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

SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report of American Renal Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph A. Carlucci, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to my knowledge:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                           |  | 
|------------------------------------------ |  | 
|/s/ Joseph A. Carlucci                    
|Joseph A. Carlucci
Chief Executive Officer

May 13, 2011
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

 Docket Number: FAA-2013-0833

 Directorate Identifier: 2012NM140AD

 215-A4436 --- 9/19/11

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
2200 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 300 • Arlington, Virginia • 22201 • 703.893.6600 • Fax 703.821.8236

July 10, 2020 

Mr. Matthew C. Trout 

U.S. International Development Finance Corporation

1100 New York Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20527 

Dear Mr. Trout, 

 

This letter is to attest that SC&A, Inc. (SC&A) performed an independent assessment of 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of projects supported by the U.S. International Development 

Finance Corporation (DFC), formerly the U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). 

The scope of the calendar year 2018 GHG inventory included direct emissions, most notably from 

fossil fuel combustion, from active and operational projects having a maximum potential-to-emit

equal or greater than 25,000 short tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per year. “Active” 

projects were defined as all insurance contracts in force and all guaranty and direct loans with an 

outstanding principal balance at the end of DFC/OPIC’s last fiscal year (i.e., September 30, 2019). 

Excluded from the scope of the inventory were direct biogenic emissions, refrigerant losses, 

process/chemical releases (e.g., methane from wastewater treatment plants), indirect emissions 

related to purchased electricity or heat supply (including steam), and emissions from a project’s 

construction. 

SC&A developed project-level GHG emission estimates that were consistent with DFC/OPIC’s 

carbon disclosure policy and procedures as well as industry good practices. The Calendar Year 

2018 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Report completed by SC&A in June 2020 documents 

project-specific methodologies, data sources and assumptions. 

SC&A attests that total GHG emissions of the calendar year 2018 GHG inventory amount to 

8,887,542 short tons of CO2e. SC&A further provides reasonable assurance that the 2018 GHG 

inventory was developed in conformance with DFC/OPIC’s carbon disclosure policy. 

Sincerely, 

Jackson Schreiber

Project Manager, GHG Verification & Sustainability 

SC&A, Inc.
#### CENTRAL PLASTICS COMPANY, Appellee, v. BARTON INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellant.

No. 77659.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Oct. 14, 1991.

ORDER

This appeal is taken from the denial of a motion to vacate default judgment against one of several defendants, leaving the action pending in the trial court as to the remaining defendants. The appellant has filed an application for direction, suggesting the prematurity of the appeal, explaining that the petition in error was filed as a precautionary measure due to uncertainty over the applicability of 12 O.S. 1991 § 1006.

The court finds that 12 O.S. 1991 § 1006 does not apply to postjudgment proceedings. This court is vested with jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from an order which “... vacates or refuses to vacate a final judgment.” 12 O.S. 1991 §§ 952(b)(2), 953. In such cases, the appellate court’s inquiry does not focus on the underlying judgment, but rather on the correctness of the trial court’s response to the motion to vacate, *which is an independently appealable postjudgment event. Schepp v. Hess,*770 P.2d 34 (Okl.1989); *Yery v. Yery,*629 P.2d 357 (Okl.1981).

This appeal shall proceed in its ordinary course, in the manner contemplated by the Rules of Appellate Procedure in Civil Cases, 12 O.S. 1990 Supp., Ch. 15, App. 2.

OPALA, C.J., HODGES, Y.C.J., and LAVENDER, SIMMS, DOOLIN, ALMA WILSON, KAUGER and SUMMERS, JJ„ concur.

HARGRAVE, J., dissents.
Docket Index for

EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0280

Section C:

Current BAAQMD State 

Implementation Plan Rules
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3872 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3872

To require the Federal Government to incarcerate or to reimburse State 
  and local governments for the cost of incarcerating criminal aliens.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 22, 1994

   Mr. Condit (for himself, Mr. Peterson of Florida, Ms. Schenk, Mr. 
 Cunningham, and Mr. Canady) introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Federal Government to incarcerate or to reimburse State 
  and local governments for the cost of incarcerating criminal aliens.

    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 ``Criminal Aliens Federal 
Responsibility Act of 1994''.

SEC. 2. INCARCERATION OF CRIMINAL ALIENS BY OR AT THE EXPENSE OF THE 
              FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

    (a) Definition.--In this section, ``criminal alien who has been 
convicted of a felony and is incarcerated in a State or local 
correctional facility'' means an alien who--
            (1)(A) is in the United States in violation of the 
        immigration laws; or
            (B) is deportable or excludable under the Immigration and 
        Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.); and
            (2) has been convicted of a felony under State or local law 
        and incarcerated in a correctional facility of the State or a 
        subdivision of the State.
    (b) Federal Custody.--At the request of a State or political 
subdivision of a State, the Attorney General shall--
            (1)(A) take custody of a criminal alien who has been 
        convicted of a felony and is incarcerated in a State or local 
        correctional facility; and
            (B) provide for the imprisonment of the criminal alien in a 
        Federal prison in accordance with the sentence of the State 
        court; or
            (2) enter into a contractual arrangement with the State or 
        local government to compensate the State or local government 
        for incarcerating alien criminals for the duration of their 
        sentences.

                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED July 14, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-60240 Summary Calendar

BRIAN F HOGAN Plaintiff - Appellant

v. CHRISTOPHER B EPPS, COMMISSIONER, MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; EMMITT L SPARKMAN, Superintendent; GLEN ADAMS, Classification Officer; LATITIA ROACH, Classification Director; RICKY SCOTT, STG Coordinator; RONALD ROBINSON, STG Coordinator Defendants - Appellees

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:02-CV-253-DA

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Brian Hogan, Mississippi prisoner # 67383, challenges the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. HeNo. 03-60240 -2- has moved for initial hearing en banc. See F ED . R. A PP . P. 35(b). This motion is DENIED. Hogan contends that he was denied due process at a prison classification hearing, at which he was determined to be a gang member and was lowered in custody status. He also asserts that his lengthy placement in administrative segregation denies due process. He has not established that he has a liberty interest in his classification or custodial status. See Harper v. Showers , 174 F.3d 716, 719 (5th Cir. 1999); Martin v. Scott , 156 F.3d 578, 580 (5th Cir. 1998). Hogan has not shown that the district court erred in dismissing his civil rights complaint.
See Black v. Warren , 134 F.3d 732, 733-34 (5th Cir. 1998). Consequently, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. After Hogan filed the instant appeal in forma pauperis (IFP), this court imposed the three-strikes bar against him. See Hogan v. Johnson , No. 02-60631 (5th Cir. Apr. 29, 2003) (unpublished). Hogan is admonished that, in the future, he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious bodily injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED; WARNING ISSUED.
Exhibit 31(a)
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our 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 annual report is being prepared;b)
    
    [reserved]
 c)
    
    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
based on such evaluation; and
 d)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of the annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.
  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and
 b)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  /s/ Saed MohseniSaed MohseniPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LI LIE NG,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-73089

Agency No. A099-419-019

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 9, 2014** 

Pasadena, California

Before: FERNANDEZ, N.R. SMITH, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Ng, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of a decision of

the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal from an

FILED

APR 11 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying her application for asylum.

1

 We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that the incidents Ng

experienced (the burning of her family home and suffering a burn to her leg) in

Indonesia during the May 1998 riots, even considered cumulatively, did not rise to

the level of past persecution. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 976 (9th Cir.

2009) (harassment, threats, and one beating did not compel finding of past

persecution). Further, the record does not compel a conclusion different from the

BIA’s determination that Ng’s sister’s rape, while deplorable, was not based on a

pattern of persecution related to Ng herself. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d

1049, 1060 (9th Cir. 2009).

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Ng failed to

present evidence of an individualized risk of future persecution based on a

disfavored group analysis, and thus that she did not establish a well-founded fear

of future persecution. See Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1180-81 (9th Cir.

2007) (en banc) (holding that petitioner was ineligible for asylum in part because

she presented no evidence of individualized risk of future persecution). Ng did not

1

 Ng failed to raise her claims for withholding of removal and protection

under CAT in her opening brief. Therefore, she waived those issues. See

Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1260 (9th Cir. 1996).

2
present any evidence that she or members of her family were individually targeted. 

The only incident of persecution was based on the civil unrest that targeted all

ethnic Chinese, which occurred during the May 1998 riots. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small Business Administration by the Windup Order of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, entered August 25, 2016, the United States Small Business Administration hereby revokes the license of New England Partners Capital, L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership, to function as a small business investment company under the Small Business Investment Company License No. 01710368 issued to New England Partners Capital, L.P., on February 26, 1998 and said license is hereby declared null and void as of August 25, 2016.

United States Small Business Administration

Dated: August 22, 2018.

A. Joseph Shepard,

Associate Administrator, Office of Investment and Innovation.

[FR Doc. 2018-19136 Filed 8-31-18; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
----

MINUTES OF THE SITTING OF TUESDAY,23 NOVEMBER 2004

(2005/C 80/02)

(The sitting opened at 9.15)

IN THE CHAIR: Mrs KINNOCK

Co-President

1.   Substitutes

The Co-President announced the following substitutes: van den Berg (for Dobolyi), Badía i Cutchet (for Pleguezuelos Aguilar).

2.   Debate on budgetisation of the European Development Fund in relation to the work of the Committee on Economic Development, Finance and Trade

Mr Cornillet and Mr Matongo (Zambia), co-rapporteurs, reported on progress in drawing up the report. The co-rapporteurs said the report would be ready for the next session of the JPA in spring 2005.

Speakers: Cornillet, Matongo (Zambia), Imbarcaouane (Mali), Deva, Nyassa (Cameroon), Gunness (Mauritius), van den Berg, Yao (Burkina Faso), Rawiri (Gabon), Weldegiorgis (Eritrea), Martínez Martínez, François (Saint Lucia), Schlyter, Dawaleh (Djibouti), Olango (Ethiopia), Sekou (Guinea), Diallo (Guinea), Anggo (Papua New Guinea), Natchaba (Togo), Faure (Seychelles) and Theodorakis (European Commission).

Mr Matongo and Mr Cornillet closed the debate.

3.   Urgent topic 2: The damage caused by cyclones in the Caribbean

Speakers: Hay-Webster (Jamaica), Bawa Bwari (Nigeria), Deva, Straker (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines), Weldegiorgis (Eritrea), Scheele, Herbert (Saint Kitts and Nevis), François (Saint Lucia), Poghisio (Kenya), Aubert, Anggo (Papua New Guinea) and Vergès.

The Co-President announced that there were still five names on the list of speakers. The debate would be resumed on Wednesday, 24 November 2004.

4.   Statement by Philippe Kirsch, President of the International Criminal Court, followed by a debate

Mr Kirsch briefly described the background to the creation of the ICC and gave an overview of its jurisdiction and activities.

Speakers: Deva, Straker (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines), Grabowska, Davies (South Africa), Van Hecke, Idje (Benin), Aubert, Metsing (Lesotho), Callanan, Rivière (Dominica), Carlotti, Humphrey (Barbados), Novak and Amon Ago (Côte d'Ivoire).

Mr Kirsch replied to the speakers.

The Co-President announced that the following workshops would be held that afternoon.

(The sitting closed at 13.00)

Ramdien SARDJOE and Glenys KINNOCK

Co-Presidents

Jean-Robert GOULONGANA and Dietmar NICKEL

Co-Secretaries-General

----
Exhibit10ooRecoupmentPolicy




Exhibit 10(oo)


RECOUPMENT POLICY


The Recoupment Policy provides a framework for the recovery of compensation delivered to any member of Executive Management whose intentional acts, or failures to act, are responsible in whole, or in part, for the material restatement of the Corporation’s publicly filed financial results due to fraud or misconduct, including gross negligence, on the part of such executive. The Policy is intended to ensure that members of Executive Management act in the best interest of the Corporation and its shareholders.


The Board of Directors, in its sole discretion, will: (A) evaluate the circumstances of any material restatement of the Corporation’s financial statements and determine whether fraud or misconduct, including gross negligence, involving intentional acts, or failures to act, on the part of any member of Executive Management was responsible in whole, or in part, for the restatement; (B) determine the time period involved with, and subsequent periods affected by, any such fraud or misconduct, and (C) determine the amount of compensation that should be recouped in each case if such fraud or misconduct is determined to have occurred.


If the Board determines that recoupment of compensation is warranted, the Board may take appropriate action, including, but not limited to, the following:


		
	A. 
	for the period restated or affected by the restatement, which may include any period during which the fraud or misconduct occurred, demand repayment, or effect the cancellation, of some or all of the following:




		
	1. 
	any bonus, or incentive compensation, received or awarded for the period to the extent that the amount of the bonus, or incentive compensation, that would have been awarded to the member of Executive Management had the financial results been properly reported would have been lower than the amount actually awarded,




		
	2. 
	any gains realized as a result of exercising an option during, or awarded for performance during, the period,




		
	3. 
	any gains realized as a result of the vesting or payment of long-term incentives during, or awarded for performance during, the period, and/or




		
	4. 
	any equity compensation awarded during, or based upon performance for, the period, and/or




		
	B. 
	reduce future compensation as a means to recover the amount the Board determines should be recouped.




This policy may be reviewed and revised by the Board on a periodic basis.