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



                                                                    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 Fansteel Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), Gary L. Tessitore, as Chairman, President and Chief Executive Office
of the Company and R. Michael McEntee, as Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, each hereby 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.

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
required by Section 906, has been provided to Fansteel Inc. and will be retained
by Fansteel Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.


Dated: August 16, 2004



                                     /s/ Gary L. Tessitore
                                     ------------------------------------------
                                     Gary L. Tessitore
                                     Chairman of the Board, President and Chief
                                     Executive Officer


                                     /s/ R. Michael McEntee
                                     ------------------------------------------
                                     R. Michael McEntee
                                     Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
From: Jerry Wamsley/R9/USEPA/US To: Jerry Wamsley/R9/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Jeanhee Hong/R9/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 04/14/2011 04:44 PM Subject: Fw: Haze Plan

Note to file:

A few minutes ago, I called Emily Schrepf of the Nati onal Parks Conservation Association to confirm her receipt of our April 8, 2011 letter denying her request to extend the comment period on our proposal, docket # EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0 131. I sent a copy of the letter earlier this afternoon via e-mail.

Ms. Schrepf was not in. I left a message asking her to confirm receipt of our April 8, 2011 letter either by leaving a message on my work phone, or by an e-mail message.

Jerry Wamsley

-----Forwarded by Jerry Wamsley/ R9/USEPA/US on 04/14/20 11 04:38PM ----- To: Jerry Wamsley/R9/USEPA/US@EPA From: Emily Schrepf <eschrepf@npca.org> Date: 04/14/2011 03:03PM Subject: Haze Plan

Mr. Wamsley,

Please advise whether you have granted an extensio n of the comment period for the proposed approval of California’s Haze Plan.

Thank you,

Emily

Emily Schrepf

Central Valley Program Manager

National Parks Conservation Association1401 Fulton St ste 916

Fresno, CA 93721

Office 559.229.9343

Cell 559.960.7056

eschrepf@npca.org
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/25/2021 | OSCAR NO. 600784 | PUBLIC

PUBLIC

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

In the Matter of 

HEALTH RESEARCH LABORATORIES, LLC, 

a limited liability company, 

DOCKET NO. 9397 

WHOLE BODY SUPPLEMENTS, LLC, 

a limited liability company, and 

KRAMER DUHON, 

individually and as an officer of HEALTH 

RESEARCH LABORATORIES, LLC and 

WHOLE BODY SUPPLEMENTS, LLC 

RESPONDENTS’ WAIVER OF AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF MOOTNESS AND 

LACK OF PUBLIC INTEREST 

Respondents hereby unconditionally waive the following affirmative defenses and 

agree not to assert these particular affirmative defenses in any future answer: 

1. Mootness and Lack of Statutory Authority: The causes of action alleged in 

the Complaint are barred by mootness because all alleged conduct (i.e., marketing 

and advertising) referenced in the Complaint ceased more than a year prior to the 

filing of the Complaint and will not reoccur in the future. The FTC has alleged no 

facts regarding a likelihood of reoccurrence. Further, the FTC Act does not grant 

the FTC the authority to seek a cease and desist order under these circumstances. 

2. Not in the public interest: Neither the filing of the administrative action 

nor the contemplated relief is in the public interest as required by 15 U.S.C. § 45.

 /s/ Joel W. Reese 

Joel W. Reese 

1 
 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/25/2021 | OSCAR NO. 600784 | PUBLIC

PUBLIC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on February 25, 2021, I filed the foregoing document 

electronically using the FTC’s E-Filing system, which will send notification to: 

April J. Tabor The Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

Acting Secretary Administrative Law Judge 

Federal Trade Commission Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Rm. H-113 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Rm. H-110 

Washington, DC 20580 Washington, DC 20580 

ElectronicFilings@ftc.gov 

Elizabeth Averill 

eaverill@ftc.gov 

Jonathan Cohen 

jcohen2@ftc.gov 

COMPLAINT COUNSEL 

/s/ Joel W. Reese 

Joel W. Reese 

2
#### John Hudson MITCHELL, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-297.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Jan. 16, 1970.

Appeal from Court of Record, Broward County; Russell E. Seay, Jr., Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Noemi Isabel Noria, Appellant

No. 06-18-00005-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 336th District Court of 

Fannin County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 17-

26260). Opinion delivered by Justice 

Burgess, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice 

Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Noemi Isabel Noria, has adequately indicated her inability to 

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED OCTOBER 25, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
#### Carl J. KRANENDONK, Petitioner, v. COUNTY OF DADE, State of Florida, Respondent.

No. 71-562.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 27, 1971.

Rehearing Denied June 18, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari dismissed.
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 Hydron Technologies, Inc. (the
"Registrant") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2003, hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned officer certifies, pursuant to 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 Registrant.


                            HYDRON TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

                            /s/ Richard Banakus
                            -------------------------
                            Richard Banakus
                            Chief Executive Officer
                            November 12, 2003


                                       23
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 12, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 27351]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12580]


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

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION

Office of Government Information Services (OGIS)

[NARA 2018-041]


Freedom of Information Act Advisory Committee

AGENCY: National Archives and Records Administration.

ACTION: Charter Renewal of the Freedom of Information Act Advisory 
Committee.

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

SUMMARY: The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) has 
renewed the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Advisory Committee 
charter. The FOIA Advisory Committee is a Federal advisory committee 
established in accordance with section 9(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act to advise NARA's Office of Government Information 
Services (OGIS) on improvements to the FOIA and to study the current 
FOIA landscape across the executive branch.

DATES: The charter will be applicable for two years from May 20, 2018, 
unless otherwise extended.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Bennett by phone at 202-741-5782, 
by mail at National Archives and Records Administration; Office of 
Government Information Services, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 
20740-6001, or by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4620292f276b2722302f3529343f6b25292b2b2f32322323062827342768212930"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4721282e266a2623312e3428353e6a24282a2a2e33332222072926352669202831">[email protected]</span></a>.

Patrice Little Murray,
Alternate Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2018-12580 Filed 6-11-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7515-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7460 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7460

   To extend the authority for the establishment by the Peace Corps 
  Commemorative Foundation of a commemorative work to commemorate the 
mission of the Peace Corps and the ideals on which the Peace Corps was 
                    founded, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 1, 2020

 Mr. Kennedy (for himself and Mr. Graves of Louisiana) introduced the 
    following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend the authority for the establishment by the Peace Corps 
  Commemorative Foundation of a commemorative work to commemorate the 
mission of the Peace Corps and the ideals on which the Peace Corps was 
                    founded, 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 ``Peace Corps Commemorative Work 
Extension Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMEMORATIVE WORK 
              TO COMMEMORATE THE MISSION OF THE PEACE CORPS AND THE 
              IDEALS ON WHICH THE PEACE CORPS WAS FOUNDED.

    Notwithstanding section 8903(e) of title 40, United States Code, 
the authority to establish the commemorative work under section 1(a) of 
Public Law 113-78 (40 U.S.C. 8903 note; 128 Stat. 647) shall continue 
to apply through January 24, 2028.
                                 <all>
```
### NUMBER 13 - 20 - 00 048 - CR 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

EX PARTE EDWARD OCHOA

On appeal from the 2 75 th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.



## ORDER ABATING APPEAL
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Hinojosa Order Per Curiam

Appellant, Edward Ochoa, filed a notice of appeal with this Court from the trial court’s order denying the relief requested in his application for writ of habeas corpus.
The record cur rently before the Court fails to include a certification of appellant’s right to appeal. The Clerk of the Court has requested the trial court’s certification of the appellant’s right to appeal from the district clerk’s office. To date, this clerk has been

un willing or unable to satisfy the request. Accordingly, this matter is ABATED and2 REMANDED to the trial court for entry of a certification of the appellant’s right to appeal. On remand, the trial court shall issue notice of a hearing and accordingly condu ct a hearing addressing the foregoing matter. We further direct that, after conducting the hearing, the trial court certify whether appellant has the right of appeal. The trial court's certification, and any orders it enters, shall be included in a suppl emental clerk's record. The trial court is directed to determine: ( 1 ) whether appellant has been denied effective assistance of counse l, and ( 2 ) whether appellant is indigent and entitled to
court

- appointed counsel. If the trial court determines appellant is indigent and entitled to
court

- appointed counsel, the trial court shall appoint new counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. If new counsel is appointed, the name, address, email address, telephone number, and state bar number of said counsel sh all be included in an order appointing counsel. The trial court is directed to cause the supplemental clerk's record to be filed with the Clerk of this Court within sixty days of the date of this order. Should the trial court require more time to comply w ith the directions of this Court, it shall request an extension prior to the expiration of this deadline. It is so ORDERED. PER CURIAM Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
D elivered and filed th e 6t h da y of April, 2020.
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 Farrel Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 28, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Rolf K
Liebergesell, 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: and

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


/s/ Rolf K Liebergesell
----------------------------------
Rolf K Liebergesell
Chairman of the Board of Directors
and Chief Executive Officer
November 11, 2003

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
required by Section 906, 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.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 2 0 2 3

- 1331

_____________________________
E UGENE H ARRIS ,
Petitioner
,

v.

R ICKY D. D IXON , Secretary
, Florida Department of Corrections
, Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

— Original Jurisdiction

.

May 17, 2024

P ER C URIAM

. The Court denies the petition for writ of certiorari on the merits.

R OBERTS , R AY , and K ELSEY , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Eugene Harris, pro se
, Petitioner

. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Respondent

.
#### James HARRIS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 43915.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 20, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 276 So.2d 845.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
1 The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-2831

___________ Kendrick Lee Harris, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri Unknown Mack, Officer #976 * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: July 5, 2000 Filed: July 24, 2000

___________ Before McMILLIAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Kendrick Lee Harris appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court 1 for the Eastern District of Missouri, dismissing his action with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d) for twice failing to appear at his deposition. For reversal, Harris argues the district court erred in dismissing the action because he provided good cause for his failure to appear, namely, he had been out of town when defendant requested-2-

the depositions. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
U nder Rule 37(d), if a party fails to appear for a deposition after being served withproper notice, the district court “may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just,” including an order dismissing the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C) and (d). We review Rule 37 dismissals for abuse of discretion and the district court’s factual findings for clear error. See Boogaerts v. Bank of Bradley , 961 F.2d 765, 768 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam); Avionic Co. v. General Dynamics Corp ., 957 F.2d 555, 558 (8th Cir. 1992). Although dismissal with prejudice is an “extreme sanction,” see Hunt v. City of Minneapolis , 203 F.3d 524, 527 (8th Cir. 2000), we conclude the district court did not clearly err in finding that Harris had deliberately failed to attend the two scheduled depositions and did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case. The evidence showed Harris’s counsel received notice of the depositions and appeared at both. Harris’s counsel mailed correspondence relating to the depositions to Harris, but receivedno response. After the date of the noticed depositions, some additional correspondence counsel mailed to Harris was returned as undelivered, but other correspondence--which counsel mailed to the address Harris claimed as his correct address--was not. Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2445 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2445

To prohibit assistance to the West Bank and Gaza that directly benefits 
           the Palestinian Authority, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 12, 2021

 Mrs. Greene of Georgia (for herself, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Steube, and Ms. 
   Herrell) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit assistance to the West Bank and Gaza that directly benefits 
           the Palestinian Authority, 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 Funding for Terrorists Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON ASSISTANCE TO THE WEST BANK AND GAZA THAT 
              DIRECTLY BENEFITS THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY.

    (a) In General.--None of the funds authorized to be appropriated or 
otherwise made available for fiscal year 2021 and available for 
obligation as of the date of the enactment of this Act, or authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise made available for 2022 or any fiscal 
year thereafter, for assistance under chapter 4 of part II of the 
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2346 et seq.; relating to 
Economic Support Fund) may be obligated or expended for assistance for 
the West Bank and Gaza that directly benefits the Palestinian 
Authority.
    (b) Repeal.--Section 1004 of the Taylor Force Act (22 U.S.C. 2378c-
1; Public Law 115-141) is repealed.
                                 <all>
```
* 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

November 18, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-41609

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

WILLIAM JOHN CHAPPELL,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:03-CR-41-ALL

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

Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

William John Chappell appeals his conditional guilty-plea

conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a

firearm. Chappell argues that the district court erred in

denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from his garage. 

Although Chappell concedes that he had no expectation of privacy

since his garage door was open, he contends that the seizure of

evidence therefrom, which was in plain view, was improper since

officers were not authorized to enter the garage without a
No. 03-41609

-2-

warrant. Chappell argues that, to the extent state law

authorized the officers’ entry into his garage, the applicable

provisions of the Texas Transportation Code (TTC) violate the

Fourth Amendment.

Regardless of Chappell’s challenge to the TTC, the exigent

circumstances created by Chappell by leaving his garage door open

and a firearm in plain view justified the officers’ entry into

his garage. See United States v. Jones, 239 F.3d 716, 719-22

(5th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, the district court did not err in

denying Chappell’s motion to suppress. See United States v.

Alvarez, 6 F.3d 287, 289 (5th Cir. 1993).

Chappell also renews his challenge to the presentence

report’s six-level increase pursuant to U.S.S.G.

§ 2K2.1(b)(1)(C), arguing that one of the 25 firearms recovered

from his residence belonged to his father-in-law. When

overruling Chappell’s objection to the U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(C)

enhancement, the district court rejected as incredible Chappell’s

argument that he lacked knowledge of the firearm. A credibility

determination on a factual finding at sentencing is peculiarly

within the province of the trier-of-fact. See United States v.

Sotelo, 97 F.3d 782, 799 (5th Cir. 1996).

 For the first time in a FED. R. APP. P. 28(j) letter,

Chappell contends that, pursuant to Blakely v. Washington, 124

S. Ct. 2531 (2004), his offense level increases under U.S.S.G.

§§ 2K2.1(b)(1)(C) and 2K2.1(b)(4) were improper since the facts
No. 03-41609

-3-

supporting these enhancements were not submitted to a jury and

proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Chappell acknowledges that

this argument is foreclosed by United States v. Pineiro, 377 F.3d

464, 473 (5th Cir. 2004), petition for cert. filed (U.S. July 14,

2004) (No. 03-30437), and he raises the issue solely to preserve

it for future review.

AFFIRMED.