alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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
Marijuana Company of America, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q /A for the quarter ended September 30, 2017
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Donald Steinberg, Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to SS. 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 result of operations
of the Company.



December 11, 2017





| | /S/ Donald Steinberg         
| | -----------------------------
| | Donald Steinberg             
| | Chief Executive Officer      
| | (Principal Executive Officer)



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed
form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
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
Marijuana Company of America, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q /A for the quarter ended September 30, 2017
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Robert Hymers, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to SS. 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 result of operations
of the Company.



December 11, 2017



| | /S/ Robert Hymers                           
| | --------------------------------------------
| | Robert Hymers                               
| | Chief Financial Officer                     
| | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed
form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3412 

To redesignate the Richard H. Poff Federal Building located at 210 Franklin 

Road Southwest in Roanoke, Virginia, as the ‘‘Reuben E. Lawson Federal Building’’, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 6, 2023 

Mr. WARNER (for himself and Mr. KAINE) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works 

A BILL 

To redesignate the Richard H. Poff Federal Building located 

at 210 Franklin Road Southwest in Roanoke, Virginia, 

as the ‘‘Reuben E. Lawson Federal Building’’, and for 

other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Reuben E. Lawson 

5 Federal Building Act of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds that— 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3412 IS

1 (1) Reuben E. Lawson dedicated his life and 

2 career to promoting the ideals of equality and inclu3 sion as a lawyer for the Roanoke chapter of the Na4 tional Association for the Advancement of Colored 

5 People (commonly known as the ‘‘NAACP’’) who ac6 tively worked to end segregation in Southwest Vir7 ginia; 

8 (2) arguing a number of significant cases in the 

9 Western District of Virginia, Reuben E. Lawson 

10 fought to ensure the enforcement of Brown v. Board 

11 of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), so 

12 that schools in the Roanoke region would be fully in13 tegrated; and 

14 (3) Southwest Virginians are indebted to Reu15 ben E. Lawson for his important work in ending 

16 segregation, and it is fitting that he be remembered 

17 in the current home of the court in which he val18 iantly fought. 

19 SEC. 3. REUBEN E. LAWSON FEDERAL BUILDING. 

20 (a) REDESIGNATION.—The Richard H. Poff Federal 

21 Building located at 210 Franklin Road Southwest in Roa22 noke, Virginia, shall be known and designated as the 

23 ‘‘Reuben E. Lawson Federal Building’’. 

24 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg25 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3412 IS

1 States to the Richard H. Poff Federal Building shall be 

2 deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Reuben E. Lawson Fed3 eral Building’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.20

                             THE 1818 FUND III, LP

                               February 8, 2002

US Unwired Inc.
901 Lakeshore Drive
Lake Charles, Louisiana 70601
Attention: Robert Piper

IWO Holdings, Inc.
52 Corporate Circle
Albany, New York 12203
Attention: Steven Nielsen

      Re: Registration Rights Agreement

Gentlemen:

   Reference is made to (a) the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of the
date hereof by and among IWO Holdings Inc. ("IWO"), US Unwired Inc. ("USU") and
a wholly-owned subsidiary of USU (the "Merger Agreement"); and (b) the
Registration Rights Agreement dated as of October 29, 1999 between US Unwired
Inc. and The 1818 Fund III, LP, as amended to date (the "1818 RRA").
Capitalized terms used in this letter shall have the meanings ascribed to them
in the Merger Agreement.

   The undersigned hereby consents to USU entering into the Registration Rights
Agreement substantially in the form attached as Exhibit D (the "New RRA") to
the Merger Agreement in connection with consummation of the Merger and related
transactions, and agrees that: (i) the undersigned will not exercise any demand
registration rights under the 1818 RRA during the first 120 days following the
Effective Time of the Merger without the consent of Investcorp International
Inc., (ii) notwithstanding any provisions of the 1818 RRA to the contrary,
(A)1818 shall have no right to participate in a demand or shelf registration
pursuant to the New RRA (provided that the New RRA shall provide that the
stockholders of USU who will have registration rights under the New RRA shall
have no right to participate in a demand or shelf registration pursuant to the
1818 RRA) and (B) in the event that USU proposes to file a registration
statement (other than pursuant to a demand or shelf registration under the 1818
RRA or the New RRA) and USU stockholders have piggyback registration rights
under both the 1818 RRA and the New RRA, then the registration rights holders
under the 1818 RRA and the New RRA shall share, at the same priority level,
such piggyback rights pro rata on the basis of the number of shares requested
for inclusion in such registration statement by holders entitled to such
inclusion under the 1818 RRA, on the one hand, and holders entitled to such
inclusion under the New RRA, on the other hand, and (iii) that the execution,
delivery and performance of the New RRA does not and will not constitute a
breach or violation of the 1818 RRA.

   This letter agreement will terminate automatically upon a termination of the
Merger Agreement prior to the Effective Time of the Merger.

                                          Sincerely,

                                          The 1818 Fund III, L.P.
                                          a Delaware limited partnership

                                          By: Brown Brothers Harriman & Co.
                                          Its General Partner

                                                /s/ (signature illegible)
                                          By:________________________________
#### Blair HEINLEIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-50.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 26, 1971.

Alfred M. Carvajal and Walter E. Gwinn, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Melvin Grossman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, pursuant to Rule 6.15(d) Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A., seeks review of an order of the Criminal Court of Record of Dade County, Florida, denying bail pending his appeal from judgments of conviction for possession of heroin.

Upon consideration of the record and argument of counsel, we have concluded that the order under review is not in compliance with Rule 6.15(b) and (c), supra. Therefore, it is reversed with directions to the trial court to hold a hearing on the appellant’s application for bond and if bond is denied the reasons therefor be set forth in the court’s order.

Reversed and remanded with directions.
#### STATE of Florida BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND, Appellant, v. ST. JOE PAPER COMPANY, a Florida corporation, and St. Joseph Land and Development Company, a Florida corporation, Appellees.

No. T-74.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 17, 1973.

Kenneth G. Oertel, Miami, for appellant.

Fred H. Kent, Jr., Jacksonville, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

In this case the trial court denied appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, hence this interlocutory appeal.

A review of the record on appeal and the briefs and oral argument of counsel convinces us that the interlocutory appeal was not well taken and therefore the same is dismissed.

WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 18, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131616 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 131616 

 COA: 267491

 Oakland CC: 2005-008332-AR 

 46th DC: 05-051143-FY 

ROBERT DOUGLAS NILL, JR.,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 20, 2006 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for 

consideration as on leave granted. 

We do not retain jurisdiction. 

s1011 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 18, 2006 

 Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 200 (Thursday, October 16, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53801-53802]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27491]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 731-TA-750 (Final)]


Vector Supercomputers From Japan

Determination

    On the basis of the record <SUP>1</SUP> developed in the subject 
investigation, the United States International Trade Commission 
determines,<SUP>2</SUP> pursuant to section 735(b) of the Tariff Act of 
1930 (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)) (the Act), that an industry in the United 
States is threatened with material injury by reason of imports from 
Japan of vector supercomputers,

[[Page 53802]]

provided for in heading 8471 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States, that have been found by the Department of Commerce to be 
sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV).<SUP>3</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).
    \2\ Commissioner Crawford not participating.
    \3\ The Commission further determines, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 
673d(b)(4)(B), that it would not have found material injury but for 
the suspension of liquidation of entries of the merchandise under 
investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Commission instituted this investigation effective July 29, 
1996, following receipt of a petition filed with the Commission and the 
Department of Commerce by Cray Research, Inc., Eagan, MN. The final 
phase of the investigation was scheduled by the Commission following 
notification of a preliminary determination by the Department of 
Commerce that imports of vector supercomputers from Japan were being 
sold at LTFV within the meaning of section 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 
1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the Commission's investigation 
and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by 
posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. 
International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the 
notice in the Federal Register of May 7, 1997 (62 FR 24973). The 
hearing was held in Washington, DC, on August 27, 1997, and all persons 
who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by 
counsel.
    The Commission transmitted its determination in this investigation 
to the Secretary of Commerce on October 3, 1997. The views of the 
Commission are contained in USITC Publication 3062 (October 1997), 
entitled ``Vector Supercomputers from Japan: Investigation No. 731-TA-
750 (Final).''

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: October 6, 1997
Donna R. Koehnke,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-27491 Filed 10-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
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
conjunction with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of International Fuel
Technology, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2008, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”),





I,
Jonathan R. Burst, the Chief Executive 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, 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, 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.







Dated:  November
      12, 2008
                By:
                /s/Jonathan R.
      BurstJonathan
      R. BurstChief
      Executive Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22 - 0251 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. AMIEL JON GARDIPE JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including March 2 3, 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 13 2023

02/13/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0251
EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS ACCESS PROGRAM

Application 

Number Project/Facility Name Project Type Federal Land Unit Accessed Applicant County

CT-01 Crystal Lake Road Project No. 58-

327 Reconstruction

U.S. Navy - Naval 

Submarine Base New 

London

Connecticut 

Department of 

Transportation

Groton

The Programming Decisions Committee (PDC) responsible for the Connecticut Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) has selected its initial, multiyear 

Program of Projects. The project identified for programming for the Connecticut FLAP is listed below:

Connecticut Program of Projects for Fiscal Years 2013-2014

The next step in the process will be to develop project agreements between Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division and the State/Local Agency 

partners. The amount of funds allocated will depend on finalizing these agreements. Funding for these projects is not guaranteed. Funding beyond FY 

2014 is dependent on reauthorization of the Access Program by Congress. The Connecticut PDC does not have a firm date for the next call for projects 

under the Access Program, but another call is anticipated within the next year. If you have any questions please contact David Payne, Access Program 

Manager, at 571-434-1543 or email at David.Payne@dot.gov.
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/gpo20840 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-2085

EUGENE JAMISON, SR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge.

(CA-05-2311-JFM)

Submitted: May 18, 2006 Decided: May 25, 2006

Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eugene Jamison, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Eugene Jamison, Sr., appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. Jamison v. Federal Commc’n Comm’n, No.

CA-05-2311-JFM (D. Md. Aug. 25, 2005). 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.

AFFIRMED
CERTIFICATIONS



I, Peter Leitch, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Rouge Resources Ltd.;



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 Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The Company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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Company 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 Company, 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)

Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principals;



c)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company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



d)

Disclosed in this report any change in the Companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The Companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of the Company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 Company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 Companys internal control over financial reporting.





Date:   June 14, 2016





/s/  Peter Leitch

Peter Leitch,

Chief Executive Officer