alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER





PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2020 (the “Report”) of New Mountain Finance Corporation (the “Registrant”), as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Robert A. Hamwee, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:





(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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.





/s/ ROBERT A. HAMWEEName:Robert A. HamweeDate:August 5, 2020
#### GEIGY CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. Dick JOHNSON and Helecol, Inc., Respondents.

No. 70-531.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 2, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 15, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 40512]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17543]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER18-2189-000]


Sanford Energy Associates, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial 
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding 
Sanford Energy Associates, LLC's application for market-based rate 
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is August 29, 2018.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an 
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive 
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). 
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bef8fbecfdf1d0d2d7d0dbedcbceced1cccafed8dbccdd90d9d1c8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="25636077666a4b494c4b40765055554a575165434057460b424a53">[email protected]</span></a>. or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: August 9, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-17543 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999             JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         107,598                 267,477
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        9                   7,718
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               107,762                 275,554
<PP&E>                                          44,158                 134,367
<DEPRECIATION>                                      38                     124
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 173,317                 429,908
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,116                  53,807
<BONDS>                                         25,764                  58,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           36,542                 124,923
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           800                     800
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,928                 (3,915)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   173,317                 429,908
<SALES>                                             80                      41
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    80                      41
<CGS>                                               56                      79
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       56                      79
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,185                   4,542
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                  42,236
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,856                  11,214
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,029)                (53,399)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         2                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,031)                (53,399)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,031)                (53,399)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.22)                  (0.77)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.22)                  (0.77)


</TABLE>
#### Pierre A. VACCA, Jr., Appellant-Petitioner, v. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-CIO, Appellee-Respondent.

Nos. 72-1447, 72-1448.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 20, 1973.

No. 72-1447.

No. 72-1448.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied and appeal dismissed.
#### O. Sanford JASPER, as Tax Collector of Pinellas County, Florida, Appellant, v. Tristan Paul KNIGHT, Fred O. Dickinson, Jr., as Comptroller of the State of Florida, and Earl Faircloth, as Attorney General of the State of Florida, Appellees.

No. 7251.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

March 8, 1967.

Page S. Jackson, County Atty., and John G. Fletcher, First Asst. County Atty., Clear-water, for appellant.

*235Thomas V. Kiernan, of Kiernan & Reams, St. Petersburg, for appellee Knight.

PER CURIAM.

Appellee, plaintiff, brought suit against defendants, O. Sanford Jasper, as Tax Collector of Pinellas County; Fred O. Dickinson, Jr., as Comptroller of the State of Florida; and Earl Faircloth, as Attorney General of the State of Florida, seeking declaratory relief through the construction of Chapter 205, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.

Plaintiff operates exhibitions and showings of antiques throughout Pinellas County. As a result of the nature of his business, he holds these exhibitions in more than one location and leases spaces to antique dealers and charges the public for admission to the exhibitions. Defendant, O. Sanford Jasper as Tax Collector, required plaintiff to purchase individual licenses for each place of exhibition under § 205.49, Fla. Stats., F.S.A., and levied additional license for each dealer leasing space from plaintiff.

Prior to the entry of tne final decree, motion was filed to strike Earl Faircloth, as Attorney General, as one of the defendants, which motion was granted. A motion to dismiss Fred O. Dickinson, Jr., as Comptroller of the State of Florida, as another of the defendants, was granted. Motions were then made by the plaintiff and the remaining defendant for summary judgment in their favor. Upon a hearing on the pleadings, the trial judge granted the motion for summary judgment and entered its final decree.

By order of the final decree plaintiff was required to obtain a license under provisions of Chapter 205, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., for one year, which license would cover plaintiff’s exhibitions throughout the county; providing, however, that he does not conduct two or more exhibitions simultaneously, and that plaintiff’s exhibitors must each hold their exhibition subject to the payment of license tax provided by § 205.59, Fla.Stats., F.S.A.; and that all sums paid by the plaintiff above the costs of one license, as required in the decree, should be refunded within twenty days. This appeal followed.

 Appellant has assigned as error the motion dismissing Fred O. Dickinson, Jr., as Comptroller of the State of Florida, as one of the defendants, and that the court erroneously construed Chapter 205, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. The appellee cross-assigned as error the court’s ruling that he would be prohibited from holding simultaneous exhibitions under the license issued.

We have examined the record, briefs and all papers filed, and haying found no error, we affirm.

LILES, Acting C. J., and PIERCE and HOBSON, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of John J. Amato, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[736 NYS2d 501]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 1, 2000, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior ruling, inter alia, that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

*802Claimant was employed as a forklift operator for three months when he moved in with his parents who lived 26 miles from his place of employment. He subsequently quit his job because he found the commute too onerous due to his lack of transportation. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied claimant’s application for unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that he had voluntarily left his employment without good cause when work was still available. We affirm. The record discloses that claimant created the situation that motivated him to quit his job and then allowed it to continue by failing to look for housing nearer to his workplace and by failing to have his car repaired so that he could drive to work (see, *Matter of Work [Commissioner of Labor],*238 AD2d 664, 665). Hence, substantial evidence supports the Board’s ruling that claimant’s reasons for leaving his employment were personal and noncompelling (see, *Matter of Snyder [Hudacs],*201 AD2d 813; see *also, Matter of Tolley [Sweeney],*231 AD2d 783, 784). There is, in addition, substantial evidence for the ruling that claimant made willful false statements to obtain benefits when he based his claim upon the assertion that he was laid off from his employment due to a lack of work (see, *Matter of Kerrs [Commissioner of Labor],*275 AD2d 530, 531). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be unpersuasive.

Peters, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Abraham Kaminsky, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Kings County,

October 30, 1953.

*794
      *Kaiser, Holsman & Justin*for Paul Kaye, as executor of Abraham Kaminsky, deceased, petitioner.

*Herman J. Zawin*for G-ussie Kaminsky, respondent,

Rubenstein, S.

This proceeding was initiated in pursuance of section 145-a of the Surrogate’s Court Act to obtain a determination of the validity and effect of respondent’s election to take an intestate share of testator’s estate. It is not disputed that respondent has exercised such right, if one is available to her, as required by section 18 of the Decedent Estate Law, and the sole question for decision is whether she is testator’s surviving spouse.

At the close of the trial, petitioner’s counsel, arguing in support of a motion to declare the invalidity of the claimed election, urged that the evidence established only the existence of a relationship formerly termed a common-law marriage which was entered into at a time when it was prohibited by section 11 of the Domestic Relations Law (as amd. by L. 1933, ch. 606), and, accordingly, respondent had failed to prove her claim. However, it must be noted that there is evidence which, if believed by the court, warrants the conclusion that respondent’s marriage to the testator was solemnized in accordance with the uses and practices of Orthodox Judaism.

The court has considered carefully this additional evidence. It is true, as suggested, that such evidence comes from witnesses who are related to the respondent and who, it may be said, are interested in her success. However, it does not necessarily follow that the court is required to disregard their testimony because of such interest if they are truthful persons and their stories have the ring of truth. Additionally, the force of their testimony is not in the least overcome by petitioner’s documentary proof.

On the entire evidence and after deliberation, the court is satisfied that the claimed marriage was performed and solemnized in strict accordance with Orthodox Jewish ritual and practice and it follows that such marriage is entitled to recognition in the courts of this State even though the parties failed *795to obtain a license to marry *(Matter of Cossin,*N. Y. L. J., Jan. 20, 1953, p. 211, col. 6).

The assertion that respondent is not entitled to an intestate share because she abandoned the testator is not sustained by the evidence *(Matter of White,*N. Y. L. J., March 5,1951, p. 788, col. 1). Respondent is declared to be testator’s surviving spouse and the validity ot‘ her right of election is sustained.

Submit decree, on notice, accordingly.
# C_2013174EN.01000901.xml

| 20.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 174/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 174/9

---

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION

2013/C 174/05

The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competition:

EPSO/AD/255/13 — Croatian-Language (HR) Translators (AD 5)

The competition notice is published in 23 languages in Official Journal C 174 A of 20 June 2013.

Further information can be found on the EPSO website: http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/eu-careers.info/

---
#### State of Missouri, Plaintiff in Error, *vs.*Herman Koerner, Defendant in Error.

1. *Practice, criminal.*— Motion *in arrest, eta.*— No *plea entered.*— Where the accused in a criminal trial puts in no plea, and the plea of not guilty is not entered in his behalf, it is error, for which motion in arrest will lie. But in granting the motion in arrest, the court has no right to enter a judgment discharging the prisoner. The proper course in the premises would be to set aside the judgment and order a new trial on the indictment.

*Error to Jefferson Circuit Court.*

*G. D.*Reynolds, for Plaintiff in Error.

*H. F.*Alvers, for Defendant in Error.

Adams, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the *Court.*

This was an indictment for selling liquor as a dramshop keeper without license. The defendant was tried before a jury and a verdict of guilty found.

He put in no plea and none was entered for him.

A motion in arrest of judgment was filed and entertained and an order discharging the prisoner entered.

The motion in arrest was properly sustained. The statute re quires the Court to enter a plea of not guilty when the defendant fails to do so. The trial without entering the plea, was error for which the verdict might to have been set aside, and a new trial granted. (Maeder vs. The State, 11 Mo., 363; The State vs. Andrews, 27 Mo., 267.)

On sustaining the motion in arrest of judgment the court had no right in this sort of case to enter a judgment discharg*175ing the prisoner. When an indictment is good and a motion in arrest is sustained because the verdict is wrong, the proper judgment is to arrest the judgment on the verdict and set it aside and order another trial on the indictment.

The judgment is reversed and the case remanded to be proceeded in as herein directed.

Judge Wagner concurs. Judge Bliss absent.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. James Charles WHITAKER v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 54180.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 19, 1973.

In re: James Charles Whitaker applying for Writs of Habeas Corpus, Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus.

Writ denied. The trial judge was correct.
259 La. 765

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Robert Charles GREGORY v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 51768.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 30, 1971.

In re: Robert Charles Gregory applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Writ denied: The factual allegations do not support an involuntary plea. McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 90 S.Ct. 1441, 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970). The plea of guilty was taken prior to Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274.
Certification of CEO and CFO 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 of Firsthand Technology Value Fund, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Kevin Landis, as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:
 
 (1)       The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 134; 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/ Kevin Landis
 Name: Kevin Landis
 Title: Chief Financial Officer and Chief Financial Officer
 Date: May 10, 2013
EXHIBIT 32.2


CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report of Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael J. Wortley, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, 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.

Date: August 11, 2014


/s/  Michael J. WortleyMichael J. WortleyChief Financial Officer ofSabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 18

- 00100

- CV

JOSHUA AREY AND ROGI NA KIMMONS

, Appellant s

v.

THE SHIPMAN AGENCY, INC.

, Appellee

From the 85th District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 17

- 002869

- CV

- 85

ORDER

Appellants’ Amended Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Interlocutory

Appeal is granted. Accordingly, appellant s ’ notice of appeal was timely filed with the

trial court on March 20, 2018.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motion granted

Order issued and filed March 2 8 , 2018
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3578

To authorize appropriations for the California Afro-American Museum.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 19, 1993

Ms. WATERS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Natural Resources

A BILL

To authorize appropriations for the California Afro-American

Museum.

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

3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

4 The Congress finds the following:

5 (1) The California Afro-American Museum is

6 among the most important cultural centers in Amer7 ica dedicated to the contributions of African-Ameri8 cans to the growth and westward expansion of

9 America.

10 (2) The California Afro-American Museum pre11 serves, collects, and displays African-American con-
2

•HR 3578 IH

1 tributions to the arts, science, religion, education,

2 literature, entertainment, politics, sports, and his3 tory of the State and the Nation.

4 (3) The California Afro-American Museum is

5 located in historical Exposition Park, the venue of

6 the 1932 and 1984 Olympic Games, together with

7 the Coliseum, Rose Garden, and Natural History

8 Museum which are historical landmarks.

9 (4) The California Afro-American Museum

10 houses 3 galleries, a 13,000 square foot sculpture

11 court, multi-purpose room, 99-seat theater, as well

12 as a 60,000 volume research library. Attendance has

13 increased dramatically over the last 5 years with an

14 annual rise of approximately 20,000.

15 (5) The lack of a comprehensive, local context

16 within which to interpret African-American history

17 and culture impedes the ability of all Americans,

18 particularly African-Americans, to understand them19 selves and their relationship to America’s past and

20 its future.

21 (6) The continued existence of a museum on

22 African-American history and culture, which will in23 clude a wide array of collections from an eclectic

24 group of African-Americans, will help all Americans,

25 and those who visit our country from abroad, better
3

•HR 3578 IH

1 understand and appreciate the significant contribu2 tions made by African-Americans to American as

3 well as world history.

4 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

5 (a) AMOUNT.—There are authorized to be appro6 priated $2,000,000 to the Secretary of the Interior for fis7 cal year 1995 to sustain the California Afro-American Mu8 seum.

9 (b) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.—Funds appropriated

10 pursuant to subsection (a) are authorized to remain avail11 able until expended.

Æ