alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
       In connection with the annual reportof The Furia Organization, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the periodending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onApril 7, 2005 (the "Report"), I, Michael D. Alexander, Chief Executive Officerand Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
       (1)     TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and
       (2)     Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

April 7, 2005

By: 
/s/ Michael D. Alexander
  
Michael D. Alexander
  
Chief Executive Officer and
  
Chief Financial Officer
    

A signed original of this certification has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.****
SAT Report

PMN Number: P-12-0064

SAT Date: 12/6/2011

Print Date: 9/6/2012

Related cases: Yes

Health related cases: 

Ecotox related cases: 

Concern levels:

Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments

Level of Concern: 2 1

 Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments

3 11

Exposure Based Review:

Health: No

Ecotox: No

Routes of exposure: Health: Inhalation 

Ecotox: No releases to water

Fate: ;

Keywords:

 Keywords: LUNG, ONCO-LUNG

Summary of Assessment:

 Fate:

Fate Summary: P-12-0064

FATE: 

VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 C (E)

BP > 400 C (E)

H < 1.00E-8 (E)

POTW removal (%) = 90 via sorption

Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg > mo

Sorption to soils/sediments = strong - v.strong

PBT Potential: P3B1
*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl - slow

 Health:

 Health Summary: Absorption is nil all routes based on physical/chemical 

properties. There is concern for lung overload based on information for poorly soluble 

respirable particulates if respirable particles are inhaled. The material is which also 

raises concern for oncogenicity if inhaled. The particle size is given as 

 Moderate concern. 

 Ecotox:

Test Organism Test 

Type

Test End 

Point

Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 *

daphnid 48-h LC50 *

green algal 96-h EC50 *

fish _ chronic value *

daphnid _ chronic 

value

*

algal _ chronic 

value

*

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50 _

Sewage Sludge _ Chronic 

Value

_

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for ; SAR chemical 

class = MW > 100,000; with mp unknown (P); 

C (P); pH7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and mean measured 

concentrations; hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments

Assessment Factor 10

Concentration of Concern 

(ppb)

*

SARs

SAR Class

Ecotox Category 

Ecotox Factors Comments: 

 SAT Chair: Becky Jones
Vertex Energy, Inc. S-3ASR


 


Exhibit
4.13


 


	Number	 	Shares
	 	 	 


 


Vertex
Energy, Inc.





Incorporated
under the Laws of the State of Nevada


 


See
Reverse For Certain Definitions





CUSIP
92534K 10 7


 


Common
Stock


 


This
Certifies that:


 


is
the owner of


 


Fully
Paid and Non-Assessable Shares of Common Stock of $.001 Par Value Each Of Vertex Energy, Inc.


 


transferable
on the books of the Corporation in person or by attorney upon surrender of this certificate duly endorsed or assigned. This certificate
and the shares represented hereby are subject to the laws of the State of Nevada, and to the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws
of the Corporation, as now or hereafter amended. This certificate is not valid until countersigned by the Transfer Agent.


 


WITNESS
the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers.


 


Countersigned:


Continental
Stock Transfer & Trust Company


	 	By:	 


New
York, NY


Transfer
Agent


 


 


 


	Secretary	 	Chief
    Executive Officer



 



     


     


    

 


The
following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were
written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations:


	 	 	 
	TEN COM - as tenants in common	UNIF GIFT MIN
    ACT – 
	 	......................................................Custodian......................................................
	TEN ENT - as tenants
    by the entireties	(Cust) 	(Minor)
	JT TEN - as joint tenants
    with right of	under Uniform
    Gifts to Minors
	 survivorship and not
    as tenants	Act........................................................................................................................
	 in common	(State)


 


Additional
abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list.


 


For
Value Received,                                                       hereby sell, assign and transfer unto


 


PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL





	 


SECURITY
OR OTHER 

IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF 

ASSIGNEE


 





 



(PLEASE
PRINT OR TYPE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE)


 





 



 


 





 



 


	 	Shares


of
the stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint


 


	 	Attorney


to
transfer the said stock on the books of the within named Corporation with full power of substitution in


 


the premises. Dated Signature(s)
Guaranteed


 





 



 


NOTICE:
THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR,
WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATSOEVER.


 


	By	 	 


 


The
Signature(s) must be guaranteed by an eligible guarantor institution (Banks, Stockbrokers, Savings and Loan Associations and Credit
Unions with membership in an approved Signature Guarantee Medallion Program), pursuant to SEC Rule 17Ad-15.
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 

# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted August 8 , 201 8 *

Decided August 9, 2018



### Before

W ILLIAM J. B AUER , Circuit Judge

F RANK H. E ASTERBROOK , Circuit Judge

M ICHAEL B. B RENNAN , Circuit Judge

No. 18

- 1444

R OBERT C RUM , Plaintiff

- Appellant
,

v

. A DVOCATE N ORTH S IDE H EALTH N ETWORK , Defendant

- Appellee

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 16 C 8951 Manish S. Shah
, Judge

.

Order

Advocate North Side Health Network fired Robert Crum in June 2016, when he was 62 . Crum contends that this violates the Age D iscrimination in Employment Act. 29 U.S.C. §§ 621

– 34 . He also alleges that he suffered from a work environment hostile to older peo ple and that the employer retaliated against him for presenting claim s of discrimination.

* The court granted the parties’ requests to waive oral argument.No. 18

- 1444 Page 2

The district court awarded summary judgment to Advocate. 2018 U.S. Dist. L EXIS 30141 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 26, 2018). We affirm, substantially for the reasons the district judge gave.

Crum’s lead argument on appeal is that a continuing

- violation doctrine required the district court to consider disciplinary actions
, and denials of requests for transfers or promotions, that occurred more than 300 days before his charge of dis crimination. But National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan , 536 U.S. 101 (2002) , holds that there is no general con tinuing

- violation doctrine in the federal law of employment discrimination. E ach discrete act carries its own period of limitations. Id . at 110

– 15. Hostile

- environment claims are considered cumulatively (so the court considers the whole course of conduct, not just conduct within 300 days of the charge), id . at 115

– 21, and the district judge complied with that rule. He held that the hostil e

- environment claim fails, not because made too late, but because the evidence of record would not permit an inference that the workplace environment had anything to do with Crum’s age.

Crum’s other arguments are well covered by the district court’s opinion.

A FFIRMED
#### STATE of Florida, Plaintiff, v. Ralph HOAGLAND et al., Defendants.

No. 42226.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 31, 1973.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and A. S. Johnston, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jerry Bross, County Sol., Brevard County, for plaintiff.

Vocellc, Harris & Rieders, Merritt Island, for Ralph Hoagland.

Joseph R. Moss, Asst. Public Defender, for Sandy Brown.

PER CURIAM.

The District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, tranferred to this Court a question of law certified to the District Court by the Court of Record for Brevard County. Rule 4.6, Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A., 1962 Revision.

The question, as stated by the Court of Record, is:

> “Was the delivery and possession of phencyclidine lawfully prohibited by Sections 404.02(1) and 404.02(5), F.S. [F.S.A.], on September 25, October 1, and December 16, 1971 ?”

The question was considered fully by this Court and answered in the negative in Freimuth v. State, 272 So.2d 473, filed December 20, 1972. Accordingly, the question certified by the Court of Record for Brev-ard County is, and must be answered in the negative.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### Allen Courtney JOHNSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-1.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July *13,*1971.

Pollack, Yocum & Fath and Alvin Entin, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Barry Scott Richard, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, HEN-DRY and BARKDULL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See State v. Wright, Fla.1969, 224 So.2d 300 and Wells v. State, Fla.App.1971, 249 So.2d 507.
U.S. Department of 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590

Office of the Secretary

of Transportation March 10, 2015

ERRATUM TO

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN –

Dated June 7, 2013

DOCKET DOT-OST-2013-0113 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken by the Department official indicated (no 

additional confirming order will be issued in this matter).

In the Matter of the Joint Application of: 

AEROVIAS de MEXICO, S.A. de C.V. (Aeromexico) and DELTA AIR LINES, INC. (Delta)

In Appendix C of the Notice of Action Taken dated June 7, 2013, we inadvertently omitted certain standard language 

normally included in the conditions we impose on our approvals of code-share arrangements under which a U.S. 

carrier’s code will be displayed on flights operated by a foreign carrier partner. Accordingly, condition (c) of 

Appendix C, in the above referenced Notice of Action Taken should read as follows:

(c) The code-sharing operations conducted under this authority must comply with 14 CFR 257 and with any 

amendments to the Department’s regulations concerning code-share arrangements that may be adopted. 

Notwithstanding any provisions in the contract between the carriers, our approval here is expressly conditioned 

upon the requirements that the subject foreign air transportation be sold in the name of the carrier holding out 

such service in the computer reservation systems and elsewhere; that the carrier selling such transportation (i.e.,

the carrier shown on the ticket) accept responsibility for the entirety of the code-share journey for all 

obligations established in its contract of carriage with the passenger; that the passenger liability of the operating 

carrier be unaffected; and that the operating carrier shall not permit the code of its U.S. code-sharing partner to 

be carried on any flight that enters, departs, or transits the airspace of any area for whose airspace the Federal 

Aviation Administration has issued a flight prohibition;

Applicant representatives: John R. Mietus, Jr. (Aeromexico), 202-747-5212; and

Alexander Van der Bellen (Delta), 202-842-4184

DOT analyst: Brett D. Kruger, 202-366-8025

The above action was effective when taken: March 10, 2015

Action taken by: Paul L. Gretch, Director

Office of International Aviation

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at:

http://www.regulations.gov
a en ‘ 3 Aitenu or rae census °° oom”

Coun —Duaeae ht ctesehan FOURTEENTH OENSUS OF THE UNI + STATES: 1920—POPULATION

Toman ne aor our
‘a a

: aernon smér No 22D _J
Dawecdbes CF rcunar~ WME OF verti ee Aesth rere |
eer ec ENUMERATED BY ME ON THE z= a Pa reetai: a ENUMERATOR,

a iil
Ha

a

=

CRS Ele we

ERR SEREERS

RIS

Het ane fi iba |——— inh |

storie census .d and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau.

Visi 25.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here.

gt “2 Decusadiiiel
a Ae a= rl
Wb i
wef [Zeecue Vprrdaha val
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1499 Referred in House (RFH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1499

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 13, 2013

      Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 278 Main Street in Chadron, Nebraska, as the ``Sergeant Cory Mracek 
                        Memorial Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. SERGEANT CORY MRACEK MEMORIAL POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 278 Main Street in Chadron, Nebraska, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Sergeant Cory Mracek Memorial Post Office''.
    (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 ``Sergeant 
Cory Mracek Memorial Post Office''.

            Passed the Senate November 12, 2013.

            Attest:

                                                NANCY ERICKSON,

                                                             Secretary.
```
#### Herbert KUPPERSMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-725.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 24, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 24 POWER OF ATTORNEY  The undersigned directors of Canandaigua National Corporation (the "Company"), each hereby constitutes and appoints George W. Hamlin, IV, Lawrence A. Heilbronner, and Steven H. Swartout, or either of them, his or her respective true and lawful attorneys and agents, each with full power and authority to act as such without the other, to sign for and on behalf of the undersigned the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the related rules and regulations thereunder, and any amendment or amendments thereto, the undersigned hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys and agents, or either one of them, shall do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been executed by the undersigned as of this 13th day of February, 2008.  SignatureTitleDate/s/ George W. Hamlin, IVDirectorFebruary 13, 2008(George W. Hamlin, IV)/s/ Robert G. SheridanDirectorFebruary 13, 2008(Robert G. Sheridan)/s/ Patricia A. BolandDirectorFebruary 13, 2008(Patricia A. Boland)/s/ James S. FralickDirectorFebruary 13, 2008(James S. Fralick)/s/ Richard C. FoxDirectorFebruary 13, 2008(Richard C. Fox)/s/ Daniel P. FullerDirectorFebruary 13, 2008(Daniel P. Fuller)/s/ Frank H. Hamlin, IIIDirectorFebruary 13, 2008(Frank H. Hamlin, III)/s/ Stephen D. HamlinDirectorFebruary 13, 2008(Stephen D. Hamlin)/s/ Richard P. Miller, Jr.DirectorFebruary 13, 2008(Richard P. Miller, Jr.)/s/ Thomas S. RichardsDirectorFebruary 13, 2008(Thomas S. Richards)/s/ Caroline C. ShipleyDirectorFebruary 13, 2008(Caroline C. Shipley)/s/ Sue S. StewartDirectorFebruary 13, 2008(Sue S. Stewart)/s/ Alan J. StoneDirectorFebruary 13, 2008(Alan J. Stone)
#### Walton A. DRAKE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-709.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 5, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### George Clinton NELSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. O-27.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 10, 1970.

George Clinton Nelson, in pro. per.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Nelson E. Bailey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the orders of the lower court are affirmed.

JOHNSON, C. J„ and CARROLL, DONALD K„ and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
#### FIRST FLORIDA UTILITIES, INC., Petitioner, v. Jess YARBOROUGH et al., Respondents.

No. 43031.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 28, 1973.

Rehearing Denied April 3, 1973.

B. Kenneth Gatlin and Jack M. Skelding, Jr., of Madigan, Parker, Gatlin, Truett & Swedmark, Tallahassee, for petitioner.

R. M. C. Rose and Raymond E. Vesterby, Tallahassee, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The Petitioner has asked that we review an order of the Public Service Commission dated October 13, 1972. The Petitioner had previously requested authority to increase its rates to $10.92 per customer per month within its Merrit Island sewer system.

In its order, the Commission found that the utility’s service was satisfactory and that it was in need of increased revenue. It therefore granted the Petitioner authority to increase its rates to $7.08 per custom*526er per month as of October 13, 1972, with further authority to increase its rates to $10.92 per customer per month on billings on and after April 1, 1973. Petitioner asserts that it was error for the Commission to delay a portion of the requested rate increase in light of the Commission’s contemporaneous finding that “the proposed rates do not produce sufficient revenue to meet this utility’s expenses. . . .”

The imminency of the April 1, 1973 rate increase considered in relation to the broad discretion exercisable by the Commission in rate determinations, inclines us to the view that no useful purpose would be served by our certiorari intervention in the cause at this time.

Accordingly, we deny the petition without prejudice to further application for a rate increase.

It is so ordered.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN and McCAIN, JJ., concur.

DEKLE, J., dissents with Opinion.

DEKLE, Justice

(dissenting) :

It is patent error for a Commission contemporaneously to find that the utility’s proposed rate increase is necessary and past due; that the proposed increased rate does not even produce sufficient revenue to meet the utility’s expenses; and then to defer the application and collection of such increased fee until April 1, 1973. Meanwhile, the utility admittedly continues to lose money contrary to applicable principles and statute.1 This is clearly error and the cause should be remanded for immediate application of the increase.

The fact that April 1, now the designated (deferred) date of increase, is “imminent” is no justification for delaying application of the newly approved rate even for that brief time. It simply extends the period, which has been running already, during which the utility has been losing money. I would make the rate immediately effective. Utilities Operating Co. v. King, 143 So.2d 854 (Fla.1962).

I must therefore respectfully dissent.

1

. Fla.Stat. § *367.081(2)*— Guaranteeing *fair return on investment.*
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 155 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 171
113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 155

                          [Report No. 113-93]

       To designate a mountain in the State of Alaska as Denali.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 28, 2013

  Ms. Murkowski (for herself and Mr. Begich) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

                           September 10, 2013

                Reported by Mr. Wyden, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To designate a mountain in the State of Alaska as Denali.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF DENALI IN THE STATE OF ALASKA.

    (a) In General.--The mountain located at 63 04' 12" N, by 151 00' 
18" W, in the State of Alaska shall be known and designated as 
``Denali''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the mountain described 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to ``Denali''.
                                                       Calendar No. 171

113th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 155

                          [Report No. 113-93]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

       To designate a mountain in the State of Alaska as Denali.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 10, 2013

                       Reported without amendment
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Marilyn Kelly

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices

Order 

 

March 21, 2007 

 

133127 

ROY KEVIN RUSS-BEY, #164629 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 133127 

 CoA: 274385 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

___________________________________ 

 On order of the Chief Justice, plaintiff-appellant having failed to pay the 

partial filing fee as required by the order of February 6, 2007, the Clerk of the Court is 

hereby directed to close this file. 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 21, 2007 

jm