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





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


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 Bio Matrix Scientific Group, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates 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:  August
5, 2008


By:
            /s/
      David KoosDavid
      KoosChief
      Executive Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, or other document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise
adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version
of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Bio
Matrix Scientific Group, Inc. and will be retained by Bio Matrix Scientific
Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
254 La. 923

#### Rufus R. BUDD v. NICHOLS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY et al.

No. 50147.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 11, 1969.

In re: Rufus R. Budd applying for certiorari or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of' East Baton Rouge. 225 So.2d 636.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law in its judgment.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeals of

-- ) ) SSI Technology, Inc. ) ) Under Contract No. W56HZV-12-C-0058 ) APPEARANCES FORTHE APPELLANT:

APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA Nos. 60350, 60440

Brett S. Wacker, Esq. Emily J. Baldwin, Esq.

Clark Hill PLC Detroit, MI Raymond M. Saunders, Esq.

Army ChiefTrial Attorney CPT Jessica E. Hom, JA MAJ Christopher M. Coy, JA

Trial Attorneys ORDER OF DISMISSAL By motion filed on 24 February 2017, appellant has moved for dismissal of these appeals, with prejudice, pursuant to a settlement agreement. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed from the Board's docket with prejudice. Dated: 1March 2017

# J~ Administrative Judge Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 60350, 60440, Appeals ofSSI Technology, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:
JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
No. 72-1225.

#### City of New Orleans et al. *v.*New Orleans Firefighters Assn., Local 632, et al.

Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari denied.
#### Maude V. ROBERTS, Appellant, v. Jack L. BURKETTE and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, a foreign corporation, Appellee.

No. 70-609.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 2, 1971.

Rehearing Denied March 26, 1971.

*135Charles J. Bodner, Miami, for appellant.

Dixon, Bradford, Williams, McKay & Kimbrell and Roy S. Wood, Jr., Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, plaintiff below, Maude V. Roberts, seeks review of an adverse final judgment entered pursuant to a motion for directed verdict at the close of plaintiff’s case on the ground that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. Plaintiff sued her landlord, appellee Jack L. Burkette, and his insurer, appellee Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, for a slip and fall on a carpeted, interior stairway in a common area occasioned by the landlord’s maintaining a nuisance and for his negligence. We find no reversible error and affirm.

Plaintiff, about 85 years old at the time of the accident, slipped and fell on the last stair while descending the interior, carpeted stairs of the apartment building where she had lived in an upstairs apartment for about two or three years. Two theories were advanced: the stairway was negligently maintained and a nuisance, and the landowner was guilty of negligence in violating the South Florida Building Code, Ch. 8, Code of Metropolitan Dade County. The house was built before 1936, and the Code was first enacted in 1957. The defect alleged was that the handrail ended before the last step, and that it ended in a large, high rectangular pillar topped by a flat, slippery rectangular ornament, so that it could not be grasped easily. Cf., Partelow v. Edgar, Fla.App.1969, 219 So.2d 72.

We agree with the trial court’s finding that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law. See Joskowitz v. Holtman, Fla.App.1961, 134 So.2d 265; see generally, "Annotation,” 25 A.L.R.2d 444 (1952).

The parties contest, and the record is not clear, as to whether the ordinance, *supra,*was actually introduced in evidence. We do not have to deal with this conflict because we are holding that the trial court was correct in ruling that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.

Appellant’s second point is that the trial court erred in refusing to admit into evidence proof of hospital and medical expenses incurred by the plaintiff but paid in her behalf by a collateral source. The bills in question for ambulance, hospital, and other medical services had not been paid by the plaintiff herself, but by an agency of the local government and medicare. We expressly decline to pass upon this point, as our decision does not require that we reach such question.

*136We have considered the appellant’s last point and find it to be without merit.

For the reasons stated, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

HENDRY, J., dissents.
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 64 (Friday, April 3, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18226-18227]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07787]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9020-3]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 03/23/2015 Through 03/27/2015
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public 
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment 
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

EIS No. 20150083, Final EIS, USFS, AK, Resurrection Creek Phase II: 
Stream and Riparian Restoration Project and Hope Mining Company 
Proposed Mining Plan of Operations, Review Period Ends: 05/04/2015, 
Contact: Karen Kromrey 907-288-7745.
EIS No. 20150084, Final EIS, NPS, CA, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National 
Parks Wilderness Stewardship Plan, Review Period Ends: 05/04/2015, 
Contact: Nancy Hendricks 559-565-3102.
EIS No. 20150085, Final EIS, FTA, WA, Lynnwood Link Extension, Review 
Period Ends: 05/04/2015, Contact: Daniel Drais 206-220-4465
EIS No. 20150086, Final EIS, USN, CA, Naval Base Coronado Coastal 
Campus, Review Period Ends: 05/04/2015, Contact: Teresa Bresler 619-
556-7315.
EIS No. 20150087, Draft EIS, USFS, ID, Johnson Bar Fire Salvage, 
Comment Period Ends: 05/18/2015, Contact: Mike Ward 208-926-6413.
EIS No. 20150088, Draft EIS, USMC, 00, Commonwealth of the Northern 
Mariana Islands (CJMT) Joint Military Training, Comment Period Ends: 
06/02/2015, Contact: Lori Robertson 808-472-1409.
EIS No. 20150089, Draft EIS, NIH, MD, NIH Chilled Water System 
Improvements, Comment Period Ends: 06/05/2015, Contact: Mark Radtke 
301-451-6467.
EIS No. 20150090, Draft EIS, FTA, VA, Potomac Yard Metrorail Station, 
Comment Period Ends: 05/18/2015, Contact: Melissa Barlow. 202-219-3565.
EIS No. 20150091, Final EIS, CALTRANS, CA, San Diego Freeway

[[Page 18227]]

(I-405) Improvement Project, Review Period Ends: 05/04/2015, Contact: 
Smita Deshpande 949-724-2000.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20150062, Draft EIS, USFS, CA, Westside Fire Recovery Project, 
Comment Period Ends: 04/27/2015, Contact: Wendy Coats 530-841-4470.

    Dated: March 31, 2015.
Cliff Rader,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2015-07787 Filed 4-2-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3574 

To amend chapter 3 of title 36, United States Code, to designate the 

mastodon as the national fossil of the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 10, 2024 

Mr. BRAUN (for himself and Mr. PETERS) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend chapter 3 of title 36, United States Code, to 

designate the mastodon as the national fossil of the 

United States. 

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 Fossil Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. NATIONAL FOSSIL OF THE UNITED STATES. 

6 (a) DESIGNATION.—Chapter 3 of title 36, United 

7 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol8 lowing: 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 3574 IS

1 ‘‘§ 306. National fossil 

2 ‘‘The fossil of the genus Mammut, commonly known 

3 as the mastodon, is the national fossil.’’. 

4 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—The table of sec5 tions for chapter 3 of title 36, United States Code, is 

6 amended— 

7 (1) by striking the chapter heading and insert8 ing ‘‘NATIONAL ANTHEM, MOTTO, FLO9 RAL EMBLEM, MARCH, TREE, AND FOS10 SIL’’; and 

11 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘306. National fossil.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Margaret GARTENMAYER, Appellee.

No. 69-1018.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 15, 1970.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Arden M. Siegendorf, and Harold Mendelow, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellant.

Henry E. Coleman, Key West, for appel-lee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and BARK-DULL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The state appeals an order dismissing an information in two counts against the ap-pellee, charging her with the crime of corruptly influencing voting, in violation of section 104.061(2) Fla.Stat., F.S.A. The information was filed in the Criminal Court of Record of Monroe County. It was filed pursuant to a true bill of the Grand Jury filed October 17, 1968.

The order of the trial court granted ap-pellee’s motion to dismiss by way of plea in abatement. In so doing and as a bases therefor the court adopted findings of fact. One of the findings was that unauthorized persons were present during regular term of the grand jury. The court further found that this violation of the statutes (See Section 905.17 Fla.Stat., F.S.A.) rendered the subsequent indictment subject to being quashed upon a proper motion, citing State ex rel. Losey v. Willard, Fla.1951, 54 So.2d 183.

The state’s single point upon appeal argues that the record was not sufficient to support the findings of fact. Our review of the record convinces us that the state has failed to carry the burden of demonstrating error in either the trial court’s findings of fact or his determination of the applicable law.

Affirmed.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6710** 

ROBERT LEE HOOD , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

BUNCOMBE COUNTY JAIL ; VAN SMITH, Detective; MIKE DOWNING, Detective; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; ROBERT W. FISHER, Twenty

e ighth Solicitorial District o f North Carolina, Asheville, NC , Defendant s
- Appellee s .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Asheville

. Robert J. Conrad, Jr. , Chief District Judge. ( 1:91

- cv
- 000 78

- RJC )

Submitted : October 13, 2011 Decided: October 17, 2011

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Robert Lee Hood, Appellant Pro Se. Curtis William Euler, BUNCOMBE COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE , Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Robert Lee Hood appeals the district court’s order
dismissing Hood’s motion to reconsider the denial of relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 (200 6 ) complaint. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. Hood v. Buncombe County Jail , No. 1:91

- cv
- 00078

- RJC (W.D.N.C. May 17, 2011). Hood’s motion for appointme nt of appellate counsel is denied.
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
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

June 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130531 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 130531 

 COA: 267055 

Genesee CC: 04-013581-FC 

JIMMY RAY MOORE,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 6, 2006 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l0619 

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. 

June 26, 2006 

Clerk
---

Exhibit 13.2

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Rouge Resources Ltd. on
Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates 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.

Date: June 10, 2009

ROUGE RESOURCES LTD.

/s/ Darcy Krell
------------------------------------Darcy Krell, Secretary and Chief
Financial Officer

---
# L_2005171EN.01002401.xml

| 2.7.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 171/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 171/24

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1037/2005

of 1 July 2005

establishing emergency measures for the protection and recovery of the anchovy stock in ICES Sub-area VIII

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (1) and in particular Article 7(1) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | New scientific information from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) indicates that urgent measures are necessary for the protection and recovery of the anchovy stock in ICES Sub-area VIII. The fishery should therefore be closed with immediate effect for a period of three months. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

New scientific information from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) indicates that urgent measures are necessary for the protection and recovery of the anchovy stock in ICES Sub-area VIII. The fishery should therefore be closed with immediate effect for a period of three months.

| (2) | The Commission will, within the closure period, make an assessment of whether the closure should be reviewed after consulting the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Commission will, within the closure period, make an assessment of whether the closure should be reviewed after consulting the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries.

| (3) | It is therefore appropriate for the Commission to take, on its own initiative, emergency measures to protect the anchovy stock, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

It is therefore appropriate for the Commission to take, on its own initiative, emergency measures to protect the anchovy stock,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Fishing for anchovy in ICES Sub-area VIII shall be prohibited. It shall also be prohibited to retain on board, tranship or land anchovy caught in ICES Sub-area VIII after the date of entry into force of this Regulation.

Article 2

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

It shall apply for a period of three months.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 1 July 2005.

For the Commission

Joe BORG

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, p. 59.

1

---
of 

U.S. 

Transportation 

Deportment Memorandum

Federal Highway 

Administration 

Subject:

From:

To:

ACTION: Eligibility of Crash Cushion

devices (Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware

Date: OEC i O 2011

(MASH) 16 sunset date) 

Michael S. Griffith � � 

Director, Office Safety Technologies 

� In Reply Refer To:

HSST-1

Division Administrators 

Directors of Field Services 

Federal Lands Highway Division Directors

Purpose 

The purpose of this memorandum is to provide guidance to the FHW A Division Offices 

on the eligibility of National Cooperative Highway Research Program 350 (NCHRP 350)

compliant crash cushions on the National Highway System (NHS) in the absence of an 

acceptable American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

MASH 16 compliant crash cushion. 

Background 

On January 7, 2016, FHW A issued a memorandum announcing the execution of a Joint

Agreement between FHW A and AASHTO to implement the MASH 16 

(https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway depUcountermeasures/reduce crash severity/docs/memo j

oint implementation agmt.pdf). The agreement established sunset dates for use of roadside 

hardware on the NHS that has not been tested to MASH 16. In accordance with the 

agreement, on December 31, 2018, non-MASH compliant crash cushions will no longer 

be eligible for use on the NHS. 

To date, there are nine MASH 16 compliant crash cushions that have received an FHWA

eligibility letter and are listed on FHWA's website. 

Action 

For contracts on the NHS with a letting date after December 31, 2018, State Departments

of Transportation (DOTs) may request a substitution to specify a NCHRP 350 compliant 

crash cushion when an equivalent MASH 16 compliant crash cushion doesn't exist. With 

the crash cushions currently available on the market, certain sizes/configurations have not

been crash tested or analyzed according to MASH 16. For example, a 24-inch wide crash

cushion could have successfully passed MASH 16 crash testing, but a similar 48-inch 

wide crash cushion is needed but hasn't been evaluated against MASH 16 yet. 

If a State DOT requests federal-aid reimbursement for a NCHRP 350 crash cushion (that

has not been evaluated against the MASH 16 crash test criteria) on the NHS, then the 
Division Office should have the State provide an explanation. The explanation should 

provide reason(s) on specifying a NCHRP 350 crash cushion and be included in the 

DOT project design file. Based on the explanation, the Division Office may determine 

that the installation of the NCHRP 350 crash cushion on the NHS is acceptable and, 

therefore, eligible for Federal-aid reimbursement.

For further information, please contact Michael Matzke at (202) 366-1331 or

michael.matzke@dot.gov

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                          4,782
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,782
<CGS>                                            2,864
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,864
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,168
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    15
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 141
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,391)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,391)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,391)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.13)


</TABLE>