alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Back to Contents

**Exhibit 32.1**

**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 Annual Report of Savient Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Christopher G. Clement, Presidentand Chief Executive 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:

|   | (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. |
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                 |

|   |  By:                                                                      | /s/ Christopher G. Clement           |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Christopher G. ClementPresident and Chief Executive OfficerMarch 30, 2005 |

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Savient Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by Savient Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 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 the Quarterly Report of Big Sky Industries IV, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004  as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ramon Chimelis, Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)

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



(2)

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



Dated: February 2, 2009



/s/ Ramon Chimelis

Ramon Chimelis, Treasurer

Big Sky Industries IV, Inc.
Exhibit 32.1



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 Big Sky Industries V, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ramon Chimelis, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)

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



(2)

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



Dated: February 12, 2009



/s/ Ramon Chimelis

Ramon Chimelis, President

Big Sky Industries V, Inc.
exv10w48



 




Exhibit 10.48




LEASE EXTENSION AGREEMENT




This LEASE EXTENSION AGREEMENT (the “First Extension”) is
made this 18th day of June, 2007
and is made a part of that certain Lease dated August 28, 2006, between WARNER COURTYARDS,
LLC., an Arizona Limited Liability Company, METZGER WARNER COURTYARDS, LLC., a Delaware
Limited Liability Company, PARK 3020, LLC., an Arizona Limited Liability Company, and PARK
3030, LLC., an Arizona Limited Liability Company, (“Landlord”) and CATALYTICA ENERGY
SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware Corporation (“Tenant”) regarding Suite 132 at the Warner
Courtyards project, 301 W. Warner Road, Tempe, Arizona.



WHEREAS, said Landlord and Tenant wish to amend said Lease Agreement in the manner and
to the extent hereinafter set forth.



NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the covenants and agreements herein contained
and other good and valuable consideration, receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
mutually acknowledged, Landlord and Tenant agree as follows:



1. The term of the Lease is set to expire on September 30, 2007, and
Landlord and Tenant desire to extend the term of the Lease for a period of
six months, from October 1, 2007 through March 31, 2008.



2. Effective October 1, 2007, the Minimum Monthly Rent for the Leased
Premises shall be as follows:



                              October 1, 2007 through March 31, 2008:            $4,456.44



3. As hereby amended, all other terms and conditions of the Lease shall
remain in full force and effect.



	 	 	 
	LANDLORD

	 	TENANT
	WARNER COURTYARDS, LLC.

	 	CATALYTICA ENERGY SYSTEMS,
	An Arizona Limited Liability Company

	 	INC., a Delaware Corporation
	 
	 	 
	By Hannay Investment Properties, Inc.,
	 	 
	An Arizona Corporation, Its Manager
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	/s/ R. Craig Hannay

	 	/s/ Richard Weinroth
	 

	 	 
	By: R. Craig Hannay

	 	By: Richard Weinroth
	Its: President

	 	Its: Secretary and Corporate Counsel
	Date 6/18/07

	 	Date June 5, 2007






 


 









 





	 	 	 
	METZGER WARNER COURTYARDS, LLC.
	 	 
	A Delaware Limited Liability Company
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	By Hannay Investment Properties, Inc.,
	 	 
	An Arizona Corporation, Its Attorney in Fact
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	/s/ R. Craig Hannay
 


	 	 
	By: R. Craig Hannay
	 	 
	Its: President
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	PARK 3020, LLC,
	 	 
	An Arizona Limited Liability Company
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	By Hannay Investment Properties, Inc.,
	 	 
	An Arizona Corporation, Its Manager
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	/s/ R Craig Hannay
 


	 	 
	By: R Craig Hannay
	 	 
	Its: President
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	PARK 3030, LLC,
	 	 
	An Arizona Limited Liability Company
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	By Hannay Investment Properties, Inc.,
	 	 
	An Arizona Corporation, Its Manager
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	/s/ R. Craig Hannay
 


	 	 
	By: R. Craig Hannay
	 	 
	Its: President
ARS HomeNutrition, Food Safety/QualityHuman NutritionDocs

----

- National Programs
-  Office of Scientific Quality Review
- Office of International Research Engagement and Cooperation
- Search for an ARS project
- Search for an ARS scientific manuscript
Program Team
- Mike Grusak, Co-Lead
- Cindy Davis, Co-Lead
2022 Research Highlights
- Improving Rural Economies 
Program Inputs
-                 Nutrition Monitoring Workshop             
Program Planning
-                 Action Plans             
-                 Strategic Vision             
Program Reports
-                 Annual Reports             
-                 History of ARS Nutrition Research             
Project Information
- List of Projects in this Program
- List of Project Annual Reports in this program

Annual Report for FY 2023

Annual Report for FY 2022

Annual Report for FY 2021

Annual Report for FY 2020

Annual Report for FY 2019
No. 00-834.

No. 00-7097.

#### Kinney *v.*United States; and Kelly *v.*United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied. Reported below: 211 F. 3d 13.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS

FOR

SMALL ELECTRIC MOTORS

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW.

Washington, DC 20585

Friday, January 30, 2009

9:00 a.m.

– 5:00 p.m. ET, Room 1E­245

Purpose

The Department of Energy (DOE) seeks comments, information, and data from interested

parties on its Preliminary Technical Support Document, including classes of small

electric motors that it plans to analyze for the purposes of establishing energy

conservation standards; the analytical framework, models, and tools that it is using to

evaluate standards for these motors; the results of preliminary analyses; and potential

energy conservation standards levels.

Agenda

9:00

– 9:20 am Welcome, Introductions, Opening Statements

Doug Brookman

9:20

– 9:25 am Rulemaking Overview

Jim Raba

Summary of the statutory background, rulemaking process, and the

issues on which DOE seeks input during today's public meeting.

9:30

– 10:15 am Market & Technology Assessment and Screening Analysis

Michael Scholand

Presentation and discussion about the categories of small motors

and representative units, technology options, shipments,

manufacturers, market share, application and performance of

existing equipment, and regulatory programs.

10:15

– 10:30 am Break

10:30

– 11:15 am Engineering Analysis

Matthew Nardotti

Presentation and discussion about the equipment classes and

baseline considered as part of the engineering analysis,

constructing a bill of materials, assumptions used in the data

analysis, and scaling relationships to ascertain efficiency levels.11:15

– 12:00 pm Energy Use & End­Use Load Characterization and Markup

Analysis

Robert Van Buskirk

Presentation and discussion about the approach and data

considered for characterizing the distribution channels and

data used to calculate markups for small electric motors.

12:00

– 1:00 pm Lunch

1:00

– 1:30 pm Life­Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

Robert Van Buskirk

Presentation and discussion about the general approach to lifecycle cost and payback period analysis, cost inputs, discount rates,

price trends, and motor lifetime.

1:30

– 2:00 pm National Impact Analysis

Robert Van Buskirk

Presentation and discussion about annual energy consumption,

national energy savings, and net present value analysis.

2:00

– 2:30 pm Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis and Other

Rulemaking Analyses

Matthew Nardotti and Robert Van Buskirk

Presentation and discussion about the methodology, industry

profile and cash flow analysis, overview of industry data,

competition, compliance, and enforcement.

3:00

– 3:30 pm Final Questions, Comments, and Discussion

Doug Brookman

3:30 pm Closing Remarks and Adjournment

Jim Raba
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 150 (Tuesday, August 5, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 42108]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20500]



[[Page 42108]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Meeting of the Task Force on Defense Reform

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Task Force on Defense Reform.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Task Force on Defense Reform will meet in closed sessions 
on August 19, 21, 26, 28, and September 4, 9, 11, 16, and 18, 23, and 
25, 1997.
    The Task Force on Defense Reform was recently established to make 
recommendations to the Secretary of Defense and Deputy Secretary of 
Defense on alternatives for organizational reforms, reductions in 
management overhead, and streamlined business practices in the 
Department of Defense (DoD), with emphasis on the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense, the Defense Agencies and the DoD field 
activities, and the Military Departments.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, 5 U.S.C., Appendix II, it has been 
determined that matters affecting national security, as covered by 5 
U.S.C. 552b(c)(1)(1988), will be presented throughout the meetings, and 
that, accordingly, these meetings will be closed to the public.

    Dated: July 28, 1997.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 97-20500 Filed 8-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
#### STATE of Louisiana v. David T. SINGLETON.

No. 59208.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 8, 1977.

Charles C. Garretson, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., Charles M. Brandt, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
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 the  Quarterly  Report  of China  Natural  Gas,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the quarter  ending  September  30, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
each of the  undersigned,  in the capacities  and on the date  indicated  below,
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 his 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: November 14, 2006                    By: /s/ Xiaogang Zhu
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Xiaogang Zhu
                                               Chief Financial Officer
#### BANK ONE, MILWAUKEE, N.A., petitioner, v. P.A. BERGNER & CO.

No. 98-380.

Supreme Court of the United States.

Nov. 2, 1998.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7776

In Re: DONALD EUGENE TIDWELL,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

(CR-94-297, CA-97-3894)

Submitted: March 20, 2002 Decided: April 1, 2002

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Eugene Tidwell, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Donald Eugene Tidwell filed a petition for a writ of mandamus

seeking to have this court issue an order directing the district

court to act on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001) motion. At

the time Tidwell filed his petition, the district court had taken

no significant action in this case for over four years. We

directed the United States to respond to the mandamus petition. In

reply, the United States informed us that the district court was

prepared to file its final order. We have since received a copy of

the order. Tidwell therefore has received the relief he sought

through his mandamus petition. Accordingly, we deny the motion for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the petition as

moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

arguments are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not significantly aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
No. 99-7809.

#### Gardner v. Baskerville, Warden.

Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

MICHAEL SALVAGGI,

Petitioner

v.

PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION

AND PAROLE,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 10 WM 2021

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 23rd day of April , 2021, the Petition for Leave to File Petition for

Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 155 (Tuesday, August 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43153-43154]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21202]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. FA96-11-002]


Pennsylvania Power & Light Company; Notice of Filing

August 6, 1997.
    Take notice that on July 29, 1997, Pennsylvania Power & Light 
Company tendered for filing its refund report in the above-referenced 
docket.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal

[[Page 43154]]

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 
20426 in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before August 15, 1997. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-21202 Filed 8-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
GEN. PURPOSESINGLE PHASEGEN. PURPOSETHREE PHASESEVEREDUTYEXPLOSIONPROOFC-FACE SINGLE &THREE PHASEMULTI-SPEEDTHREE PHASEINVERTERDUTYVECTORDUTYBRAKEMOTORSU FRAMEMOTORSDIRECT CURRENT(DC)HVACMOTORS 

# 22 www.emersonmotors.com
® 

# General Purpose Single Phase, 50 Hz Rated Open Dripproof (ODP) & Totally Enclosed Fan Cooled (TEFC)

Catalog Number “T” is Totally Enclosed, “D” is Open Dripproof

Page revised 12/5/05 

### APPLICATIONS: Designed for air compressors, pumps, conveyors, blowers and general industrial equipment



### FEATURES: * Reversible Rotation * Cradle, Rigid or C-Face Mount * Continuous Duty * F1 Assembly * 40C Ambient Rated

Note 24 Automatic Reset Thermal Overload Protector Note 25 Non-protected FTLS Footless Catalog Multiplier “C” Dim. Ship Wt. Full Load

HP RPM Voltage Frame Number List Symbol SF (inches) (lbs.) Amps Mounting Notes 1/4 1500 110/220 48 D14B2L4A9 $119 DS-3FMP 1.00 9.4 16 6.8/3.4 Cradle 25 1/3 1500 110/220 48 D13BA2L49 $135 DS-3FMP 1.00 9.0 11 7.1/3.6 Cradle 24 1500 110/220 56 T13C2L $303 DS-3FMP 1.15 10.4 24 7.4/3.7 Rigid 25 1500 110/220 56C T13C2LCR $247 DS-3FMP 1.15 10.5 24 7.4/3.7 C-Face 25,FTLS 1500 110/220 56Z D13BA2LZ9 $140 DS-3FMP 1.00 9.4 17 6.8/3.4 Cradle 24 1/2 1500 110/220 56 D12BA2L9 $156 DS-3FMP 1.00 11.8 19 9.2/4.6 Cradle 24 1500 110/220 56 T12C2L $263 DS-3FMP 1.15 10.7 28 8.4/4.2 Rigid 25 1500 110/220 56C T12C2LCR $271 DS-3FMP 1.15 10.8 26 8.4/4.2 C-Face 25,FTLS 3/4 1500 110/220 56 T34C2L $321 DS-3FMP 1.00 11.7 36 12.2/6.1 Rigid 25 1 1500 110/220 56H T1C2LH $363 DS-3FMP 1.00 12.8 40 14.0/7.0 Rigid 25
# C_2013171EN.01001201.xml

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Datema Hellman Worldwide Logistics BV, other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-130/13)

2013/C 171/23

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Datema Hellman Worldwide Logistics BV

Appellant:

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Respondent:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence by the authorities lend itself to direct application by the national courts? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence by the authorities lend itself to direct application by the national courts?

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:






  (a) | must the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence by the authorities be interpreted to mean that the principle was infringed when the addressee of an intended decision was not given a hearing before the authorities adopted a measure which adversely affected it but was given the opportunity to be heard in a subsequent (objection) phase, which precedes access to the national courts? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:

(a)

must the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence by the authorities be interpreted to mean that the principle was infringed when the addressee of an intended decision was not given a hearing before the authorities adopted a measure which adversely affected it but was given the opportunity to be heard in a subsequent (objection) phase, which precedes access to the national courts?

| (b) | are the legal consequences of the infringement by the authorities of the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence governed by national law? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

are the legal consequences of the infringement by the authorities of the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence governed by national law?

| 3. | If the answer to question 2b is in the negative: what circumstances may the national courts take into account when determining the legal consequences, and in particular may they take into account the fact that, without the infringement by the authorities of the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence, the proceedings would have had a different outcome? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to question 2b is in the negative: what circumstances may the national courts take into account when determining the legal consequences, and in particular may they take into account the fact that, without the infringement by the authorities of the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence, the proceedings would have had a different outcome?

---