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

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AND
  RULE 13a-14(b)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sense Technologies
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended May 31, 2006 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and Rule 13a-14(b), 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: July 20, 2006 | By: | /s/ Bruce Schreiner                       
|-------------------- | --- | ------------------------------------------
|                     |     | Bruce E. Schreiner                        
|                     |     | President and Principal Accounting Officer

---
Exhibit 31.2

NUTRITIONAL SOURCING CORPORATION
CFO Certification pursuant to Section 302 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Daniel J. O'Leary, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Nutritional Sourcing
    Corporation;

2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
    of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
    statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
    were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
    report;

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
    information included in this report, fairly present in all material
    respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
    the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.  The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
    establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
    in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

      (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;

      (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the
end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and

      (c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected,
or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting; and

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

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
    or operation of internal control over financial reporting which
    are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability
    to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
    and

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
    other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
    internal control over financial reporting.


Date: December 23, 2004

/s/ Daniel J. O'Leary
Daniel J. O'Leary
Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 200 (Thursday, October 16, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 53832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27337]



[[Page 53832]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-503-001]


Wyoming Interstate Company, Ltd.; Notice of Tariff Filing

October 9, 1997.
    Take notice that on October 6, 1997, Wyoming Interstate Company, 
Ltd. (WIC) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First 
Revised Volume No. 1, Substitute Second Revised Sheet No. 62, in 
compliance with the Commission's Order dated September 25, 1997.
    That order identified an error in the proposed tariff sheet 
mentioned above. The original WIC filing of August 28, 1997, changed 
the method WIC uses to bill flowing gas under firm transportation 
agreements from receipts to deliveries as well as making certain 
housekeeping-type revisions. The error noted by the Commission did not 
appear on the ``redlined'' version of the tendered tariff sheet, but, 
through an oversight, the Second Revised Tariff Sheet No. 62 in 
publication format and the electronic version were not updated. WIC's 
October 6 filing corrects these errors.
    WIC states that copies of this filing have been served on WIC's 
jurisdictional customers and public bodies.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. All such protests must be 
filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's 
Regulations. 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. Copies of this filing are 
on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in 
the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-27337 Filed 10-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MICHAEL SHERRED, )

)

Petitioner, )

) Civil Action No. 07-350 Erie

v. )

)

RONALD KELCHNER, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This petition for writ of habeas corpus was received by the Clerk of Court on

December 21, 2007 and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan

Paradise Baxter for report and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act,

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. 

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, filed on January 19, 2010

[13], recommends that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied and that a

certificate of appealability be denied. The parties were allowed ten (10) days from the

date of service to file objections. Service was made on Petitioner by certified mail at

SCI Camp Hill, where he is incarcerated, and on Respondents. Objections were filed

by Petitioner on February 23, 2010 [16]. After de novo review of the petition and

documents in the case, together with the Report and Recommendation and objections

thereto, the following order is entered:

AND NOW, this 12 day of April, 2010; th

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be, and

hereby is DENIED. Inasmuch as jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether

the Petitioner’s claims lack merit, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of

appealability shall issue.

Case 1:07-cv-00350-SJM-SPB Document 17 Filed 04/12/10 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Baxter, dated

January 19, 2010 [13], is adopted as the opinion of the Court.

 /s Sean J. McLaughlin 

SEAN J. McLAUGHLIN

United States District Judge

cm: All parties of record.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter 

Case 1:07-cv-00350-SJM-SPB Document 17 Filed 04/12/10 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.2


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


In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of RPM Advantage, Inc.
(the "Registrant") for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
David R. Pressler, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, 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, as amended; and


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


Date:   July 15, 2011

By:

/s/ David R. Pressler


David R. Pressler
Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer)
#### Charles COLEMAN v. Janice Marie White, wife of Charles COLEMAN.

No. 8252 (Consolidated with Nos. 8251 and 8396).

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Oct. 12, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 10, 1977.*

Lanny R. Zatzkis, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.

James C. Witcher, II, New Orleans, for defendant-appellee.

Before STOULIG, BOUTALL and SCHOTT, JJ.

*

 SCHOTT, J., is of the opinion the rehearing should be granted.

STOULIG, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in the attached opinion La.App., 352 So.2d 710, we affirm the judgment dismissing plaintiff’s suit in the matter of *Coleman v. White,*wife of Charles Coleman. Appellant is to bear all costs of this appeal.

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

INSWEB CORPORATION

 

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

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of InsWeb Corporation (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Mark P. Guthrie, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, herebycertify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Mark P. Guthrie                   |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
| Mark P. Guthrie                       |   |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|  November 13,  2002              |   |

 

----
#### Ex parte Willie James JONES.

SC 2701.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Aug. 19, 1977.

EMBRY, Justice.

WRIT DENIED.

TORBERT, C. J., and BLOODWORTH, JONES and ALMON, JJ., concur.
MEMORANDUM 

DATE: 8/5/14

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

FROM: Ray Saracino, EPA

SUBJECT: 7/15/14, Meeting Regarding Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power 

Plants

SUMMARY

EPA participated in a panel discussion organized by the California Council on 

Environmental and Economic Balance (CCEEB) on July 15, 2014. EPA provided a brief 

overview of the Clean Power Plan proposal for Existing Power Plants.

ATTENDEES

A specific list of attendees is not available. Approximately 75 people from State government, 

industry and environmental organizations were present. Deborah Jordan presented on behalf of 

EPA.

Attachment
In re Linda Leeser Appellant/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 10, 2014

No. 04-14-00019-CV

IN RE Linda LEESER

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

The petition for writ of mandamus filed in this proceeding is identical to the mandamus

petition previously filed in No. 04-13-00908-CV due to an inadvertent e-filing error. Therefore,

the original proceeding in No. 04-14-00019-CV is administratively closed without opinion. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(d).

It is so ORDERED on January 10th, 2014. PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2006-CI-14491, styled In the Interest of S.O.L., A Child

, pending in the

150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Eugenia "Genie" Wright presiding.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 190 (Wednesday, October 1, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51377]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25984]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

45 CFR Part 74


Miscellaneous Amendments; Correction

AGENCY: Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: HHS published a final rule on August 4, 1997 (62 FR 41877) 
which made several changes to HHS grant regulations which included 
updating items to conform them to the Federal Acquisition Streamlining 
Act of 1994. This document clarifies one of the amendatory instructions 
in that final rule.

DATES: This correction is effective September 3, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Charles Gale, Director, Office of Grants Management, 202-690-6377; for 
the hearing impaired only: TDD 202-690-6415.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rule published on August 4, 
1997, amendatory instruction number 6. was ambiguous as to whether the 
entire section was being revised, or only the introductory text. This 
correction clarifies that instruction.
    In final rule document 97-20402, beginning on page 41877, in the 
issue of Monday, August 4, 1997, make the following correction:


Sec. 74.44   [Corrected]

    On page 41878, in the third column, amendatory instruction 6. is 
corrected to read ``6. Section 74.44 is amended by revising paragraph 
(e) introductory text to read as follows:''.

    Dated: September 25, 1997.
Neil J. Stillman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Information Resources Management.
[FR Doc. 97-25984 Filed 9-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-04-M
Customer Service Hotline: 1

- 800

- 438

- 2474 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

16 50 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

- 2029

March 27 2015

Mr. George S. Aburn, Jr., Director

Maryland Department of the Environment

Air and Radiation Management Administration

1800 Washington Boulevard

Baltimore, MD 21230

Dear Mr. Aburn:

On October 15, 2014 , the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received revisions

to the Maryland State Implementation Plan (SIP) from the Maryland Department of the

Environment (MDE). The SIP revision consists of amendments to regulations in order to control

emissions from various processes and fuel

- burning equipment at a non

- electric generating

facility, specifically at a Kraft Pulp Mill

. EPA has determined that the submittal is

administrat ively and technically complete and is reviewing it to prepare a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking.

If members of your staff have any quest ions, they may direct them to Mr. Gregory Becoat,

at (215) 814

- 2036, the principal contact for this rulemaking.

Sincerely,

/s/

Dav id L. Arnold

, Acting Director

Air Protection Division

cc: Diane Franks , MDE
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Jean-Yves Dexmier, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
the Quarterly Report of LookSmart, Ltd. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of LookSmart, Ltd.

Date: November 8, 2010



|                                    |  |                        
|----------------------------------- |  | -----------------------
|By:           /s/ Jean-Yves
Dexmier
|Name:                               |  | Jean-Yves Dexmier      
|Title:                              |  | Chief Executive Officer

I,
Stephen C. Markowski, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of LookSmart, Ltd. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended
September 30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of LookSmart, Ltd.

Date: November 8, 2010



|                                       |  |                        
|-------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------
|By:           /s/ Stephen C.
Markowski
|Name:                                  |  | Stephen C. Markowski   
|Title:                                 |  | Chief Financial Officer

This
certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of LookSmart, Ltd. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
#### GLENN’S LUNCHES et al., Petitioners, v. Maureen Sebastian FREESE, Respondent.

No. 41095.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 29, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### Edwin LANG, Appellant, v. Selma M. LANG, Appellee.

No. 72-959.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 3, 1973.

Rehearing Denied July 23, 1973.

*12William John Mason, Miami, for appellant.

Burton Young, North Miami Beach, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant-husband appeals the finanical provisions of a judgment of dissolution of marriage. The appellee-wife has cross-appealed urging the inadequacy of certain allowances. We have reviewed the record in the light of the briefs and find that the special equity allowed to the wife upon the husband’s net worth of approximately $800,000 is supported by the principle set forth in Yandell v. Yandell, Fla.1949, 39 So.2d 554. See Green v. Green, Fla.App.1969, 228 So.2d 112.

The husband’s other points directed to the presumed method of calculation of the amount of the special equity, the allowance of child support, and the allowance of a special attorney’s fee of $500, are not shown to be an abuse of the judicial discretion of the trial court in such matters. See King v. King, Fla.App.1973, 271 So.2d 159.

The wife’s cross-assignment of error directed to the entry of a remittitur which reduced the special equity from $267,000 to $255,000, and her cross-assignments directed to the failure to make additional allowances for medical fees, attorney’s fees and costs, fail to show such an abuse of discretion as would justify this court to reevaluate the rights of the parties.

Affirmed.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 98-20726

Summary Calendar

MITSUBISHI INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

M/V HENRIETTE MAERSK; A/S D/S SVENDBORG &

D S AF 1912 A/S; A. P. MOLLER,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(H-96-CV-1480)

June 7, 1999

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mitsubishi International Corporation (Plaintiff) purchased a

quantity of Butadiene in Brindisi, Italy and arranged for it to be

shipped to Houston, Texas aboard the vessel M/V HENRIETTE MAERSK.

Because the loading and unloading of Butadiene must be accomplished

in a closed system, the loading in Brindisi, Italy was not visible

and open to inspection. Pursuant to agreement between the parties,
2

the bills of lading covering this shipment would not be marked

"clean on board" and in fact the bills of lading as issued each

contained "an apparent good order clause." Upon arrival in

Houston, the Butadiene was determined to be "off-specification as

to dimer content." Mitsubishi sued the vessel and its owners

alleging that contamination occurred during transit from Italy to

Texas. After a one-day bench trial, the district court entered

detailed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law which determined

that Mitsubishi had failed to prove that the Butadiene cargo was

delivered to the vessel "in good order and condition."

Accordingly, the district court entered Final Judgment in favor of

the vessel and its owners and Mitsubishi timely appeals.

We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the reply brief, the

record excerpts and relevant portions of the record itself. We are

unable to conclude that the district court abused its discretion as

to the evidentiary rulings it made during trial. Likewise, we are

unable to conclude that any of the factual findings made by the

district court were clearly erroneous. The district court’s

conclusions of law were not erroneous. Accordingly, we affirm the

Final Judgment of the district court entered on July 21, 1998.

AFFIRMED.