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 NewPage Holding Corporation and NewPage Corporation (the
Companies) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark A. Suwyn, Chief Executive Officer of the Companies, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 position and results of operations of the Companies.



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|                                                 
|/s/ Mark A. Suwyn                                
|Mark A. Suwyn Chief Executive Officer May 7, 2007
#





















Exhibit 99.1







CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In connection with the Annual Report of Globetech Ventures Corp. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dilbagh Gujral, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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; and



(2)

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





(signed) Dilbagh Gujral________________

Dilbagh Gujral,

President and Chief Executive Officer

April 10, 2003





#
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 2597

_____________________________ S ILAS K ENDRICKS , Appellant,

v.

J UDGE C HARLES W. A RNOLD , f or t he Fourth Judicial Circuit a nd t he S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee s

.

___ __________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Tatiana Salvador , Judge

. August 17, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. R OBERTS , R AY , and K ELSEY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any tim ely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Silas Kendricks, pro se, Appellant.

Julie K. Taylor, General Counsel, Fourth Judicial Circuit, Jacksonville, for Appellee Judge Charles W. Arnold; Pamela Jo Bo ndi, Attorney General, and Jennifer J. Moore, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee State of Florida

.
SAT Report

PMN Number: P-15-0061

SAT Date: 10/31/2014

Print Date: 2/27/2015

Related cases: Yes

Health related cases: 

Ecotox related cases: 

Concern levels:

Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments

Level of Concern: 1-2 2

 Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments

3 11

Exposure Based Review:

Health:

Ecotox: No

Routes of exposure: Health: Drinking Water Inhalation 

Ecotox: All releases to water

Fate: ;

P2Rec Comments:

Comment: P2REC: SAT: Forward

Keywords:

 Keywords: BLOOD; DEVEL; AQUATOX

Summary of Assessment:

 Fate:

Fate Summary: P-15-0061

FATE: with 9.2% < 500 and 11.2% < 1000

Solid 

S > 10 g/L at 25 C (E)

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

BP > 400 C (E)

H < 1.00E-8 (E)
POTW removal (%) = 50-90 via sorption

Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg > mo

Sorption to soils/sediments = moderate - strong

PBT Potential: P3B1

*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = slow - moderate

 Health:

 Health Summary: Not absorbed through the skin; low molecular weight 

fractions (9% <500, 11% <1000) poor absorption from the GI tract and good absorption from the 

lung; PMN substance is a chelating agent. Concern for effects on blood clotting and 

developmental toxicity from 

 Ecotox:

Test Organism Test 

Type

Test End 

Point

Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 >100

daphnid 48-h LC50 >100

green algal 96-h EC50 5.2

fish _ chronic value >10

daphnid _ chronic 

value

>10

algal _ chronic 

value

2.0

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50 _

Sewage Sludge _ Chronic 

Value

_

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SAR-nearest analog method for 

 with 50% SAR chemical class = 

-50% ; solid (P) with mp = unk °C (P); S > 450 

g/L at 20 C (M); pH7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and nominal 

concentrations; DWhardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments

Assessment Factor 10

Concentration of Concern 

(ppb)

200

SARs

SAR Class

Ecotox Category None

Ecotox Factors Comments: 

 SAT Chair: L Keifer 564-8916
TS- AMID30



### Attachment #3
Pt. 1, Sec. B

CA S Inventory Expert Service Report s and Chemical Structure s of the New Chemical Substance s The following pag es give the CAS Inventory Expert Service (IES) Report s on the new chemical substance s
. The chemical structure s of the compounds are also provided.,(62UGHU1XPEHU

5HJLVWU\1XPEHU
&$,QGH[1DPH,(62UGHU1XPEHU

5HJLVWU\1XPEHU
&$,QGH[1DPH,(62UGHU1XPEHU

5HJLVWU\1XPEHU
&$,QGH[1DPH,(62UGHU1XPEHU

5HJLVWU\1XPEHU
&$,QGH[1DPH,(62UGHU1XPEHU

5HJLVWU\1XPEHU
&$,QGH[1DPH,(62UGHU1XPEHU

5HJLVWU\1XPEHU
&$,QGH[1DPH
Exhibit
32.1

906 CERTIFICATION

The
undersigned certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 as adopted pursuant to section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The
accompanying Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperative Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
period ended August 31, 2010, 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 accompanying Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

|      |                               |  |                     |  | 
|----- | ----------------------------- |  | ------------------- |  | 
|Date: | February 22,
 2011            |  | /s/ David H.
 Roche
|      | President
 and               
|      | Chief
 Executive Officer     
|      |                               | 
|      |                               | 
|      | /s/ Steven M.
 Caspers       
|      | Executive
 Vice President and
|      | Chief
 Financial Officer     

38

---
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 40 (Wednesday, February 29, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 12323]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4804]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[LLAZ956000.L14200000.BJ0000.241A]


Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey; Arizona

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey; Arizona.

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

SUMMARY: The plats of survey of the described lands were officially 
filed in the Arizona State Office, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, 
Arizona, on dates indicated.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Gila and Salt River Meridian, Arizona

    The plat representing the dependent resurvey of the Third Standard 
Parallel South (south boundary), the east, north and a portion of the 
west boundaries, the survey of a portion of the subdivisional lines and 
the establishment of an electronic control corner, Township 15 South, 
Range 3 West, accepted February16, 2012, and officially filed February 
22, 2012, for Group 1089, Arizona.
    This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs, Western Regional Office.
    The plat representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the 
Third Standard Parallel South (south boundary), Township 15 South, 
Range 2 West, and the survey of the south, east and west boundaries and 
a portion of the subdivisional lines, Township 16 South, Range 3 West, 
accepted February 16, 2012, and officially filed February 22, 2012, for 
Group 1089, Arizona.
    This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs, Western Regional Office.
    A person or party who wishes to protest against any of these 
surveys must file a written protest with the Arizona State Director, 
Bureau of Land Management, stating that they wish to protest.
    A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the notice 
of protest to the State Director, or the statement of reasons must be 
filed with the State Director within thirty (30) days after the protest 
is filed.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: These plats will be available for 
inspection in the Arizona State Office, Bureau of Land Management, One 
North Central Avenue, Suite 800, Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4427. Persons 
who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the 
Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact 
the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is 
available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question 
with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal 
business hours.

Stephen K. Hansen,
Chief Cadastral Surveyor of Arizona.
[FR Doc. 2012-4804 Filed 2-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-32-P
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**AULTRA
      GOLD INC.**




**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 Aultra Gold Inc **.** (the
      Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Rauno
      Perttu, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. ss.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; 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: May
              15,
              2007
            By:
            /s/ *Rauno
              Perttu*Rauno
              PerttuPresident
                and Chief Executive
              Officer
October 11, 2011 

Mr. Stephen M. Schiller 

Colonel, US Army (Retired) 

Senior Vice President 

Training & Security Group International, Inc. 

P.O. Box 2603 

Weatherford, TX 76086 

Dear Mr. Schiller: 

This letter is to inform you that we have received and begun processing your petition for 

exemption. It acknowledges receipt of the petition and describes how we will process it. 

We Have the Petition 

We’ve received your September 9, 2011, petition on behalf of Training & Security Group 

International, Inc., (TSGI) for an exemption from § 91.205(h) of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR). This exemption, if granted, would allow TSGI to continue to use 

night vision goggles (NVGs) in its aircraft. 

How We’ll Process the Petition 

A petition for an exemption, according to 14 CFR 11.63(d), must be sent to the FAA at least 

120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. In addition, we publish a 

summary of the petition in the Federal Register for public comment unless, according to 

14 CFR 11.87, we determine that good cause exists for not publishing it. 

Because granting your petition wouldn’t set a precedent, we’ve determined that we shouldn’t 

delay action on it by publishing it for public comment. Therefore, we’ve waived the 

requirement for Federal Register publication. Even though we have waived this requirement, 

you shouldn’t construe this action to be approval of your request. 
2 

We will consider fully the facts and circumstances contained in your petition and will process 

it accordingly. 

We will advise you of the agency's final decision on your petition as soon as possible. If you 

have any questions in the meantime, you may contact me at (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Frances Shaver 

Program Analyst 

Aircraft and Airport Rules Division
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS

 

 

PricewaterhouaeCoopers LLP 1177 Avenue of the Americas New York NY 10036

 Telephone (646) 471 4000 Facsimile (646) 471 4100

Report of Independent Accountants

 

 

 

To the Board of Directors and Shareholder of GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corp.

We have examined management's assertion, dated March 13, 2002, about GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corp. and its subsidiaries' (the "Company") compliance with its established minimum master servicing standards ("Master Servicing Policy") as of and for the year ended December 31, 2001 included in the accompanying management assertion (Exhibit 1). Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with the Master Servicing Policy. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with the standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the Master Servicing Policy and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the Master Servicing Policy.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned Master Servicing Policy as of and for the year ended December 31, 2001 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

 

March 13, 2002
III 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 121 

Expressing support for the designation of May 1, 2013, as ‘‘Silver Star 

Service Banner Day’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 25, 2013 

Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself and Mr. BLUNT) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for the designation of May 1, 2013, 

as ‘‘Silver Star Service Banner Day’’. 

Whereas the Senate has always honored the sacrifices made 

by the wounded and ill members of the Armed Forces; 

Whereas the Silver Star Service Banner has come to represent the members of the Armed Forces and veterans 

who were wounded or became ill in combat in the wars 

fought by the United States; 

Whereas the Silver Star Families of America was formed to 

help the American people remember the sacrifices made 

by the wounded and ill members of the Armed Forces by 

designing and manufacturing Silver Star Service Banners 

and Silver Star Flags for that purpose; 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 121 ATS 

Whereas the sole mission of the Silver Star Families of 

America is to evoke memories of the sacrifices of members and veterans of the Armed Forces on behalf of the 

United States through the presence of a Silver Star Service Banner in a window or a Silver Star Flag flying; 

Whereas the sacrifices of members and veterans of the Armed 

Forces on behalf of the United States should never be 

forgotten; and 

Whereas May 1, 2013, is an appropriate date to designate as 

‘‘Silver Star Service Banner Day’’: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate supports the designation 

2 of May 1, 2013, as ‘‘Silver Star Service Banner Day’’ and 

3 calls upon the people of the United States to observe the 

4 day with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Orusevic v. Fletcher Allen, No. S0037-02 Cncv (Katz, J., Aug. 23, 2004) 

[The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is unofficial. It has been 

reformatted from the original. The accuracy of the text and the 

accompanying data included in the Vermont trial court opinion database is 

not guaranteed.] 

STATE OF VERMONT 

Chittenden County, ss.: 

ORUSEVIC 

v. 

FLETCHER ALLEN 

ENTRY 

(Motion in Limine) 

 Evidence Rule 103(a)(1) requires a timely objection “stating the 

specific grounds of objection.” Here, defense counsel timely stated 

“objection,” but gave no more explanation. 

 In the context of depositions, it is common for attorneys to simply 

“object.” Mostly this is to the form of the question, “an invocation of 

discretion.” 21 C. Wright & K. Graham, Federal Practice and Procedure § 

5036, at 176 (1977). Although this was explicitly not a discovery 
deposition, but one for the preservation of testimony, How was plaintiff 

counsel to know the objection was more than a merely discretionary 

invocation to the form of the question? He could have asked. Knowing 

counsel, we assume he would have been told. But, the law should not be 

based on a small-town judge’s presuming to know well his steady 

customers. 

 The situation here objected to was counsel’s failure to phrase 

questions in terms of “the standard of care.” Indeed, it could probably have 

been cured by a single prefatory comment: “Dr. Deponent, whatever 

question I may ask, assume it is in reference to the standard of care.” 

Defense counsel could also easily have stated, “Objection; question posed 

in terms of what deponent would have done, not in terms of the standard of 

care.” 

 In the context of a preservation deposition, we conclude that 

Evidence Rule 103(a)(1) must apply. See In re Diet Drugs, 2000 WL 

876900, at *7 (E.D.Pa.) (noting that preservation depositions are subject to 

the Rules of Evidence as well as issues of state substantive law); Basham v. 

Clark, 115 Wash.App. 1024 (Wash.App. 2003) (upholding exclusion of 

testimony from a preservation deposition based on timely, specific, and 

constructive objections). Defense counsel had the obligation to state the 

specific grounds of the objection. State v. Bissonette, 145 Vt. 381, 392 

(1985) (“There are three primary purposes for objections: to let the 

opponent correct the error, to inform the court so it can rule intelligently 

and quickly, and to reduce the necessity for reversal and new trial.”). 

Counsel did not. It was not obvious from the context. See 21 Wright & 

Graham, § 5036, at 174, 179 (discussing the so-called “Schwartz proviso” 

to the rule for when the grounds are apparent). This was also not a 

particularly leading examination. The testimony elicited was not 
inadmissible hearsay. Stating the grounds at the deposition would have 

been simple, constructive, and not a repetition of the obvious. 

 Dated at Burlington, Vermont________________, 2004. 

 ________________________ 

 Judge
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 8, 2018

NO. 03-17-00296-CR

Robert Isreal, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 450TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND FIELD

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgments of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in the trial 

court’s judgments of conviction as to Counts 2 and 3. Therefore, the Court vacates the trial 

court’s judgments of conviction for second degree aggravated family violence assault in 

Counts 2 and 3 and affirms the trial court’s judgment of conviction for first degree aggravated 

family violence assault in Count 1. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no 

adjudication of costs is made.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Gawk Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 30, 2015 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Scott Kettle, 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, 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 result of operations
of the Company.



|Registrant          | Gawk, Incorporated
|------------------- | ------------------
|                    |                   
|Date: July 30, 2015 | By:               
|                    |                   
|                    |
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6766

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CEDRIC LLAWENLLYN SURRATT,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:12-cr-00055-MR-DLH-1; 1:18-cv00074-MR)

Submitted: September 26, 2019 Decided: October 1, 2019

Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cedric Llawenllyn Surratt, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Cedric Llawenllyn Surratt seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the district court’s prior order denying relief on his 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying relief on his motion for judgment on the 

pleadings, or in the alternative for a writ of mandamus. The orders are not appealable 

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004), abrogated in 

part by United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, 

a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that 

the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. See 

Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Surratt has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED