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

                           Section 1350 Certification

         In connection  with the Annual Report of PHAZAR CORP (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned Chief
Executive Officer and 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:

         (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 operation
             of the Company.



   /s/ Gary W. Havener
   ------------------------------
   Gary W. Havener
   Chief Executive Officer



   /s/ Clark D. Wraight
   ------------------------------
   Clark D. Wraight
   Chief Financial Officer

























                                    32.1-1
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 176 (Thursday, September 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47834-47835]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24126]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Undergraduate Education; Notice of 
Meetings

    This notice is being published in accord with the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended). During the periods 
September and October, 1997, the Special Emphasis Panel will be holding 
panel meetings to review and evaluate research proposals. The dates, 
contact person, and types of proposals are as follows:

Special Emphasis Panel in Undergraduate Education (1214)

    1. Date: September 17-20, 1997.
    Contact: Frank Settle, Program Director, Room 835, 703-306-1666.
    Times: 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. (September 17); 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 
p.m. (September 18-19); 8:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. (September 20).
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, 
Arlington, VA.
    Type of Proposal: Course and Curriculum Development Program.
    Reason for Late Notice: Determination that a Phase II panel was 
needed was not made until the time requirement for the meeting 
notice had passed. Conducting this review was essential this FY.

    2. Date: October 15-17, 1997.
    Contact: Terry Woodin, Program Director, Room 835, 703-306-1666.
    Times: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. each day.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, 
Arlington, VA.

[[Page 47835]]

    Type of Proposal: NSF Collaborative for Excellence in Teacher 
Preparation Program.
    Type of Meetings: Closed.
    Purpose of Meetings: to provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate proposals submitted to the 
Division of Undergraduate Education as part of the selection process 
for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries, and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: September 5, 1997.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Office.
[FR Doc. 97-24126 Filed 9-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
S. 1869

One Hundred Ninth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and six

An Act

To reauthorize the Coastal Barrier Resources Act, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Coastal Barrier Resources

Reauthorization Act of 2005’’.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) OTHERWISE PROTECTED AREA.—The term ‘‘otherwise protected area’’ has the meaning given the term in section 12

of the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C.

3503 note; Public Law 101–591).

(2) PILOT PROJECT.—The term ‘‘pilot project’’ means the

digital mapping pilot project authorized under section 6 of

the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2000

(16 U.S.C. 3503 note; Public Law 106–514).

(3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary

of the Interior.

(4) SYSTEM UNIT.—The term ‘‘System unit’’ has the meaning

given the term in section 3 of the Coastal Barrier Resources

Act (16 U.S.C. 3502).

SEC. 3. DIGITAL MAPPING PILOT PROJECT FINALIZATION.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 2 years after the date of

enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee

on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee

on Resources of the House of Representatives a report regarding

the digital maps of the System units and otherwise protected areas

created under the pilot project.

(b) CONSULTATION.—The Secretary shall prepare the report

required under subsection (a)—

(1) in consultation with the Governors of the States in

which any System units and otherwise protected areas are

located; and

(2) after—

(A) providing an opportunity for the submission of

public comments; and

(B) considering any public comments submitted under

subparagraph (A).

(c) CONTENTS.—The report required under subsection (a) shall

contain—
# L_2011234EN.01004301.xml

| 10.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 234/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 234/43

---

DECISION OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES

of 8 September 2011

appointing a judge to the General Court

(2011/533/EU)

THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 19 thereof,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 254 and 255 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Articles 5 and 7 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and following the resignation of Mr Theodore CHIPEV, a judge should be appointed to the General Court for the remainder of Mr Theodore CHIPEV’s term of office, which runs until 31 August 2013. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Articles 5 and 7 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and following the resignation of Mr Theodore CHIPEV, a judge should be appointed to the General Court for the remainder of Mr Theodore CHIPEV’s term of office, which runs until 31 August 2013.

| (2) | Ms Mariyana KANCHEVA has been proposed for the vacant post. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Ms Mariyana KANCHEVA has been proposed for the vacant post.

| (3) | The panel set up by Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union has given an opinion on Ms Mariyana KANCHEVA’s suitability to perform the duties of Judge of the General Court, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The panel set up by Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union has given an opinion on Ms Mariyana KANCHEVA’s suitability to perform the duties of Judge of the General Court,

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Ms Mariyana KANCHEVA is hereby appointed Judge to the General Court for the period from 12 September 2011 to 31 August 2013.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 8 September 2011.

The President

J. TOMBIŃSKI

---
254 La. 20

#### William Gerald MILES v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 49853.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 19, 1969.

In re: William Gerald Miles applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Writs denied. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.
Case 4:04-cv-01851-JEJ-JVW Document 62 Filed 01/27/06 Page 1 of 6
Case 4:04-cv-01851-JEJ-JVW Document 62 Filed 01/27/06 Page 2 of 6
Case 4:04-cv-01851-JEJ-JVW Document 62 Filed 01/27/06 Page 3 of 6
Case 4:04-cv-01851-JEJ-JVW Document 62 Filed 01/27/06 Page 4 of 6
Case 4:04-cv-01851-JEJ-JVW Document 62 Filed 01/27/06 Page 5 of 6
Case 4:04-cv-01851-JEJ-JVW Document 62 Filed 01/27/06 Page 6 of 6
# L_2015245EN.01000401.xml

| 22.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 245/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 245/4

---

DECISION (EU, EURATOM) 2015/1568 OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES

of 16 September 2015

appointing a Judge to the General Court

THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 19 thereof,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 254 and 255 thereof,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a(1) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Under Articles 5 and 7 of Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, and following the resignation of Mr Nicholas James FORWOOD as of 1 October 2015, a Judge should be appointed to the General Court for the remainder of the term of office of Mr Nicholas James FORWOOD, which runs until 31 August 2019. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Under Articles 5 and 7 of Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, and following the resignation of Mr Nicholas James FORWOOD as of 1 October 2015, a Judge should be appointed to the General Court for the remainder of the term of office of Mr Nicholas James FORWOOD, which runs until 31 August 2019.

| (2) | Mr Ian Stewart FORRESTER has been proposed as a candidate for the vacant post. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Mr Ian Stewart FORRESTER has been proposed as a candidate for the vacant post.

| (3) | The panel set up by Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union has given an opinion on the suitability of Mr Ian Stewart FORRESTER to perform the duties of Judge of the General Court, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The panel set up by Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union has given an opinion on the suitability of Mr Ian Stewart FORRESTER to perform the duties of Judge of the General Court,

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Mr Ian Stewart FORRESTER is hereby appointed Judge of the General Court for the period from 1 October 2015 to 31 August 2019.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 16 September 2015.

The President

C. BRAUN

---
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of WNC Housing Tax
Credit Fund II, L.P.  (the  "Partnership")  for the year ended March 31, 2003 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  and  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.,  section  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to
section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002,  I,  Thomas  J.  Riha,  Chief
Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner of the Partnership,
hereby certify 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 result of operations of
          the Partnership.




/s/THOMAS J. RIHA
-----------------
Thomas J. Riha
Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.
July 30, 2004
# HERBERT A. ROSENTHAL ATTORNEY A T L AW (DC/MD) 6101 PLAINVIEW ROAD HOME: (301) 229-3162 BETHESDA, MARYLAND 20817-6156 CELL: (202) 744-3833 hrosenthal5@g mail.com TEL ECOPI ER: (301) 229-3925 Saturday, March 28, 2015

DOT DOCKET SECTION BY EFILING

RE: APPLICATION OF SURINAM AIRWAYS, INC. EXEMPTION APPLICATION, DOCKET OST-1996-1095 Dear Docket Section: As of the above date, the following air carriers have indicated no objection. We have not yet heard from Delta Airlines or American Airlines or any parties to whom applications were mailed. Southern Air Sun Country Amerijet Centurion Air Cargo Virgin America Florida West Federal Express Spirit Airlines Jet Blue United Airlines Southwest Airlines Surinam’s FAA Principal Operations Inspector in Miami Surinam Airways would like to begin advertising its new services on April 2, 2015. Surinam Airways requests the Department to approve the new co-terminals on April 2, 2015. Answers to the application are due on April 1, 2015. The Sanford, Florida, Airport Manager’s Office has submitted a letter in support of Surinam’s application. That letter has not yet been posted to the Docket. Thank you. /s/ Herbert A. Rosenthal HERBERT A. ROSENTHAL ATTORNEY FOR SURINAM AIRWAYS CC: ALL PARTIES WITH EMAIL ADDRESSES
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF COULTER PHARMACEUTICAL, INC. AT DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND
FOR THE YEAR THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           8,826
<SECURITIES>                                     2,617
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,977
<PP&E>                                             981
<DEPRECIATION>                                      57
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  18,321
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,240
<BONDS>                                          1,535
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     28,355
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                    (17,810)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    18,321
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,681
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (15,338)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (15,338)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (15,338)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
254 La. 816

#### Robert F. FRAZIER v. MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY et al.

No. 50057.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 23, 1969.

In re: Missouri Pacific Railroad Company et al. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Allen. 224 So.2d 179.

Writ refused. The judgment is not final.
### Definition of stage-discharge relation in natural channels by step-backwater analysis

By: James F. BaileyH.A. Ray

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1869A

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Superseded Publications:
                                        Definition of stage-discharge relations by step-backwater analysis(1965)                                    

- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
Case 4:05-cv-00851-JEJ-JVW Document 19 Filed 05/03/06 Page 1 of 5
Case 4:05-cv-00851-JEJ-JVW Document 19 Filed 05/03/06 Page 2 of 5
Case 4:05-cv-00851-JEJ-JVW Document 19 Filed 05/03/06 Page 3 of 5
Case 4:05-cv-00851-JEJ-JVW Document 19 Filed 05/03/06 Page 4 of 5
Case 4:05-cv-00851-JEJ-JVW Document 19 Filed 05/03/06 Page 5 of 5
**Exhibit 31.1****Certification**I, John D. Doherty, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Central Bancorp, Inc.,certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Central Bancorp, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report, based on suchevaluation; and     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.November 14, 2005         /s/ John D. Doherty           John D. Doherty      Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Clifton LANCASTER, Jr. v. STATE.

2 Div. 221.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 20, 1978.

As Corrected On Denial of Rehearing July 25, 1978.

*272Randolph P. Reaves, Montgomery, for appellant.

William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and David W. Clark, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BOOKOUT, Judge.

Rape; sentence: ten years imprisonment.

After the appellant’s indictment for rape, he and his court appointed counsel filed numerous motions in the circuit court among which was a motion to quash the petit jury venire, a motion for a speedy trial, a motion to quash the indictment, a motion to produce, and several motions to proceed in forma pauperis.

Counsel for appellant argues that overruling of the motion to quash the indictment amounts to reversible error. His contention on appeal is that evidence taken on the motion shows that there was a disproportionate number of blacks and young people on the jury venire. He further contends that the jury roll contained only a small number of the persons qualified to serve as jurors in the county.

Prior to trial on the merits, however, the . appellant entered a plea of guilty and upon recommendation of the prosecution, he was sentenced to ten years imprisonment, the minimum sentence allowable under Alabama law for the offense charged.

Appellant attempts to appeal from the trial court’s ruling on the pretrial motions entered prior to acceptance of his plea of guilty. The record discloses that the trial judge apprised the appellant of all his constitutional rights pursuant to *Boykin v. Alabama,*395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). The record affirmatively shows that the guilty plea was intelligently and voluntarily entered by the appellant.

A guilty plea, intelligently and voluntarily entered by an accused, waives all nonjurisdictional defects. No contention is made here that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the person or over the offense in the instant case.

A guilty plea has been held to waive constitutional issues such as: the failure to advise an accused of his constitutional rights, *Mack v. State,*51 Ala.App. 611, 288 So.2d 150 (1974); coerced confessions, *Williams v. State,*283 Ala. 668, 220 So.2d 609 (1969); *Knowles v. State,*280 Ala. 406, 194 So.2d 562, cert. denied, 386 U.S. 1011, 87 S.Ct. 1358, 18 L.Ed.2d 442 (1967); illegal arrest, search, or seizure, *Vann v. State,*44 Ala.App. 523, 214 So.2d 925 (1968); *Williamson v. Alabama,*5 Cir., 441 F.2d 549, cert. denied, 404 U.S. 844, 92 S.Ct. 144, 30 L.Ed.2d 80 (1971); *Schwarzauer v. United States,*D.C., 298 F.Supp. 1012 (1969); conflict of interest of a defendant’s court appointed counsel, *Martin v. United States,*5 Cir., 256 F.2d 345, cert. denied, 358 U.S. 921, 79 S.Ct. 294, 3 L.Ed.2d 240 (1958).

We find that the appellant’s guilty plea was entered intelligently, understandingly, and voluntarily. All nonjurisdictional defects and issues presented prior to acceptance of that plea were thereby waived.

AFFIRMED.

All the Judges concur.