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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Columbia Energy Group (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael W.
O'Donnell, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
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 result of operations of the Company.

           /s/ Michael W. O'Donnell
--------------------------------------------
               Michael W. O'Donnell
       President and Chief Executive Officer

Date: August 6, 2004
Template for final certification: 

Pursuant to 31 C.F.R. § 802.402(d), I hereby certify that I am [“the Chief Executive Officer” or

“a duly authorized designee, as defined at 31 C.F.R. § 802.202(b),”] of [the submitting 

party], which submitted a Declaration dated _____ (the “Declaration”), and submitted additional 

information in connection with such Declaration (the “Information”), and that, to the best of my 

knowledge and belief subject to the penalties provided in section 1001 of Title 18, United States 

Code: 

1. The Declaration and the Information fully comply with the requirements of Section 721 of

the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended, 31 C.F.R. Part 802, and [any agreement 

or condition entered into with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United 

States (the “Committee”) or any member agency of the Committee acting on its 

behalf]; and [Note: A submitting party that is not subject to an applicable agreement 

or condition may omit the inapplicable term.]

2. The Declaration and the Information, as they relate to the transaction, the real estate, [the 

submitting party], and [the submitting party’s] parents, affiliates, and any other related 

entities described in the Declaration or the Information, are accurate and complete in all 

material respects. [Note: A submitting party that does not have parents, affiliates, and/

or subsidiaries, may omit the inapplicable term(s).]

Signature: 

__________________________ [include printed name of signer] 

Title: 

__________________________ 

Submitter: 

__________________________ [identify the party to the transaction on whose behalf the 

individual above has signed the certification] 

Date: 

__________________________
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT 

BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING 

EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(D)(2), SCACR. 

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

In The Supreme Court 

The State, Petitioner, 

v. 

Ricky Darren Sanders, Respondent. 

Appellate Case No. 2010-173047 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS 

Appeal From Sumter County 

R. Ferrell Cothran, Jr., Circuit Court Judge 

Memorandum Opinion No. 2012-MO-40 

Heard October 3, 2012 – Filed October 24, 2012 

DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED 

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy 

Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy 

Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney 

General William M. Blitch, Jr., all of Columbia; and 

Solicitor Ernest Adolphus Finney, III, of Sumter, for 

Petitioner. 
 

Susan Barber Hackett, of South Carolina Commission on 

Indigent Defense, Division of Appellate Defense, of 

Columbia, for Respondent. 

PER CURIAM: We granted a writ of certiorari to review the decision of 

the Court of Appeals in State v. Sanders, Op. No. 2010-UP-362 (S.C. Ct. App. 

filed July 12, 2010). We now dismiss the writ as improvidently granted. 

DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED. 

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., 

concur.
#### INTERNATIONAL AIRCRAFT DELIVERIES, Petitioner, v. Dorothy GORMAN, Widow, and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.

No. 39164.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 13, 1970.

Rehearing Denied June 10, 1970.

Jerry V. Wilkey, Miami, for petitioner.

Ralph P. Ezzo, Miami, Patrick H. Mears and J. Franklin Garner, Tallahassee, for respondents.

*486PER CURIAM.

In this workmen’s Compensation case, we have heard oral argument and considered the record and the briefs. We find that the order of the Industrial Relations Commission, entered on October 17, 1969, comports with the essential requirements of law. The petition for writ of certiorari in this case is hereby denied.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, C. J., and DREW, THORNAL and ADKINS, JJ., concur.

BOYD, J., dissents.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000315256
<NAME>PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
<MULTIPLIER>1,000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                           MAR-31-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                              PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                1,646,721
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                 29,867
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                     387,727
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                   618,270
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           2,682,585
<COMMON>                                         1
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                  424,371
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                        276,206
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>             701,652
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       50,000
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                       516,485
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                               0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                        0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                   0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                   25,000
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                702,310
<LEASES-CURRENT>                           108,638
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>             578,500
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>            2,682,585
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                  286,799
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                        17,366
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                 235,983
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                 251,350
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                     35,449
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                           2,877
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>              36,327
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    11,046
<NET-INCOME>                                25,281
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                  1,987
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>               23,294
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                      84,652
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0.00
        


</TABLE>
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2330 

To provide that the Secretary of the Interior may not use COVID–19 as 

a basis for restricting or limiting outdoor recreational use of land or 

water administered by the National Park Service, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 1, 2021 

Mrs. MCCLAIN (for herself, Ms. HERRELL, Mrs. HINSON, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. BANKS, Mr. TIFFANY, and Mr. DONALDS) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To provide that the Secretary of the Interior may not use 

COVID–19 as a basis for restricting or limiting outdoor 

recreational use of land or water administered by the 

National Park Service, 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. COVID–19 LIMITS ON OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL 

4 USE OF NPS LANDS PROHIBITED. 

5 During the year 2021, the Secretary of the Interior 

6 may not use COVID–19 (or any issue related to the 

7 COVID–19 pandemic) as a basis for restricting or limiting 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2330 IH

1 outdoor recreational use of land, water, or interests in 

2 land or water, administered by the National Park Service. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### Douglas V. PEEBLES, Relator, v. The Honorable D. R. SMITH, as Circuit Judge of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, IN AND FOR MARION COUNTY, Florida, Respondent.

No. V-142.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 12, 1974.

Merritt H. Powell, Daytona Beach, for relator.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., George R. Georgieff, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The relator, Douglas V. Peebles, has filed a suggestion for writ of prohibition whereby he seeks the issuance of a writ of prohibition restraining the respondent from exercising further jurisdiction in the underlying mortgage foreclosure action on ground of the respondent’s alleged disqualification.

The suggestion fails to make out a prima facie case showing that the respondent is disqualified as a matter of law. See State ex rel. Bryan v. Albritton, 114 Fla. 725, 154 So. 830. It affirmatively appears that the relator has not followed the statutory procedure for disqualification, which is prescribed in Chapter 38, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.

One of the grounds for disqualification asserted by relator appears to come within the purview of Section 38.02, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., and the other ground under Section 38.10, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. In both instances, the statute requires that a suggestion of disqualification must be filed together with certain supporting data in the trial court. The judge then must enter an order thereon, and if the suggestion of disqualification is denied, such order of denial is appealable. On the mere suggestion made ore tenus before the judge in this case and his verbal order denying same, it does not clearly appear that statutory disqualification existed as a matter of law. Without such a showing, prohibition will not lie.

Accordingly, the suggestion for writ of prohibition is denied.

SPECTOR, Acting C. J., and BOYER and McCORD, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                                         135,520
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  197,682
<ALLOWANCES>                                    14,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,967,292
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,306,884
<PP&E>                                       2,323,998
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,894,695
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,747,793
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,414,202
<BONDS>                                      1,025,605
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     78,097
<COMMON>                                     1,035,186
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,217,783
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,747,793
<SALES>                                        418,734
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               418,734
<CGS>                                          259,271
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  177,034
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25,676
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (43,247)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (43,247)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (43,247)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)
        

</TABLE>
CERTIFICATION                                                       Exhibit 31.2

I, Geoffrey F. Feidelberg, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of CompuDyne 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 period 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  registrant's  board  of
directors:

         (a) All significant  deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal controls 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:  May 1, 2006
                                       /S/ Geoffrey F. Feidelberg
                                      ----------------------------
                                      Geoffrey F. Feidelberg
                                      Chief Financial Officer
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 of Ameresco, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Andrew B. Spence, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) and 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 operations of the Company.


Date:  March 31, 2011/s/ Andrew B. SpenceAndrew B. SpenceVice President and Chief Financial Officer(principal financial officer)
EXHIBIT 33.1
 
 REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH SERVICING CRITERIA
 FOR ASSET-BACKED SECURITIES
 
 Entergy Texas, Inc. (the “Servicer”), as a party participating in the servicing function under Item 1122 of Regulation AB, hereby reports on its assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria specified in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB, as follows:
 
 (1) The Servicer is responsible for assessing compliance with the servicing criteria applicable to it. The servicing criteria specified in the following paragraphs of paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB are not applicable to the Servicer based on the activities it performs with respect to asset-backed securities transactions taken as a whole involving the Servicer and that are backed by the same asset type backing the Senior Secured Transition Bonds: (1)(ii) (outsourcing), (1)(iii) (back-up servicing), (1)(iv) (fidelity bond), 2(iii) (advances or guarantees), (2)(vi) (unissued checks), (4)(iii) (additions, removals or substitutions), (4)(v) (records regarding pool assets), (4)(ix) (adjustments to interest rates), (4)(x) (funds held in trust for an obligor), (4)(xi) (payments on behalf of obligors), (4)(xii) (late payment penalties), (4)(xiii) (obligor disbursements), and (4)(xv) (external credit enhancement);
 
 (2) The Servicer used the criteria in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB to assess compliance with the applicable servicing criteria;
 
 (3) The Servicer has determined that it is in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ending December 31, 2019, which is the period covered by this report on Form 10-K; and
 
 (4) Deloitte & Touche LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the Servicer's assessment of compliance with the applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2019, which is the period covered by this report on Form 10-K.
 
 
 Date:  March 27, 2020
 
 Entergy Texas, Inc., as servicer
 
 By  /s/ Steven C. McNeal
 
 Name:  Steven C. McNeal
 Title:   Vice President and Treasurer
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2416 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to clarify the causation element 

in the Federal hate crime statute, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 8, 2021 

Mr. LIEU (for himself, Mrs. MCBATH, Mr. RUIZ, Ms. JACKSON LEE, Mr. 

TAKANO, Ms. ESCOBAR, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Mrs. HAYES, Ms. 

CHU, Mr. CASTRO of Texas, Mr. CICILLINE, Mr. HORSFORD, Ms. GARCIA

of Texas, Ms. BASS, Mrs. DEMINGS, Mr. SWALWELL, Mr. DEUTCH, Mr. 

NEGUSE, Ms. WILLIAMS of Georgia, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Ms. MENG, Mr. 

CORREA, Mr. PANETTA, Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ, Ms. LEE of California, Mr. 

DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois, and Ms. MATSUI) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to clarify the causation element in the Federal hate crime statute, 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 ‘‘Stop Hate Crimes Act 

5 of 2021’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2416 IH

1 SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION AS TO CAUSATION ELEMENT IN 

2 HATE CRIMES. 

3 Section 249(a) of title 18, United States Code, is 

4 amended— 

5 (1) in paragraph (1), in the matter preceding 

6 subparagraph (A)— 

7 (A) by striking ‘‘because of’’ and inserting 

8 ‘‘if’’; and 

9 (B) by inserting after ‘‘origin of any per10 son’’ the following: ‘‘was a contributory moti11 vating factor for causing or attempting to cause 

12 such injury’’; and 

13 (2) in paragraph (2)(A), in the matter pre14 ceding clause (i)— 

15 (A) by striking ‘‘because of’’ and inserting 

16 ‘‘if’’; and 

17 (B) by inserting after ‘‘disability of any 

18 person’’ the following: ‘‘was a contributory mo19 tivating factor for causing or attempting to 

20 cause such injury’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Critical Technologies Pilot Program Declarations*

2018-2020

Year Number of 

Declarations

Completed

Action

Unable to 

Complete Action

Request for 

CFIUS Notice

Unilateral 

Agency Notice

Declarations 

Rejected**

Declarations 

Withdrawn

2018 20 2 12 5 0 0 1

2019 94 35 32 26 0 0 1

2020 10 6 1 3 0 0 0

*CFIUS began accepting declarations starting on November 10, 2018, with the commencement of the critical technologies pilot program. The critical technologies 

pilot program concluded on February 12, 2020. This table includes an update to the data provided in the CFIUS Annual Report for 2018; in particular, the number of 

declarations for which CFIUS was unable to complete action has been updated to 12.

**Declarations can be rejected by the Committee if the parties do not satisfy the requirements in the regulations or if, during the course of CFIUS review, there is a 

material change to the transaction or information comes to light that contradicts material information provided in the declaration by the parties.
#### LaFrance Workshop Lampshade Co., Inc. *v.*Fire Assn. of Philadelphia, Appellant.

Argued October 3, 1933.

*606Before Keller, Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadteeld, Parker and James, JJ.

*Horace Michener Schell*and *Arthur S. Arnold,*for appellants.

*W. Horace Hepburn, Jr.,*for appellee.

March 3, 1934:

Opinion by

Baldrige, J.,

The questions involved in these seven appeals are *607the same as in No. 81, October Term, 1933, (112 Pa. Superior Ct. 599), and for the reasons therein set forth, judgment in each case is reversed with a venire.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Ralph THOMAS.

No. 61133.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 9, 1977.

In re: Ralph Thomas, applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs and for stay order. Parish of Orleans.

Writ denied. No abuse of discretion.

DIXON, J., is of the opinion the writ should be granted.
Exhibit 99.1

                    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 Annual Report of Cash Systems, Inc. (the
"Registrant") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2002, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Annual
Report"), we, Craig Potts, Chief Executive Officer, and Christopher Larson,
Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, 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 Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Registrant.



 /s/ Craig Potts
-------------------
Craig Potts
Chief Executive Officer


 /s/ Christopher Larson
-----------------------
Christopher Larson
Chief Financial Officer
***MA******LCOLML. POLLARD, INC***

**4845 W. LAKE ROAD, #119**

**ERIE,PA 16505**

**	 (814)838-8258	 FAX (814)838-8452**

 

 

April 11, 2012

To the Board of Directors

Autovative Products, Inc.

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation of ouropinion dated March 31, 2011 and April 10, 2012 covering the year ended December 31, 2010 in the Form 10K of Autovative Products,Inc.

 

Very truly yours,

 

/S/Malcolm L. Pollard, Inc.

 

Malcolm L Pollard, CPA