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 of Shamika 2 Gold, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert Vivian, President, Chief Executive Officer and Interim 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 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 Company.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





Date: August 10, 2011

/s/ Robert VivianName: Robert VivianTitle: President and Chief Executive Officer and Interim Financial Officer(Principal Executive and  Accounting Officer)
**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 of Wauwatosa Holdings (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or aboutthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, Douglas S. Gordon, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that to the best of my knowledge:     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company./s/ Douglas S. Gordon
Attachment V to VI PVC MACT Working Group Letter to EPA, January 15, 2014

RE: Supplemental Information for Reconsideration: National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production (“PVC 

MACT”), 77 Fed. Reg. 22,848 (April 17, 2012)

Memorandum 

December 12, 2013

From: John Westendorf, Occidental Chemical Corporation, Manager - Water and Solid Waste, 

Corporate Health, Environment, Safety and Security Dept.

To: Richard Krock, Vinyl Institute Technical Director

Subject: PVC Resin Slurry Stripper Re-Tray Project, Oxy Vinyls, LP – Pasadena, TX PVC Plant

The Oxy Vinyls, LP (OxyVinyls) PVC Plant located in Pasadena, Texas, designed and installed 

replacement stripper trays and tray supports for six PVC slurry stripping columns over a four 

year period, between 2006 and 2010. The replacement project was implemented as a

Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP) required by a federal Consent Decree entered into 

with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (N.D. Texas, Civil Action No. 3:03-CV1005-D, 

entered July 27, 2006). Implementation of this SEP required an initial accelerated schedule of 

about six months for engineering design, which included in-house and vendor modeling, as well 

as the gathering and interpretation of site-specific empirical data. No other steps could be 

implemented until the completion of this initial engineering design work. Following this design 

work, OxyVinyls began the sequential processes of bidding, procurement, third party 

fabrication, installation (during scheduled outages), startup, commissioning and optimization, 

which took about twelve to fifteen months from start to finish, per stripper column.

Accordingly, based on OxyVinyls’ experience from 2006 to 2010, approximately 18 to 21 

months is required, at a minimum, from project planning to commissioning, to re-tray a slurry 

stripper column.

The above 18 – 21 month schedule assumes that no unforeseen scheduling or procurement 

problems occur, and no significant scope or cost changes. For instance, if the project team 

determines that an entire slurry stripper column must actually be replaced in order to meet 

emissions reduction objectives, instead of the less-extensive re-traying solution, then

fabrication and procurement of the column could add as much as two years to the stripper 

improvement project, depending on the metallurgy required. The OxyVinyls Pasadena stripper 

column re-traying SEP actually cost almost double the original estimate, due to unanticipated
higher material costs and increased labor rates for construction and installation. Cost 

escalation and redesign can add delays to any similar project schedule.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 40601 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
EULALIO MOLINA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:15

- CR

- 1106

- 1

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Eulalio Molina has
moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Molina h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for

* 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 December 20 , 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-40601 Document: 00513805066 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2016No. 16

- 40601

2 appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is
GRANT ED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 16-40601 Document: 00513805066 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2016
**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 of Black Nickel Acquisition Corp. III
      (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul
      T.
      Mannion, Jr., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      ss. 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/
                      Paul T. Mannion, Jr.
                Paul
                      T. Mannion, Jr.
                    Principal
                      Executive Officer
                    August
                      10, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000948218
<NAME> MINN-DAK FARMER'S COOP
       
<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                  SEP-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                    AUG-31-1998
<CASH>                                            1,849,003
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    17,584,937
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                      33,491,850
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 58,218,302
<PP&E>                                          166,666,515
<DEPRECIATION>                                   56,097,673
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  184,830,244
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            47,047,859
<BONDS>                                          12,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                      18,483,200
<COMMON>                                            121,000
<OTHER-SE>                                       63,477,521
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    184,830,244
<SALES>                                         149,573,584
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                148,914,536
<CGS>                                            66,551,946
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    66,551,946
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  4,906,549
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                5,372,221
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1,220,250
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               1,220,250
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1,220,250
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                             0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             0
        


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JASON NDREMIZARA, 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

TOWERS WATSON 

(TOWERS WATSON DELAWARE, INC., 

TOWERS WATSON PENNSYLVANIA, 

INC.),

 Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 12-1507 (RCL)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Jason Ndremizara, appearing pro se, alleges that defendant Towers Watson 

discriminated against him on the basis of race and age by failing to hire him for an actuarial 

position with the company. Towers Watson has moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), or in the 

alternative, for a more definite statement. For the reasons given below, the Court will GRANT 

the motion to dismiss.

A motion to dismiss is appropriate when the complaint fails “to state a claim upon which 

relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Such a failure occurs when the complaint is so 

factually deficient that the plaintiff's claim for relief is not plausible on its face. Bell Atlantic 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Though facts in a complaint need not be detailed, 

Rule 8 “demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. 

Igbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The Court must accept all factual statements as true when 

deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Id. at 678. However, conclusory legal allegations 
2

devoid of any factual support do not enjoy the same presumption of truth. Id. at 679. “Factual 

allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 

U.S. at 555. “A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed and a pro se complaint, 

however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted 

by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citations omitted). Nevertheless, a pro 

se plaintiff's complaint “must present a claim on which the Court can grant relief.” Utterback v. 

Geithner, 754 F.Supp.2d 52, 54 (D.D.C.2010) (quoting Chandler v. Roche, 215 F.Supp.2d 166, 

168 (D.D.C.2002)).

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to establish his 

discrimination claim, and relies instead only on conslusory, uncorroborated statements. Plaintiff 

alleges no facts to suggest that Towers Watson knew his age or race when rejecting his 

application. Further, this complaint is one of nine nearly-identical complaints, with only the 

defendant’s name changed, filed by Ndremizara against other companies that have failed to hire 

him. Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss 2–3. Taking judicial notice of these cases, this Court notes 

especially the order granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss in Ndremizara v. Hanover 

Insurance Company, No. 4:12-CV-40109 (D. Mass., May 31, 2013), which notes the same 

deficiencies in Ndremizara’s complaint. 

A separate Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion shall issue this date.

Signed by Royce C. Lamberth, United States District Judge, on August 21, 2013.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1372 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1372

  To provide a vehicle maintenance building to house the Smithsonian 
 Institution's Vehicle Maintenance Branch at the Suitland Collections 
                     Center in Suitland, Maryland.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 25, 2009

   Mr. Leahy (for himself, Mr. Cochran, and Mr. Dodd) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                        Rules and Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide a vehicle maintenance building to house the Smithsonian 
 Institution's Vehicle Maintenance Branch at the Suitland Collections 
                     Center in Suitland, Maryland.

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

SECTION 1. VEHICLE MAINTENANCE BUILDING.

    The Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution is authorized 
to plan, design, and construct a vehicle maintenance building at its 
Vehicle Maintenance Branch in Suitland, Maryland, to house, maintain, 
and repair Smithsonian vehicles and transportation equipment.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There are authorized to be appropriated $4,000,000 for fiscal year 
2010 for the purposes described in section 1.
                                 <all>
```
#### Billy W. RAMBO, Jr. and Patricia Rambo, Appellees, v. Dewey HICKS and Donna Hicks, Appellants.

No. 65152.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Dec. 16, 1986.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ALMA WILSON, Justice:

Appellees-Rambo initially brought this civil suit against the Appellants-Hicks in Small Claims Court. On the Appellees’ motion, the action was removed from the Small Claims docket and was heard by the District Court. A $650 money judgment in favor of the Appellees was rendered. Thereafter, the District Court awarded the prevailing parties, Appellees herein, a reasonable attorney fee of $664.00.

Appellants now bring this appeal, alleging that they are entitled to an award of attorney fees in the amount of $1,000, plus the additional costs of this appeal — an amount approximately three times that awarded to the Appellees as prevailing parties. Despite the fact that the Appellees alone were awarded judgment in the trial court, Appellants attempt to convince this Court that they are the prevailing party. We particularly note that the mere availability of more than one form of remedial relief upon a single cause of action, does not abrogate the rule that there can be only one prevailing party. *Quapaw v. H.B. Varnell,*566 P.2d 164 (Okl.App.1977).

No reversible error of law appears and the judgment is affirmed under Rule 1.202(b), 12 O.S.Supp.1984, Ch. 15, App. 2.

AFFIRMED.

DOOLIN, V.C.J., and LAVENDER, HARGRAVE and SUMMERS, JJ., concur.

SIMMS, C.J., and HODGES, J., concur in result.

OPALA and KAUGER, JJ., dissent.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 the Quarterly Report of WestCoast Golf Experiences, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending October 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Roger Arnet, Chief Executive 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)  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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
5th day of December, 2006.


/s/ Roger Arnet
-------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 31.3

CERTIFICATION

I, Allen E. Larson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of
Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperative;

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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and
other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in
all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual
report;

4. The Companys other certifying officers and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and
have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to
ensure that material information relating to the Company, 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) evaluated the effectiveness of the Company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

c) disclosed in this report any change in our internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during our most recent fiscal
quarter (fourth fiscal quarter) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting; and

5. the Companys other certifying officers and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to our auditors and to the audit committee of our board of
directors:

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 our 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.

|      |          |                                        
|----- | -------- | ---------------------------------------
|Date: | 11-28-06 | /s/ Allen E. Larson                    
|      |          |                                        
|      |          | Controller and Chief Accounting Officer

---
Order filed November 25, 2015 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-15-00790-CV

____________

ANTONIO SEPEDA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 122nd District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 14-CV-0018

ORDER

This appeal is from an order signed August 27, 2015. Appellant filed a 

notice of appeal on September 16, 2015. Appellant filed a motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis and an affidavit of indigence on September 16, 2015. 

No contest was filed. “Unless a contest is timely filed, no hearing will be 

conducted, the affidavit’s allegations will be deemed true, and the party will be 

allowed to proceed without advance payments of costs.” See Tex. R. App. P. 

20.1(f). 
Accordingly, the Galveston County District Clerk is directed to file the 

clerk’s record within 30 days of the date of this order. 

The official court reporter for the 212th District Court is directed to file the 

reporter’s record within 30 days of the date of this order.

PER CURIAM
1

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

April 22, 2015

VIA EMAIL

Joe R. Duran

Business / Sales Manager

Ginegar Plastics

3042 Industrial Parkway

Santa Maria, CA 93455

Dear Mr. Duran: 

This letter serves as a response to your request (December 2014) to add the following tarp to the 

EPA soil fumigant tarp credit website:

 Ginegar Ozgard T Plus, 1.5 mil, TIF

The EPA has reviewed the laboratory tarp testing data for this tarp submitted by Pacific Ag 

Research on behalf of Ginegar Plastics. Based on the calculated mass transfer coefficients 

(MTCs) and the corresponding cut points determined by EPA as a basis for assigning buffer zone 

credits (DP Barcode 385314. Dawson, Smith and Shelat. “Second Update to Health Effects 

Division Recommendations for Good Agricultural Practices and Associated Buffer Credits.”

January 11, 2011), the tarp qualifies for the following buffer zone reduction credits: 60% for 

methyl bromide with chloropicrin, 1,3-D with chloropicrin, and chloropicrin.

Even though the average MTC for chloropicrin falls under the 40% credit category, the MTC is 

within the standard deviation of the 60% category. Furthermore, the MTCs for the other tested 

soil fumigants suggest low levels of permeability and are in line with results anticipated for a 

TIF. Therefore, the Agency is granting the 60% credit for chloropicrin.

The tarp will be listed on the following EPA websites, http://www2.epa.gov/soil-fumigants/tarps

as “Ginegar Ozgard T Plus, 1.5 mil, TIF.”

Please contact me at (703) 347-8652 or at gayoso.jose@epa.gov if you have any questions. 
2

Sincerely,

Jose Gayoso

Chemical Review Manager

Risk Management & Implementation Branch II

Pesticide Re-evaluation Division 

Enclosures: DP Barcode 425309. Biological and Economic Analysis Division. “Data Review of 

the Permeability of Ozgard Black T-Plus film by Ginegar Plastics Products, 

LTD. ACB Project #B15-01.” February 25, 2015.

DP Barcode 425953. Biological and Economic Analysis Division. “Addendum to 

the ACB report dated February 25, 2015 on the Data Review of the 

Permeability of Ozgard Black T-Plus film by Ginegar Plastics Products, LTD. 

ACB Project #B15-01.” March 12, 2015.