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





Edward J. Geletka, President and Chief Executive Officer and L. Joseph Stella, III, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Colonial Financial Services, Inc. (the “Company”) each certify in their capacity as officers of the Company that they have reviewed the annual report of the Company on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 and that to the best of their knowledge:





1.
the report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) 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.




March 30, 2011

/s/ Edward J. GeletkaDate
Edward J. Geletka

President and Chief Executive Officer


March 30, 2011

/s/ L. Joseph Stella, IIIDate
L. Joseph Stella, III

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer




The purpose of this statement is solely to comply with Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, as amended by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Colonial Financial Services, Inc. and will be retained by Colonial Financial Services, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# Materials Not Included in Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA - 2015 - 0678 Directorate Identifier: 2013NM207AD

A320 - 32 - 1346, R06 --- 1/12/15 A320 - 32 - 1346, R05 --- 1/13/12 A320 - 32 - 1349, R02 --- 6/16/10 A320 - 32 - 1349, R01 --- 8/31/09 A320 - 32 - 1349 --- 12/4/08

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket



### MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 03/05/2008
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2175 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2175

To prohibit certain heads of Federal agencies and Administrations from 
imposing a mask requirement on certain domestic transportation, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 23, 2021

 Mr. Stewart introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit certain heads of Federal agencies and Administrations from 
imposing a mask requirement on certain domestic transportation, 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 ``No Mask Mandate for Kids Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON MASK REQUIREMENT ON CERTAIN DOMESTIC MODES OF 
              TRANSPORTATION.

    (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
            (1) There has been no reasonable scientific backing to 
        support the Federal requirement that children wear masks.
            (2) Any directives regarding the wearing of masks should be 
        decided by industries, States, and localities.
    (b) Restriction.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the 
Secretary of Transportation (including through the Administrator of the 
Federal Aviation Administration), the Secretary of Homeland Security 
(including through the Administrator of the Transportation Security 
Administration and the Commandant of the United States Coast Guard), 
and the heads of any other executive departments and agencies that have 
relevant regulatory authority may not impose any requirement for masks 
to be worn in or on--
            (1) airports;
            (2) commercial aircraft;
            (3) trains;
            (4) public maritime vessels, including ferries;
            (5) intercity bus services; and
            (6) all forms of public transportation (as such term is 
        defined in section 5302 of title 49, United States Code).
                                 <all>
```
#### Honorable Jack M. TURNER, Criminal Court Judge of the Criminal Court of Record in and for Dade County, Florida, Petitioner, v. STATE ex rel. Michael J. PELLERIN, Respondent.

No. 41744.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 10, 1973.

For opinion after remand, see 274 So.2d 248.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.

Robert Scott Kaufman, Miami, for respondent.

McCAIN, Justice.

This is a certiorari review of an order of the District Court of Appeal, Third District on grounds of direct conflict with a prior decision of this Court (State ex rel. Hanks v. Goodman, Fla.1971, 253 So.2d 129) on the same point of law. Fla.Const., Art. V, § 4, F.S.A.

Respondent was arrested on February 18, 1971, was informed against on March 18, 1971, moved for speedy trial on March 26, 1971, and then moved for discharge on July 16, 1971. On July 28, 1971, his motion for discharge was denied and his motion for *130speedy trial was struck. On Suggestion for writ of prohibition to the Third District Court of Appeal, the writ was issued and respondent was ordered discharged from custody. Ergo, our review.

*Hanks, supra,*enunciates two basic requirements which must be met by one seeking to perfect his rights under Rule 3.191, Cr.P.R., 33 F.S.A. First, the motion for speedy trial must be made subsequent to the date of the filing of an indictment, information or trial affidavit against the defendant. Second, the defendant must be or will be prepared for trial at the time he makes his motion for speedy trial. Otherwise, the motion will be considered spurious and may be stricken.

Sub judice, the first requirement of *Hanks, supra,*was met, but respondent fails to pass review on the second requirement.

On March 29 (2 days after filing his motion for speedy trial) respondent moved to compel disclosure of all evidence favorable to him, and then on April S he also moved to compel certain witnesses to give depositions.

Notwithstanding the state’s conduct surrounding pre-trial discovery, respondent’s energetic interventions through motions constitute the antithesis of “a bona fide desire to obtain trial”. They certainly are not suggestive of the wondrous thought that respondent “is available for trial, has diligently investigated his case, and that he is prepared”, or even that he “will be prepared for trial.”

Accordingly, the decision of the District Court of Appeal is quashed and the cause remanded for further proceedings in accord herewith.

It is so ordered.

ADKINS, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., dissents.
* 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

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 8, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40341

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LUIS ENRIQUE LOPEZ

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:06-CR-328-1

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Luis Enrique Lopez raises

arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S.

224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and

not a separate criminal offense. The appellant's motion for summary disposition

is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, June S. Almenoff, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Furiex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;

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 we 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 changes in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the Registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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 controls over financial reporting.

March 18, 2011

|                                   
|-----------------------------------
|                                   
|/s/ June S. Almenoff               
|June S. Almenoff                   
|President and Chief Medical Officer
|(principal executive officer)
#### Louis K. SMITH and Catherin Y. Smith, Individually and as man and wife, Appellants, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign insurance company authorized to do business in Florida, Appellee.

No. 68-699.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 10, 1970.

Peter S. Schwedock, Miami, for appellants.

Fleming, O’Bryan & Fleming and Gary S. Barber, Ft. Lauderdale, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This cause recurs for consideration upon the mandate of the Supreme Court of Florida pursuant to the opinion and judgment of that court filed February 4, 1970 (231 So.2d 193), disapproving the concluding paragraph with directions to eliminate said paragraph of the prior opinion and judgment of this court in this cause (Fla.App., 220 So.2d 389).

In accord with the directive of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida, the concluding paragraph of our prior opinion and judgment is vacated, the said opinion and judgment is amended in accordance with the opinion of the Supreme Court and the cause is remanded to the trial court for its determination of allowable damages, under the express terms of the contract relating to loss occasioned by the temporary loss of use of the car.1

It is so ordered.

1

. The amount of such damages are specified in the policy of insurance.
Exhibit
31.1











CERTIFICATIONS




I, Paul
C. Honda, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be
filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K
of  Honda Auto Receivables 2010-1 Owner Trust (the “Exchange Act
periodic reports”);





2. Based
on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information
required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is
included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;





4. I am
responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicers and based on
my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted in preparing the servicer
compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB,
and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have
fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material
respects; and





5. All
the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance
with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in
this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules
13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as
otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of
noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on
Form 10-K.





In
giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:  FDI Computer
Consulting Inc., dba FDI Collateral Management and Union Bank, N.A.











Date:  June
28, 2010











/s/ Paul C.
Honda____________________________


Paul C.
Honda


Assistant
Vice President, Assistant Secretary and Compliance Officer


of
American Honda Finance Corporation


(senior
officer in charge of the servicing function)
Exhibit 32(a)






This Certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.  This Certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any registration statement or other document pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, except as otherwise stated in such filing.






Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63


of Title 18 of the United States Code






In connection with the Quarterly Report of Columbus Southern Power Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q (the “Report”) for the quarter ended  September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Michael G. Morris, 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, based on my knowledge (i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.






/s/ Michael G. Morris


Michael G. Morris


Chief Executive Officer






October 29, 2010






A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to American Electric Power Company, Inc. and will be retained by American Electric Power Company, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 231 (Tuesday, December 2, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 63725]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31719]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

Emergency Notice of Additional Agenda Item

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: United States International Trade 
Commission.

TIME AND DATE: December 2, 1997 at 2:30 p.m.

PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street S.W., Washington, DC 20436.

STATUS: Open to the public.

ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEM:
    6. The Chairman's proposal for Fiscal Year 1998 Expenditure Plan 
and Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Request.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 201.35(d)(2), the Commission is hereby 
giving notice of the addition of an agenda item for the Commission 
meeting being held Tuesday, December 2, 1997, at 2:30 p.m. By unanimous 
consent, the Commission has authorized issuance of the Government in 
the Sunshine Notice, and hereby announces that earlier announcement of 
same was not possible.
    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, 
not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the 
agenda of the following meeting.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: November 26, 1997.
Donna R. Koehnke,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-31719 Filed 11-28-97; 12:32 pm]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 230 (Monday, December 1, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 63563]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31446]


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

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES


National Endowment for the Arts; Combined Arts Panel

    Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that a meeting of 
the Combined Arts Panel, Theater/Musical Theater Section B (Planning & 
Stabilization Category) to the National Council on the Arts will be 
held on December 12, 1997. The panel will meet from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 
p.m. in Room 730 at the Nancy Hanks Center, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, 
NW, Washington, D.C., 20506.
    The meeting is for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, 
evaluation, and recommendation on applications for financial assistance 
under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 
1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to the 
agency by grant applicants. In accordance with the determination of the 
Chairman of March 31, 1997, these sessions will be closed to the public 
pursuant to subsection (c)(4), (6) and (9)(B) of section 552b of Title 
5, United States Code.
    Any person may observe meetings, or portions thereof, of advisory 
panels which are open to the public, and may be permitted to 
participate in the panel's discussions at the discretion of the panel 
chairman and with the approval of the full-time Federal employee in 
attendance.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please 
contact the Office of AccessAbility, National Endowment for the Arts, 
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20506, 202/682-5532, 
TDY-TDD 202/682-5496, at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting.
    Further information with reference to this meeting can be obtained 
from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Committee Management Officer, National 
Endowment for the Arts, Washington, D.C., 20506, or call 202/682-5691.

    Dated: November 24, 1997.
Kathy Plowitz-Worden,
Panel Coordinator, Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts.
[FR Doc. 97-31446 Filed 11-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7537-01-M
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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-30412

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CEDRIC DESMOND MCCAIN

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:06-CR-20024-1

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Cedric Desmond

McCain has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). McCain has not filed a response. Our

independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 30, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
#### AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, etc., Petitioner, v. June E. HAARALA, etc., et al., Respondents.

No. 41050.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 14, 1971.

Certiorari dismissed.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

CARLTON and ADKINS, JJ., would deny the petition for writ of certiorari.
256 La. 364

#### Ervin Eugene HENDRIX v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC.

No. 50626.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 26, 1970.

In re: Delta Air Lines, Inc. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 234 So.2d 93.

Writ refused. The judgment is correct.
#### Howard H. DAVIS, Petitioner, Cross-Respondent, v. GRAND UNION GROCERY COMPANY et al., Respondents, Cross-Petitioners.

No. 42652.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 16, 1972.

Certiorari denied.

CARLTON, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.