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.ss.1350)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18  U.S.C.ss.1350),
the undersigned, Michael E. DeDomenico, Chief Executive Officer of NuCO2 Inc., a
Florida  corporation  (the  "Company"),  does hereby certify,  to his knowledge,
that:

The Annual  Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal  year ended June 30,  2003 of the
Company (the "Report") fully complies with the  requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, and the information  contained in
the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial  condition
and results of operations of the Company.

                                              /s/ Michael E. DeDomenico
                                              -------------------------
                                              Michael E. DeDomenico
                                              Chief Executive Officer
                                              September 26, 2003
```
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.2
 
                                  IRIDIUM LLC
                (A DEVELOPMENT STAGE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY)
 
                    COMPUTATION OF LOSS PER CLASS 1 INTEREST
                   (IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT MEMBER INTEREST DATA)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                 YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                       ---------------------------------------------
                                                          1995             1996             1997
                                                       -----------      -----------      -----------
<S>                                                    <C>              <C>              <C>
NET LOSS APPLICABLE TO CLASS 1 INTERESTS:
Net loss.............................................  $    23,645      $    73,598      $   293,553
Preferred dividend requirement.......................           --            3,652            5,703
                                                       -----------      -----------      -----------
Net loss applicable to Class 1 Interests.............  $    23,645      $    77,250      $   299,256
                                                       ===========      ===========      ===========
AVERAGE NUMBER OF CLASS 1 INTERESTS:
Average number of Class 1 Interests outstanding......   88,162,875      120,115,575      132,879,976
Diluted adjustments(2):
  Subscribed but unissued Class 1 Interests..........   30,920,475          433,425               --
  Assumed exercise of options and warrants...........      919,350        4,937,925       13,642,459
  Assumed conversion of Series A Class 2 Interest....           --          801,975          869,544
                                                       -----------      -----------      -----------
Average number of Class 1 Interests assumed to be
  outstanding, assuming dilution.....................  120,002,700      126,288,900      147,391,979
                                                       ===========      ===========      ===========
NET LOSS PER CLASS 1 INTEREST:
Basic(1).............................................  $      0.27      $      0.64      $      2.25
Diluted(2)...........................................  $      0.20      $      0.61      $      2.03
</TABLE>
 
---------------
(1) The assumed exercise of options and warrants in periods of net loss are
    anti-dilutive and are not included in the computation and presentation of
    basic loss per Class 1 Interest.
 
(2) The assumed exercise of options, warrants, and conversion of Series A Class
    2 Interest are anti-dilutive but are included in the calculation of diluted
    loss per Class 1 Interest in accordance with Regulation S-K, Item 601 (a)
    (11).
UAS FAR 333 Exemption Package Addendum Federal Registry

Public Docket No. FAA-2015-0566

ARMDS

Rotor Small Unmanned Air Vehicle Geological Mapping

Aircraft Registration #N5414P

Prepared by: Brian Zamudio

Director, Persistence Mining Inc.

5666 La Jolla Blvd #315

La Jolla, CA 92037

Zamudio@Me.com

Public Docket No. FAA-2015-0566

Date: April 10, 2015

Dear	Sir	or	Madam:

Persistence	Mining,	Inc.	seeks	exemption	from	the	following	rules:

91.1(b)(2)

91.9(c)

91.103(b)(1)

91.103(b)(2)

91.105(a)(2)

91.109(a)

91.203(a)(1)

91.203(a)(2)

91.207(a)(2)

91.211(a)

91.405(a)

91.405(b)

91.407(a)(1)

91.409(a)(1)

91.409(b)

91.417(a)

Granting	Persistence	Mining,	Inc.	a	FAR	333	exemption	is	in	the	public	interest	to	facilitate	

the	reduction	of	negative	environmental	impacts	on	the	land	potentially	caused	by	the	

mining	of	industrial	minerals.	Mineral	discoveries	are	used	as	the	basic	inputs	into	all	

production	and	manufacturing.	Natural	resources	benefit	everyone;	unfortunately,	the	

mismanagement	of	these	resources	can	potentially	harm	everyone.	Negative	impacts	to	the	

environment	can	and	have	had	long	lasting	ramifications	for	future	generations.		The	use	of	

sUAS	for	surveying	reduces	environmental	impacts	by	reducing	the	carbon	footprint	of	

manned	aircraft.	The	accuracy	provided	from	sUAS	versus	manned	aircraft	allow	surveyors	

to	accurately	determine	areas	conducive	to	mining.	Manned	aircraft	survey	leaves	room	for	

error	and	negative	environmental	impact.
The	ARMDS	was	designed	to	increase	accuracy	of	mineral	surveying	to	reduce	the	negative	

impact	on	the	land	and	planet	from	random	drilling	and	inaccurate	mining.	We	can	increase	

mineral	discoveries	while	decreasing	the	negative	impacts	to	the	earth	through	the	use	of	

the	ARMDS	sUAS.		Current	practices	include	driving	through virgin	environments	

potentially	causing	harm	to	vegetation,	animals	and	disturbing	the	land	in	an	effort	to	

identify	potential	mineral	discoveries.	Once	at	the	site,	geologists	then	start	to	walk	around	

further	disturbing	habitats	that	could	remain	pristine	and	untouched	through	the	use	of	the	

ARMDS	sUAS.

Through	an	exemption	we	can	operate	to	generate	a	large	benefit	to	the	public	good	while	

creating	sustainability	through	conservation.

Brian	Zamudio

Persistence	Mining,	INC.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1475 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1475

   To prohibit the heads of executive agencies from entering into or 
    renewing procurement contracts with persons that export certain 
  computer or telecommunications technologies to Iran, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 20, 2009

Mr. Schumer (for himself and Mr. Graham) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To prohibit the heads of executive agencies from entering into or 
    renewing procurement contracts with persons that export certain 
  computer or telecommunications technologies to Iran, and for other 
                               purposes.

    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 ``Reduce Iranian Cyber-Suppression 
Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
            (1) Executive agency.--The term ``executive agency'' has 
        the meaning given that term in section 4 of the Office of 
        Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403).
            (2) Sensitive technology.--The term ``sensitive 
        technology'' means hardware, software, telecommunications 
        equipment, or any other technology that the President 
        determines may be used by the Government of Iran--
                    (A) to restrict the free flow of unbiased 
                information in Iran; or
                    (B) to disrupt, monitor, or otherwise restrict 
                speech by the people of Iran.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS WITH PERSONS THAT EXPORT 
              SENSITIVE TECHNOLOGY TO IRAN.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
head of an executive agency may not enter into or renew a contract for 
the procurement of goods or services with a person that exports 
sensitive technology to Iran.
    (b) Waiver.--The President may waive the application of the 
prohibition under subsection (a) if the President--
            (1) determines that such a waiver is in the national 
        interest of the United States; and
            (2) submits to Congress a report describing the reasons for 
        the determination.
                                 <all>
```
111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1599 

AN ACT 

To amend title 36, United States Code, to include in the 

Federal charter of the Reserve Officers Association leadership positions newly added in its constitution and bylaws. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 1599 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Reserve Officers Asso3 ciation Modernization Act of 2009’’. 

4 SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF NEW LEADERSHIP POSITIONS IN 

5 THE FEDERAL CHARTER OF THE RESERVE 

6 OFFICERS ASSOCIATION. 

7 (a) NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.—Section 

8 190104(b)(2) of title 36, United States Code, is amend9 ed— 

10 (1) by inserting ‘‘the president elect,’’ after 

11 ‘‘the president,’’; 

12 (2) by inserting ‘‘a minimum of’’ before ‘‘3 na13 tional executive committee members,’’; and 

14 (3) by striking ‘‘except the executive director,’’ 

15 and inserting ‘‘except the president elect and the ex16 ecutive director,’’. 

17 (b) OFFICERS.—Section 190104(c) of such title is 

18 amended— 

19 (1) in paragraph (1)— 

20 (A) by inserting ‘‘a president elect,’’ after 

21 ‘‘a president,’’; 

22 (B) by inserting ‘‘a minimum of’’ before 

23 ‘‘3 national executive committee members,’’; 

24 (C) by striking ‘‘a surgeon, a chaplain, a 

25 historian, a public relations officer,’’; and 
3 

†S 1599 ES

1 (D) by striking ‘‘as decided at the national 

2 convention’’ and inserting ‘‘specified in the con3 stitution of the corporation’’; and 

4 (2) in paragraph (2)— 

5 (A) by inserting ‘‘and take office’’ after 

6 ‘‘be elected’’; and 

7 (B) by striking ‘‘and the national public 

8 relations officer,’’ and inserting ‘‘the judge ad9 vocate, and any other national officers specified 

10 in the constitution of the corporation,’’. 

11 (c) VACANCIES.—Section 190104(d)(1) of such title 

12 is amended by striking ‘‘president and last past presi13 dent,’’ and inserting ‘‘president, president elect, and last 

14 past president,’’. 

15 (d) RECORDS AND INSPECTION.—Section 

16 190109(a)(2) of such title is amended by striking ‘‘na17 tional council;’’ and inserting ‘‘other national entities of 

18 the corporation;’’. 

Passed the Senate September 24, 2009. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1599 

AN ACT 

To amend title 36, United States Code, to include 

its constitution and bylaws. Association leadership positions newly added in in the Federal charter of the Reserve Officers
#### M. H. Sullivan, Plaintiff in Error, v. J. J. Sullivan, Defendant in Error.

Division A.

Writ of error to Circuit Court, Escambia county; John W. Malone, Judge.

John C. Avery and John B. Jones for plaintiff in error.

Blount & Blount for defendant in error.

This action was brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error. There was judgment for the plaintiff and the defendant takes writ of error. The judgment is affirmed.

Decision *Per Curiam.*
Exhibit
10.6


AMENDMENT
TO JOHN H. HARLAND COMPANY

COMPENSATION PLAN FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS


Pursuant to the
power to amend reserved in Section 10 of the John H. Harland Company
Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors (the “Plan”), the Board of Directors
of the John H. Harland Company amends the Plan, as follows:


1.


By amending
Section 5(b)(vi) to read as follows:


The cash balance
in the Account shall be credited as of the payment date for any cash dividend
on the Common Stock by multiplying the per share dividend by the number of
stock equivalents credited to the Account. 
If the dividend paid on Common Stock is a stock dividend, the cash
balance shall be credited as of the payment date with an amount determined by
multiplying the per share dividend multiplied by the closing price of the
Common Stock on the New York Stock Exchange and multiplying that product by the
number of stock equivalents credited to the Director’s Account.


2.


By amending the
last sentence of Section 5(c)(v) to read as follows:


Distribution of
the value of the Account invested in stock equivalents will be made in cash in
an amount determined by multiplying the number of stock equivalents at the time
of distribution by the closing price of the Common Stock on the date of
distribution.


3.


Except as provided
in this paragraph 4, below, or in Section 9 of the Plan, Adjustment to
Shares of Stock Issuable Pursuant to Plan, no additional stock equivalents
shall be credited to a Director’s Account after 2006.


4.


The amendments
described above shall be effective January 1, 2007; provided, however, that the
fees for meetings in December 2006 and the fourth installment of the 2006
annual stock retainer shall continue to be paid or deferred in common stock
pursuant to the Plan and the elections of Directors.  Except as otherwise amended, the Plan shall
remain in full force and effect.
#### The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner-Appellant, In the Interest of R.B., A Child, Appellee, And Concerning G.B., Respondent-Appellee. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner-Appellant, In the Interest of L.G.W., Jr., A Child, Appellee, And Concerning L.G.W., Sr., Respondent-Appellee.

Nos. 86SA268, 86SA269.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

May 11, 1987.

James F. Smith, Dist. Atty., Michael J. Milne, Deputy Dist. Atty., Brighton, for petitioners-appellants.

David F. Vela, Colorado State Public Defender, Josephine D. Ewing, Deputy State Public Defender, Brighton, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The People appeal from the juvenile court’s dismissal of juvenile petitions filed against R.B. and L.G.W., Jr. Both juveniles were charged with sexual assault on a child, pursuant to section 18-3-405, 8B C.R.S. (1986). In both cases, the juvenile court judge dismissed the petitions based on his own earlier ruling in *People in Interest of J.A.*that the pertinent statutory sections were unconstitutional. The only issue before us is whether the trial court’s dismissal of these petitions in delinquency was correct. Because we found these statutory provisions to be constitutional in *People in Interest of J.A.,*733 P.2d 1197 (Colo.1987), we reverse.

In *J.A.,*four juvenile petitions were dismissed by the juvenile court, pursuant to the judge’s ruling that sections 18-3-401(4) and -405, 8B C.R.S. (1986), were unconstitutional. We addressed the constitutionality of the predecessor to this statute in *People v. West,*and held that the disputed statutory language was constitutional. 724 P.2d 623, 627-28 (Colo.1986). Applying *West,*we held in *J.A.*that the statutory provisions defining sexual assault on a child, section 18-3-405, and sexual contact, section 18-3-401(4), were constitutional. 733 P.2d 1197 at 1198-99. In the two cases before us now, the juvenile petitions were dismissed based on the alleged unconstitutionality of the statute, prior to our review of *J.A.*Because we have held the statutory provisions constitutional, we reverse the trial court’s dismissal of the two petitions below and remand for reinstatement of the petitions.
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

 

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

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Pacific Coast Oil Trust (the “Trust”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the Trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:

 

(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 Trust.

 

The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

 

 
|                     | The   Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company,   N.A., Trustee for Pacific Coast Oil Trust |
|--------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                     |                                                                                     |
|                     |                                                                                     |
| Date:   May 7, 2015 | By:                                                                                      | /s/   SARAH NEWELL |
|                     |                                                                                     | Sarah   Newell |
| * *                 | * *                                                                                 | *Vice President and Trust Officer* |

 

1

----
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M ONSUR

KAYODE R

U FAI, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 13-70847 Age n c y No. A029-455-965 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d M arc h 10, 2015 ** B e fore : FARRIS, WARDLAW , a nd PAEZ, C irc uit Judge s. M onsur Ka

y o d e R ufa i, a native and c i tiz e n of Nige ria , pe titions pro se for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r de ny ing his m o tion to re ope n to a pply for a s y lum , withholding of re m ova l and re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . 

# F IL ED MAR 16 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).§ 1252. W e re vie wfor a buse of disc re tion thede nia l of a m otion to re ope n. Mohamme d

v . Gonzale

s , 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th C ir. 2005). W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w. The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in de ny ing R ufa i’ s m otion to re ope n for fa ilure to e sta

blish a prim a fa c i e c a se for a sy lum , withholding a nd re lie f unde r the C AT, whe re R

ufa i did not e sta

b lish tha t the Nige rian gove rnm e nt would beuna b le or unwilling to prote c t him , se e Rahimzade h v . Holde r , 613 F.3d 916, 920 (9th C ir. 2010) (a n a pplic ant for a sy lum and withholding of re m ova l be ars the burde n

of e sta blishing tha

t the gove rnm e nt would beunwilling or una ble to pre ve nt his pe rse c ution), or tha

t he c annot sa fe ly

re loc ate to a

nothe r re g ion of Nige ra , se e Singh v . Gonzale

s , 439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th C i r. 2006) (“ [T] o be e ligible for re lie f unde r the C onve n tion Aga inst Torture , [an a p plic ant] be a

rs the burde n of proving he would be una

ble to live e lse whe re in the c ountry sa fe ly .” (c i tation a

n d inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d)). C ontra ry to R ufa i’ s c onte ntion, theB IA e la borate d its c onc l usions in suffic i e nt de ta il in de ny ing his m otion to re ope n . Se e N ajmabadi v . Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ [The B IA] doe s not ha ve to write an e xe ge sis on e ve ry c onte ntion. W

h a t is re quire d is m e re ly

tha t [the B IA] c o nside r the issue s ra ise d, a nd a nnounc e its de c ision in term s suffic ie nt to e na ble a re v ie wing c ourt to

13- 70847 2pe rc e ive tha

t it ha s he ard a

nd thought a

nd not m e re ly

re a c te d.” (c i tation a

n d quota t ion m arks om itte d)). In light of this disposition, we do not re a c h R

ufa i’ s re m a ining c onte ntions. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

13- 70847 3
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1452 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1452

   To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the meaning of 
    ``combat with the enemy'' for purposes of service-connection of 
                             disabilities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 14, 2009

 Mr. Schumer (for himself, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Bayh, Mrs. Gillibrand, and 
Mr. Lieberman) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the meaning of 
    ``combat with the enemy'' for purposes of service-connection of 
                             disabilities.

    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 ``Compensation Owed for Mental Health 
Based on Activities in Theater Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Act'' or 
the ``COMBAT PTSD Act''.

SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF MEANING OF ``COMBAT WITH THE ENEMY'' FOR 
              PURPOSES OF SERVICE-CONNECTION OF DISABILITIES.

    (a) Clarification.--Section 1154(b) of title 38, United States 
Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``In the case'' and inserting ``(1) In the 
        case''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(2) For the purposes of this subsection, the term `combat with 
the enemy' includes service on active duty--
            ``(A) in a theater of combat operations (as determined by 
        the Secretary in consultation with the Secretary of Defense) 
        during a period of war; or
            ``(B) in combat against a hostile force during a period of 
        hostilities.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--Paragraph (2) of subsection (b) of section 
1154 of title 38, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall 
apply with respect to a claim for disability compensation under chapter 
11 of such title pending on or after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```