4 Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No.
333-53629), pertaining to the registration of shares of common stock for
issuance upon the exchange of exchangeable shares, of our report dated February
23, 2001, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of IVI Checkmate
Corp. included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2000.

                                 /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Atlanta, Georgia
March 26, 2001
No. 39162.

#### Protests 311699-G, etc., of Stern Bros. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Certain items consisting of embroidered silk net galloons similar to those involved in Abstract 12555 were held dutiable at 75 percent under paragraph 1430. Articles in chief value of cellulose filaments were held dutiable at 60 percent under paragraph 31 on the authority of Abstract 37230.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1814 

To amend title XXVIII of the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize 

certain provisions relating to public health preparedness. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 7, 2011 

Mrs. GILLIBRAND introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

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

A BILL 

To amend title XXVIII of the Public Health Service Act 

to reauthorize certain provisions relating to public health 

preparedness. 

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 ‘‘National Disaster 

5 Medical System Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS RE7 LATING TO PUBLIC HEALTH PREPAREDNESS. 

8 Section 2812 of the Public Health Service Act (42 

9 U.S.C. 300hh–11) is amended— 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1814 IS

1 (1) in subsection (a)(3), by adding at the end 

2 the following: 

3 ‘‘(D) ADMINISTRATION.—The Secretary 

4 may determine and pay claims for reimburse5 ment for services under subparagraph (A) di6 rectly or by contract providing for payment in 

7 advance or by way of reimbursement.’’; and 

8 (2) in subsection (g), by striking ‘‘such sums as 

9 may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2007 

10 through 2011’’ and inserting ‘‘$56,000,000 for each 

11 of fiscal years 2012 through 2016’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1710 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1710

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To designate the United States courthouse located at 222 West 7th 
  Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska, as the James M. Fitzgerald United States 
                              Courthouse.

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

SECTION 1. JAMES M. FITZGERALD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE.

    (a) Designation.--The United States courthouse located at 222 West 
7th Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska, shall be known and designated as the 
``James M. Fitzgerald United States Courthouse''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the United States 
courthouse referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a 
reference to the ``James M. Fitzgerald United States Courthouse''.

            Passed the Senate December 17, 2011.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
112th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1710

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To designate the United States courthouse located at 222 West 7th 
  Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska, as the James M. Fitzgerald United States 
                              Courthouse.
```
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

# Federal Register Citation of Previous Announcement: 

[To be published]. 

# Status:

Closed Meeting. 

# Place:

100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC. 

# Date and Time of Previously Announced Meeting:

Thursday, May 17, 2007 at 9:45 a.m. 

# Change in the Meeting:

 Cancellation of Meeting. 

The Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, May 17, 2007 has been cancelled. 

For further information please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400. 

Dated: May 17, 2007. 

Nancy M. Morris, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E7-9779 Filed 5-21-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6936
ROY CAMPBELL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-1402) Submitted: November 23, 2005 Decided: December 12, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roy Campbell, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Roy Campbell seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Campbell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. 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
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  September 30, 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: August 10 , 2005             /s/ STEPHEN D. WILSON
                                    ------------------------------------------
                                    Stephen D. Wilson
                                    Title: President, Chief Executive Officer,
                                    Secretary, Chief Financial Officer, Chief
                                    Accounting Officer, Director
# C_2013026EN.01006801.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/68

---

Action brought on 6 December 2012 — DeMaCo Holland v Commission

(Case T-527/12)

2013/C 26/133

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: DeMaCo Holland BV (Langedijk, Netherlands) (represented by: L. Linders and S. Bishop, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare the applicant’s claim admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the applicant’s claim admissible and well-founded;

| — | consequently order Euratom to desist immediately from any use of the ‘redesign’ in respect of which the applicant has rights and, further, order Euratom to pay compensation to the applicant, provisionally estimated at EUR 100 000, on the basis of its non-contractual error; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently order Euratom to desist immediately from any use of the ‘redesign’ in respect of which the applicant has rights and, further, order Euratom to pay compensation to the applicant, provisionally estimated at EUR 100 000, on the basis of its non-contractual error;

| — | order Euratom to pay the costs incurred in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Euratom to pay the costs incurred in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its claim the applicant seeks compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the non-contractual error of the European Atomic Energy Community, represented by the European Commission, inasmuch as it made use of technical drawings belonging to the applicant and transmitted those drawings for use in a public procurement procedure by the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy (Fusion for Energy).

In support of its action the applicant claims that the defendant unlawfully made use of the applicant’s technical drawings.

The technical drawings created exclusively by the applicant — outside any contractual relationship between the parties — were used by the defendant without the applicant’s agreement. Furthermore, the defendant facilitated the use of the technical drawings by third parties, namely Fusion for Energy.

The knowingly unlawful use by the defendant of the applicant’s technical drawings constitutes unlawful conduct and infringes the applicant’s copyright.

The defendant has thus acquired an unauthorised economic advantage for itself on the basis of the applicant’s financial and intellectual efforts, which is contrary to fair commercial practice and fair competition.

The damage suffered consists of the applicant’s loss of profit as a result of Fusion for Energy’s call for tenders, which was made possible as a result of the defendant’s intervention, and remuneration for the disregard of the applicant’s intellectual property rights.

---
# C_2013026EN.01003201.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/32

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 8 November 2012 — Jessy Saint Prix v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

(Case C-507/12)

2013/C 26/59

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jessy Saint Prix

Applicant:

Defendant: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the right of residence conferred upon a ‘worker’ in Article 7 of the Citizenship Directive (1) to be interpreted as applying only to those (i) in an existing employment relationship, (ii) (at least in some circumstances) seeking work, or (iii) covered by the extensions in article 7(3), or is the Article to be interpreted as not precluding the recognition of further persons who remain ‘workers’ for this purpose? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the right of residence conferred upon a ‘worker’ in Article 7 of the Citizenship Directive (1) to be interpreted as applying only to those (i) in an existing employment relationship, (ii) (at least in some circumstances) seeking work, or (iii) covered by the extensions in article 7(3), or is the Article to be interpreted as not precluding the recognition of further persons who remain ‘workers’ for this purpose?

1

| 2. | (i) | If the latter, does it extend to a woman who reasonably gives up work, or seeking work, because of the physical constraints of the late stages of pregnancy (and the aftermath of childbirth)? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

(i)

If the latter, does it extend to a woman who reasonably gives up work, or seeking work, because of the physical constraints of the late stages of pregnancy (and the aftermath of childbirth)?

| (ii) | If so, is she entitled to the benefit of the national law's definition of when it is reasonable for her to do so? |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

If so, is she entitled to the benefit of the national law's definition of when it is reasonable for her to do so?

---

(1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (Text with EEA relevance).

1

OJ L 158, p. 77

---
#### Parker Bros., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7733.

Entry No. M-21.

(Decided August 30, 1949)

*David Wilder*for the plaintiff.

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

*273Oliver, Chief Judge:

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

> For the purposes of the determination of this appeal, but only for such purposes.

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed, subject to the approval of the court, that the issues in this appeal for reappraisement are the same in all material respects as the issues decided in *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 183, C. A. D. 334 and that the record in said ease 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 be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

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

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### Stanislawa Siorek, Appellant, v Richard Zablocki, Respondent.

[699 NYS2d 881]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), dated December 15, 1998, which granted the defendant’s motion to vacate a judgment, entered January 27, 1998, upon his default in answering the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant established both a reasonable excuse for his default in interposing an answer and a meritorious defense *(see, Hinderer v Erbesh,*240 AD2d 707; *Roussodimou v Zafiriadis,*238 AD2d 568). Therefore, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment which was entered upon his default. Mangano, P. J., Ritter, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.