alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit
        32.1**
 **CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**
 **AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
  In
        connection with the Xcorporeal, Inc. (“Company”) Annual Report on Form 10-KSB
        for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
        Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Terren S. Peizer, Executive
        Chairman, and I, Robert Weinstein, Chief Financial 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 our
        knowledge:
 
 (1)
        The
        Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
        the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
 
 (2)
        The
        information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly presents
        in
        all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
        the
        Company.
 By:
              /s/
                  Terren S. PeizerTerren
                  S. PeizerExecutive
                  ChairmanBy:
              /s/
                  Robert WeinsteinRobert
                  WeinsteinChief
                  Financial Officer
  Date:
        September 19, 2008
 
 This
        certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-KSB pursuant to Section
        906 of
        the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
        by
        such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906, another 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 Xcorporeal, Inc. and will be retained
        and
        furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
        request.
18

POLLUTANT PTE 

(tons/yr) POLLUTANT PTE (tons/yr)

PM 12.62 BENZENE 0.36

PM10 12.62 BERYLLIUM 0.04

PM2.5 12.62 DIOXIN/FURAN 9.97 x 10-8

SO2 66.25 HCl/Cl2 19.8

NOX 74.99 LEAD 0.0968

VOM (OZONE) 15.70 MERCURY 0.03

CO 31.04 METHANOL 0.4069

TOTAL HAPS 21.4 NICKEL 0.0001

ANTIMONY 0.0001 ORGANIC HAP 

COMPOUNDS 0.5287

ARSENIC 0.04 SELENIUM 0.0002

The current facility’s PTE is a summation of the potential to emit of each emission unit. 

B. Incinerators: Unit 2, Unit 3, and Unit 4 Emission Standard Requirements

The regulations applicable to the incinerators are listed below. A listing of any nonapplicable requirements and the reasons for the non-applicability are provided in Appendix 

B.

1. Visible Emissions

a. Visible Emissions Limitations [35 IAC 212.123(a)]

The emission of smoke or other particulate matter, with an opacity greater than 30 

percent, into the atmosphere from any emission source shall not be caused or allowed, 

except as allowed by 35 IAC 212.123(b) and 212.124.

b. Fugitive Particulate Matter [35 IAC 212.301 and 212.314]

The facility shall not cause or allow the emission of fugitive particulate matter from 

any process, including any material handling or storage activity, that is visible by an 

observer looking generally overhead at a point beyond the property line of the source 

unless the wind speed is greater than 40.2 kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour.) 

except as described in 35 IAC 212.314.
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION

302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Mary G. Merritt,
certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of
Preferred Voice, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and
other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report.



4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and I have:



a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or cause such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my 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 quarterly 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 on such evaluation; and



c. disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrants internal controls 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 controls over financial reporting;



5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or
persons performing the equivalent function):



a. all significant deficiencies
in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in
internal controls; 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.



|                                                                                    
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                    
|/s/ Mary G. Merritt                                                                 
|Mary G. Merritt                                                                     
|Vice President Finance (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
|February 13, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1205 Considered and Passed Senate (CPS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1205

  To amend the Fluid Milk Promotion Act of 1990 to define fluid milk 
  processors to exclude de minimis processors, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 1 (legislative day, June 30), 1993

    Mr. Leahy introduced the following bill; which was read twice, 
              considered, read the third time, and passed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Fluid Milk Promotion Act of 1990 to define fluid milk 
  processors to exclude de minimis processors, 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 ``Fluid Milk Promotion Amendments Act 
of 1993''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF FLUID MILK PROCESSOR.

    (a) Fluid Milk Processor.--Paragraph (4) of section 1999C of the 
Fluid Milk Promotion Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6402(4)) is amended to read 
as follows:
            ``(4) Fluid milk processor.--The term `fluid milk 
        processor' means any person who processes and markets 
        commercially more than 500,000 pounds of fluid milk products in 
        consumer-type packages per month.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1999J(e) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 
6409(e)) is amended by inserting after ``4504(g))'' the following: ``, 
and that are fluid milk processors,''.

                                 <all>
```
#### Edward RAPPOPORT v. STATE of Florida, Sheriff William R. Hullman and Criminal Court of Record, Palm Beach County.

No. 38469.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 1969.

Mandamus denied without opinion.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Bekim Nuredinoski, Appellant.

[655 NYS2d 540]

Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.), both rendered May 4, 1995, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree under Indictment No. QN11915/94, and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree under Indictment No. QN11489/94, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant failed to establish his entitlement to the disclosure of the identity of the confidential informant, inasmuch as the testimony adduced by the prosecution fully disclosed the identities of the participants and witnesses at the drug sales for which the defendant was convicted *(see, Roviaro v United States,*353 US 53). Although we do not approve the procedure used by the court, we are fully satisfied that in the case before us the identity of the confidential informant in no way relates to the question of the defendant’s guilt or innocence or of the identification of the defendant *(cf., People v Goggins,*34 NY2d 163, *cert denied*419 US 1012; *People v Chavis,*113 AD2d 896; *People v Gilmore,*106 AD2d 399).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or are without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
#### ABEL HARRIS *vs.*ALEXANDER PORTER.

A contract which by its terms is to continue longer than a year, is within the statute of frauds, and must be proved by writing, although it may possibly be put an end to within the year.

Case. Pleas, non assumpsit; payment, and act of limitations.

This was an action for the violation of a contract in relation to carrying the mail. The defendant had a contract with the postmaster general, to carry the mail from New Castle to Georgetown, from 1st January 1832, to 31st December 1835. The plaintiff took a subcontract to carry it a part of this distance, (from Camden to Milford,) from 1st April 1832, for the residue of Porter’s term. On the 1st October 1832, the defendant dismissed Harris, and himself put on stages for the whole route, The agreement between them was merely verbal.

*Bayard,*for the defendant,

moved a nonsuit, on the ground of the contract being within the statute of frauds *{Dig.*88,) which declares that no action shall be brought whereby to charge any person “ upon any agreement that is not to be performed within the space of one year from the making thereof,” unless the same shall be reduced to writing, &c. 11 *East.*142; 1 *Barn, and Aid.*722.

*28It was answered by the plaintiffs counsel, that the contract between Porter and the postmaster general, reserved to the latter the power to alter the route, and thus put an end to it at any time whatever; it *might*therefore be terminated within the year, and did not *necessarily*reach beyond it. Such a contract does not come within the act which was made to meet agreements, the performance of which was necessarily to be postponed beyond the year. 1 *Comyn on Contracts*79, &c.; 3 *Burr.*1278. Contracts depending on a contingency are not within the statute. 10 *Petersdorf.*106 *B.*72, *Am. FA.; Rohts. on Frauds*187-8-9. If the agreement *may*be performed within the year, it is not within the statute. 10 *Johns. 254-5.*And again, the motion is too late. The defendant has allowed the contract to be proved; whereas the objection should have been made to the evidence.

*Bates, Frame*and *Clayton*for plaintiff

*J. A. Bayard*for defendant.

But the *Court*said, that this was a contract which could not possibly be *performed*within one year; by its terms it was to continue *four*years. And though it might be annulled or put an end to by the postmaster general within the year, it still falls within the act as an agreement which, according to its terms, is not to be performed within the space of one year.

Nonsuit ordered.
#### GENERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Louis J. DITTA et al., Appellees.

No. 72-80.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 30, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C_2021349EN.01001501.xml

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Giurgiu (Romania) lodged on 16 April 2021 — C.I. I. v Ministerul Public — Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Giurgiu

(Case C-244/21)

(2021/C 349/18)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Giurgiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: C.I.I.

Defendant: Ministerul Public — Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Giurgiu

By order of 1 July 2021, the Court (Tenth Chamber) declared that it manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Tribunalul Giurgiu (Romania) by decision of 9 April 2021.

---
IV 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 718 

Calling on the Department of Defense to expedite the delivery of all necessary 

military equipment, weapons, ammunition, and other needed materials 

to the Kurdish Peshmerga forces to successfully combat and defeat 

the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS). 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2014 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT (for himself, Mr. ROHRABACHER, and Ms. GABBARD) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 

Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Calling on the Department of Defense to expedite the delivery of all necessary military equipment, weapons, ammunition, and other needed materials to the Kurdish 

Peshmerga forces to successfully combat and defeat the 

Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS). 

Whereas the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) has 

committed acts of terrorism, crimes against humanity 

and continues to threaten the security and stability of the 

Middle East; 

Whereas the Kurdish Peshmerga forces have fought bravely 

against ISIS to secure Iraqi Army bases that contained 

United States-made weapons and equipment and to protect critical infrastructure vulnerable to invasion by ISIS; 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 718 IH 

Whereas successful battles against Iraqi security forces have 

provided ISIS with advanced weapons systems and armored vehicles, severely limiting the Kurdish Peshmerga 

forces’ capabilities against ISIS; 

Whereas the strain of combat against ISIS has depleted the 

Kurdish Peshmerga forces’ weapons caches, leaving them 

lightly armed and inadequately equipped to counter the 

better-equipped ISIS force; 

Whereas the Kurdish Peshmerga forces are a longtime ally 

of the United States and are perfectly positioned to effectively fight against ISIS and have recently asked for material and non-material support; 

Whereas Department of Defense spokesman, Rear Admiral 

John Kirby, confirmed that the Department of Defense 

knows what the Kurdish Peshmerga forces need to combat ISIS; 

Whereas Albania, Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Italy, France, 

Germany, and the United Kingdom have committed to 

supplying arms to the Kurdish Peshmerga forces; and 

Whereas the United States, through the Department of Defense, have provided no meaningful military equipment, 

weapons, ammunition or other needed materials to the 

Kurdish Peshmerga forces: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives calls on 

2 the Department of Defense to expedite the direct delivery 

3 of all necessary military equipment, weapons, ammunition, 

4 and other needed materials to the Kurdish Peshmerga 

5 forces to successfully combat and defeat ISIS. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1174 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 132

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1174

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

                For the relief of Olga D. Zhondetskaya.

_______________________________________________________________________

                July 15 (legislative day, June 30), 1993

                       Reported without amendment

                                                       Calendar No. 132
103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1174

                For the relief of Olga D. Zhondetskaya.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                June 29 (legislative day, June 22), 1993

   Mr. Cohen introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

                July 15 (legislative day, June 30), 1993

                Reported by Mr. Biden, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                For the relief of Olga D. Zhondetskaya.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. GRANT OF NATURALIZATION TO OLGA D. ZHONDETSKAYA.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, Olga 
D. Zhondetskaya shall be naturalized as a citizen of the United States 
upon the filing of the appropriate application and upon being 
administered the oath of renunciation and allegiance in an appropriate 
ceremony pursuant to section 337 of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act.
    (b) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsection (a) 
shall apply only if the application for naturalization is filed with 
appropriate fees within 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.
```
#### Lee MOORE v. UNITED STATES.

No. 8478.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

March 22, 1937.

Lloyd S. Nix and Lillian M. Fish, both of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.

Peirson M. Flail, U. S. Atty., of Los Angeles, Cal.

Before GARRECHT and HANEY, Circuit Judges, and NETERER, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Upon stipulation of counsel for respective, parties, ordered appeal dismissed; that a judgment of dismissal be filed and entered accordingly; mandate issued forthwith.
#### Margaret LEIMAN, Executrix of the Estate of Henry Leiman, deceased, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

No. 8243.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 11, 1937.

P. Robert G. Sjostrom, of Miami, Fla., for petitioner.

Robert H. Jackson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Sewall Key, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen., and Herman Oliphant, Gen. Counsel, Department of Treasury, and Chester A. Gwinn, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Before FOSTER, SIBLEY, and HUTCHESON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to the joint stipulation executed September 4, 1936, for the consolidation of this case with the case entitled David Gross, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent (C.C.A.) 88 F.(2d) 567, and the motion filed by petitioner to enter the same judgment in the above-entitled and numbered cause as was entered by this court in the case entitled David Gross, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, on March 2, 1937, it is now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this court that the judgment of the said United States Board of Tax Appeals in this cause be, and the same is hereby, reversed with direction to correct the tax assessed in accordance with the opinion of this court rendered on March 2, 1937, in the case of David Gross, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent.
| Subsidiary                |   | Jurisdiction |   | Ownership                                                                                                                          |
|---------------------------|--------|--------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                      |   |         |   |                                                                                                                               |
| Hwareh.com, Inc.          |   | Delaware     |   | 100% owned by HealthWarehouse.com, Inc.                                                                                            |
|                      |   |         |   |                                                                                                                               |
| Hocks.com, Inc.           |   | Ohio         |   | 100% owned by HealthWarehouse.com, Inc.                                                                                            |
|                      |   |         |   |                                                                                                                               |
| Ion Networks Holding N.V. |   | Belgium      |   | 799 shares (99.9%) are owned by HealthWarehouse.com, Inc. One share is owned by Stephen Gray, the Company’s former CEO. |
|                      |   |         |   |                                                                                                                               |
| Ion Networks, N.V.        |   | Belgium      |   | 513 shares (99.8%) are owned by Ion Networks Holding N.V. One share is owned by Stephen Gray, the Company’s former CEO. |
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-3 Nos. 33-31932, 33-40222, 33-41854, 33-43856, 33-58766, 333-15933, 333-24187
and 333-28415) and in the related Prospectuses, and in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 33-31439, 33-33887, 33-34112, 33-34834, 33-44519, 33-58929, 333-04021, 333-17889, 333-45935,
333-45939, 333-90645, 333-90647 and 333-75418) pertaining to the 1987 Stock Option Plan of Magnetek, Inc., the Magnetek, Inc. FlexCare Plus Retirement Savings Plan, the 1989 Incentive Stock
Compensation Plan of Magnetek, Inc., the Magnetek Unionized Employee Savings Plan, the Amended and Restated 1989 Incentive Stock Compensation Plan of Magnetek, Inc., the Second Amended and Restated
1989 Incentive Stock Compensation Plan of Magnetek, Inc., the Magnetek, Inc. Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan, the Magnetek, Inc. Deferred Investment Plan, the Magnetek, Inc. 1997 Non-Employee
Director Stock Option Plan, the Magnetek, Inc. Amended and Restated Director Compensation and Deferral Investment Plan, the 1999 Stock Incentive Plan of Magnetek, Inc., the 2000 Employee Stock Plan of
Magnetek, Inc. and the 2002 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Magnetek, Inc., of our reports dated August 20, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Magnetek,
Inc. included or incorporated by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended June 30, 2003.

|                                              |  | ERNST & YOUNG LLP
|--------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------
|Woodland Hills, California
September 26, 2003 |  |                  

---

QuickLinks