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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, filed pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, of The First Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) for the
period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David E. Johnson, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 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 Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





/s/ David E. JohnsonName:

David E. JohnsonTitle:

Chief Executive OfficerDate:

8-13-08


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 First Bancshares, Inc., and will be retained by The First
Bancshares, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Max SIMON v. ADMINISTRATOR OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY et al.

No. 53972.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 12, 1973.

In re: Max Simon applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 281 So.2d 165.

Not Considered. Not timely filed.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1093 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 160
113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1093

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 130 Caldwell Drive in Hazlehurst, Mississippi, as the ``First 
     Lieutenant Alvin Chester Cockrell, Jr. Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 4, 2013

Mr. Cochran (for himself and Mr. Wicker) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

                             July 31, 2013

               Reported by Mr. Carper, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 130 Caldwell Drive in Hazlehurst, Mississippi, as the ``First 
     Lieutenant Alvin Chester Cockrell, Jr. Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. FIRST LIEUTENANT ALVIN CHESTER COCKRELL, JR. POST OFFICE 
              BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 130 Caldwell Drive in Hazlehurst, Mississippi, shall be 
known and designated as the ``First Lieutenant Alvin Chester Cockrell, 
Jr. Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``First 
Lieutenant Alvin Chester Cockrell, Jr. Post Office Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 160

113th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1093

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 130 Caldwell Drive in Hazlehurst, Mississippi, as the ``First 
     Lieutenant Alvin Chester Cockrell, Jr. Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             July 31, 2013

                       Reported without amendment
```
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 6, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
131086 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan KAREN RENNY and CHARLES RENNY, Plaintiffs-Appellees, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 131086 COA: 257018 Ct of Claims: 03-000042-MT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the March 21, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall include among the issues to be addressed: (1) whether the Cour t of Appeals correctly characterized the alleged dangerous or defectiv e condition in this case as a design defect; (2) whether the public buildi ng exception, which obligates a governmental agency “to repair and maintain pub lic buildings,” permits a party to bring a design defect claim; and (3) whether the Court of Appeal s’ conclusion that the icy si dewalk was not a transitory condition is contrary to this Court’s decision in Wade v Dep’t of Corrections , 439 Mich 158 (1992).

The Michigan Municipal League, the Michigan Towns hips Association, the Michigan Trial Lawyers Association, and th e Michigan Defense Tr ial Counsel, Inc., are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or grou ps interested in the determination of the issues p resented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.

s1129 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 6, 2006

Clerk
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1287 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to raise the limitation on 

the election to accelerate the AMT credit in lieu of bonus depreciation 

for 2013. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 11, 2013 

Ms. STABENOW (for herself, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. BROWN, and Mr. ROBERTS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to raise the 

limitation on the election to accelerate the AMT credit 

in lieu of bonus depreciation for 2013. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN LIMITATION ON 

4 ELECTION TO ACCELERATE THE AMT CREDIT 

5 IN LIEU OF BONUS DEPRECIATION. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (J) of section 

7 168(k)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amend8 ed by adding at the end the following new clause: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1287 IS

1 ‘‘(v) SPECIAL MAXIMUM INCREASE

2 AMOUNT FOR 2013.—In the case of round 

3 3 extension property placed in service by a 

4 corporation— 

5 ‘‘(I) subparagraph (C)(iii) shall 

6 not apply, and 

7 ‘‘(II) the term ‘maximum in8 crease amount’ means an amount that 

9 is 50 percent of the AMT credit in10 crease amount determined with re11 spect to such corporation under sub12 paragraph (E).’’. 

13 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

14 this section shall apply to property placed in service after 

15 December 31, 2012, in taxable years ending after such 

16 date. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 143 (Wednesday, July 25, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 35247]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15901]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force


Exchange of Air Force Real Property for Non-Air Force Real 
Property

AGENCY: Air Force Civil Engineer Center, United States Air Force, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Air Force is publishing this Notice to identify Federal 
real property that it intends to exchange for property that is needed 
by the Air Force to limit encroachment and other constraints on 
military operations at Melrose Air Force Range (MAFR), NM.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Joe Weathersby, Air Force Civil 
Engineer Center (AFCEC/CIUB), 2261 Hughes Avenue, Suite 155, Joint Base 
San Antonio (JBSA) Lackland, TX 78236-9853; telephone (210) 395-9516.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: MAFR is a long established training range, 
consisting of some 70,000 acres, 25 miles west of Cannon Air Force 
Base, New Mexico. Operations on Melrose Range also cover an area of 
2,500 square miles of airspace. Melrose is used for training such as 
air to ground, small arms, and electronic combat.
    Description of the Air Force Property: Approximately 1,240 acres of 
undeveloped rangeland located on the southern perimeter of MAFR in 
Township 1S, Ranges 29E and 30E, in Roosevelt County, New Mexico. This 
undeveloped land is adjacent to private ranchlands owned by Davis Mesa 
Ranch, LLC, Davis Arch Ranch, LLC, and Davis Spear Ranch, LLC. The 
ranchland properties represent ideal conditions for the commercial 
development of wind energy generation. For the exchange of 1,240 acres 
of Air Force real property the owner of these properties has agreed to 
convey 160 acres of ranchland on the eastern perimeter of the range 
utilizing 10 U.S.C. 2869 authority.
    In conjunction with the exchange, the same landowner has agreed to 
convey a perpetual restrictive use easement on 29,319 acres to protect 
those acres adjoining MAFR from incompatible land uses. 10 U.S.C. 2869 
authorizes the Air Force to convey real property at an installation in 
exchange for property interests to be acquired under the terms of an 
encroachment protection agreement executed in accordance with Title 10 
U.S.C. 2684a. The Air Force executed an encroachment management 
agreement with The Conservation Fund on July 21, 2017.
    The Air Force has notified the appropriate Congressional committees 
of the terms and conditions of the proposed exchange pursuant to 10 
U.S.C. 2869(d)(2).

    Authority:  10 U.S.C. 2869(d)(1) and 10 U.S.C. 2684a(d)(4)(B).

    Dated: July 19, 2018.
Henry Williams,
Acting Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2018-15901 Filed 7-24-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P
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-QSB ("Form 10-QSB") of Smart-tek Solutions, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Perry Law, 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:



(1)

The Form 10-QSB 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 Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the

financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ Perry Law

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

Perry Law

Chief Financial Officer

November 12, 2007
### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION II

NANCY TOLAND RICHARDS and

CATHERINE TOLAND LILE, Personal

Representatives of the Estate of John T. Toland, No. 45045

- 3

- II

Respondents,

v.

STATE OF WASHINGTON, DEPARTMENT

OF REVENUE, UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appellants.

M ELNICK

, J.

— The Department of Revenue appealed a judgment in favor of Nancy Toland

Ri chards and Catherine Toland Lile in their capacities as personal representatives of the Estate of

John T. Toland. Richards and Lile now concede that the Washington State Supreme Court ’s

decision in In re Estate of Hambleton , 181 Wn.2d 802, 335 P.3d 398 (2014), cert. denied , 138 S.

Ct. 3 18 (2015), is controlling and resolves this appeal in the Department’s favor.

We accept the concession. The trial court’s judgment is reversed and remanded with

instructions to enter judgment in the Department’s favor on the principal tax issue and to remand

the case to the Department for determination of the additional issues. See Osborne v. Dep ’ t of

Revenue

, noted at 189 Wn. App. 1029, 2015 WL 4760567. Filed

Washington State

Court of Appeals

Division Two

May 10, 201645045

- 3

- II

2

A majority of the panel having determined that this opinio n will not be printed in the

Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040,

it is so ordered.

Melnick, J.

We concur:

Worswick, J.

Bjorgen, C.J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FORM 10Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-29-1996
<CASH>                                          12,933
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,697
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (264)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,424
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,856
<PP&E>                                         150,541
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 188,176
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           49,599
<BONDS>                                        126,779
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           16,468
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            40
<OTHER-SE>                                     (5,421)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   188,176
<SALES>                                          2,107
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                39,417
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   36,629
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   544
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,752
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,423)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,164
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,259)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,259)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  $(0.81)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  $(0.81)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 1997, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,250
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,838
<INVENTORY>                                     18,713
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                53,372
<PP&E>                                          53,226
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,660
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 101,667
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           84,655
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           138
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   101,667
<SALES>                                        172,985
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               172,985
<CGS>                                          137,185
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   56,665
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,379
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,884
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (25,128)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,909
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (21,219)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 

29, 2024

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-23-00970-CV

DREUX LAWES, Appellant

V.

WRH PARK ROW LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 1

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1215102

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from a judgment signed December 26, 2023. On August 

20, 2024, the parties filed an agreed motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 42.1. The motion is granted. 

We dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Zimmerer.
-  HIPAA for Professionals 
-  Regulatory Initiatives 
-  Privacy      -  Summary of the Privacy Rule 
  -  Guidance 
  -  Combined Text of All Rules 
  -  HIPAA Related Links 
-  Security      -  Summary of the Security Rule 
  -  Security Guidance  
  -  Cyber Security Guidance 
-  Breach Notification      -  Breach Reporting 
  -  Guidance 
  -  Reports to Congress 
  -  Regulation History 
-  Compliance & Enforcement      -  Enforcement Rule 
  -  Enforcement Process 
  -  Enforcement Data 
  -  Resolution Agreements 
  -  Case Examples 
  -  Audit 
  -  Reports to Congress 
  -  State Attorneys General 
-  Special Topics      -  HIPAA and Part 2 
  -  Change Healthcare Cybersecurity Incident FAQs 
  -  HIPAA and COVID-19 
  -  HIPAA and Reproductive Health        -  HIPAA and Final Rule Notice 
  -  HIPAA and Telehealth 
  -  HIPAA and FERPA 
  -  Research 
  -  Public Health 
  -  Emergency Response 
  -  Health Information Technology 
  -  Health Apps 
-  Patient Safety      -  Statute & Rule        -  PSQIA Statute 
    -  Patient Safety Rule 
  -  Enforcement 
  -  Guidance 
-  Covered Entities & Business Associates      -  Business Associate Contracts 
  -  Business Associates 
-  Training & Resources 
-  FAQs for Professionals 
-  Other Administrative Simplification Rules 

                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   

# Disclosures for Emergency Preparedness - A Decision Tool: Data Use Agreement

----

## Data Use Agreement (DUA)

A data use agreement establishes who is permitted to use and receive the LDS, and the permitted uses and disclosures of such information by the recipient, and provides that the recipient will:
                          - not use or disclose the information other than as permitted by the DUA or as otherwise required by law,
                          - use appropriate safeguards to prevent uses or disclosures of the information that are inconsistent with the DUA,
                          - report to the covered entity uses or disclosures that are in violation of the DUA, of which it becomes aware
                          - ensure that any agents to whom it provides the LDS agree to the same restrictions and conditions that apply to the LDS recipient, with respect to such information, and
                          - not re-identify the information or contact the individual.

The covered entity may disclose the information that is reasonably necessary!

 

Content last reviewed December 23, 2022
# C_2022418EN.01003201.xml

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Saure v Commission

(Case T-651/21) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Commission correspondence concerning the quantity and delivery timings of BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines - Action for annulment - Express decisions adopted after implied refusal of access - No lis pendens on account of the inadmissibility of another action - Total and partial refusal of access - Exceptions relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual, the protection of legal advice, the protection of the decision-making process and the protection of the commercial interests of a third party)

(2022/C 418/42)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hans-Wilhelm Saure (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: C. Partsch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann, G. Gattinara and A. Spina, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the express decision of the European Commission of 11 August 2021, granting him partial access to certain documents and refusing access to other documents.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Hans-Wilhelm Saure to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Hans-Wilhelm Saure to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 481, 29.11.2021.

---