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




CERTIFICATION




Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




(Subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
Code)




Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Platinum Energy Resources, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge,
that:




The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2009 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements
of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




Date: November
      11, 2009
              /s/ Al
      RahmaniAl
      RahmaniInterim
      Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial
  Officer





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.
Exhibit 23.1


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


WOW Entertainment, Inc.
(formerly American Gaming & Entertainment, Ltd.)
Indianapolis, Indiana


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of
WOW Entertainment, Inc. on Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 33-57194, 33-80714 and
33-87790) of our report dated March 17, 2000, appearing in this Annual Report on
Form 10-KSB of WOW Entertainment, Inc. for the eight months ended August 31,
2000.




/s/ MINTZ ROSENFELD & COMPANY LLC

Fairfield, New Jersey
November 16, 2000
Exhibit 31.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Francis A. Rebello, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Southern Sauce
Company, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2007;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

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

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer 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 small business issuer and
have:

   (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 report is being
   prepared;

   (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer'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 the small business issuer's
   internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
   business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
   fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
   affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
   issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and;

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

   (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 controls
   over financial reporting.

Date: July 19, 2007

/s/ Francis A. Rebello
    Treasurer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6752

CHAUNCEY LAURENT WALKER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of 

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District 

Judge. (2:10-cv-00548-RBS-DEM)

Submitted: September 29, 2011 Decided: October 5, 2011

Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chauncey Laurent Walker, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Chauncey Laurent Walker seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as 

untimely. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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) (2006). 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. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Walker has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We deny Walker’s motion for transcripts at 

government expense and his request for the appointment of 

counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 
3

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1657 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1657

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the exception from 
 the 10 percent penalty for early withdrawals from governmental plans 
                 for qualified public safety employees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 9, 2009

  Mr. Nelson of Florida introduced the following bill; which was read 
             twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the exception from 
 the 10 percent penalty for early withdrawals from governmental plans 
                 for qualified public safety employees.

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

SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF EXCEPTION FROM 10 PERCENT EARLY WITHDRAWAL 
              PENALTY FOR PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYEES.

    (a) Repeal of Restriction to Defined Benefit Plans.--Subparagraph 
(A) of section 72(t)(10)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
amended by striking ``which is a defined benefit plan''.
    (b) Application to Annuities Commencing Before the Pension 
Protection Act of 2006.--Paragraph (10) of section 72(t) is amended by 
adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(C) Transitional rule for annuities.--Paragraph 
                (4) shall not apply to any modification to a series of 
                substantially equal periodic payments which are made 
                with respect to a qualified public safety employee if 
                such series of payments commenced--
                            ``(i) before the date of the enactment of 
                        the Pension Protection Act of 2006, and
                            ``(ii) after such qualified public safety 
                        employee's separation from service after 
                        attainment of age 50.''.
    (c) Effective Dates.--
            (1) Repeal of restriction to defined benefit plans.--The 
        amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to distributions 
        made after the date of the enactment of the Pension Protection 
        Act of 2006.
            (2) Transitional rule for annuities.--The amendment made by 
        subsection (b) shall apply to modifications made after the date 
        of the enactment of the Pension Protection Act of 2006.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2

NTELOS HOLDINGS CORP.

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 NTELOS Holdings Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2006 (the
Report), I, Michael B. Moneymaker, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, to my knowledge that:

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



By:

/s/ Michael B. MoneymakerMichael B. MoneymakerExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
Treasurer and Secretary


May 12, 2006
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the quarterly report
of Aspen Diversified Fund LLC (the “Fund”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly  period ended June 30, 2012, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kenneth E.
Banwart, Managing Partner of Aspen Partners, Ltd., Managing Member of the Fund, 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 Fund.
|-- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





| | Date: August 14, 2012                        
| | ---------------------------------------------
| |                                              
| |                                              
| | /s/ Kenneth E. Banwart                       
| | Kenneth E. Banwart, Managing Partner         
| | Aspen Partners, Ltd.                         
| | Managing Member of Aspen Diversified Fund LLC
Patricia Hemingway 

1744 Lady Palm Court 

Trinity, FL 34655-5034 

The Honorable Ray LaHood 

SeQTI;lWy ofTransportation· 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington,DC 20.590.· 

UI 

Re: Retir~£ Support Delta's Haneda Applkation 

Dear SecIetaxy LaHood: 

Delta Air Lines has submitted an application to provide new nonstop service from the u.s. to Tokyo's Haneda 

airport As a retired employee ofDelta, I enthusiastically support this application. 

Under the new aviation agreement with Japan. Haneda will be reopened to U.S. carriers for the fmal time since 1976. 

Because ofits convenient location near central Tokyo, Haneda is the preferred airport for business travelers. 

Delta employees, and many of its retirees, have worked for many years to build Delta's business in Japan, and no 

U.S. airline has invested more in Tokyo than Delta. Delta has a strong record of competitive trans-pacific service. 

But the reopening ofHaneda will put that investment and Deltajobs at risk ifthey are unable to compete. 

Delta's major competitors, the Star and Oneworld Alliances, have Japanese partners that dominate service at Haneda. 

Delta, which does not have a Japanese partner, would be at a serious disadvantage unless it is given the opportunity 

to compete at Haneda. 

If Delta is provided with the Haneda slots they need, all three of the major airline alliances - SkyTeam, Star and 

Oneworld - will be able to compete on a level playing field. That new competition would provide tremendous 

benefits for Delta's customers and Delta's employees. 

large you to approve Delta's application and provide the frequencies proposed to serve Haneda from Seattle, Detroit; 

Los Angeles and Honolulu. 

Sincerely, 

Patricia Hemingway
Exhibit 32.2

NTELOS HOLDINGS CORP.

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 NTELOS HOLDINGS CORP. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the
Report), I, Michael B. Moneymaker, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, to my knowledge that:

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



By:

/s/ Michael B. MoneymakerMichael B. MoneymakerExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary


May 2, 2008
Via Metropolitan s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 11, 2013

No. 04-13-00549-CV

Ernest MUNGUIA,

Appellant

v.

VIA METROPOLITAN TRANSIT,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 380931

Honorable Irene Rios, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The clerk’s record was due August 21, 2013, but it was not filed. On September 3, 2013, 

this court notified the trial court clerk that the clerk’s record was late. See TEX. R. APP. P.

37.3(a)(1). The clerk responded to our notice by stating the clerk’s record was not filed because 

appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee to prepare the record and 

appellant is not entitled to the record without paying the fee. 

We order appellant Ernest Munguia to provide written proof to this court on or before 

September 23, 2013 that either (1) the clerk’s fee has been paid or arrangements satisfactory to 

the clerk have been made to pay the clerk’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to the clerk’s record 

without prepayment of the clerk’s fee. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1 and 35.3(a). If appellant fails to 

file such proof within the time provided, this appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b).

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 11th day of September, 2013.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
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 Renaissance BioEnergy Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the “report”), I, Scott Pummill, 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:





(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.





Dated this 14th day of October, 2010.





SCOTT PUMMILLScott PummillChief Executive 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 CBRE Realty Finance, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the  Report), I, Ray Wirta, Interim President and 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:



| | 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.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Ray WirtaRay WirtaInterim President and Chief Executive Officer


May 15, 2007
EXHIBIT 32.2  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Probe Manufacturing, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that:  (i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  November 15, 2010By: /s/ John BennettChief Financial OfficerDateJohn Bennett  The foregoing certification is being furnished with the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and it is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general information language in such filing.
From: david.kayes@daimler.com

To: Byron Bunker/AA/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: brian.burton@daimler.com, donald.keski-hynnila@daimler.com

Date: 06/12/2011 12:58 PM

Subject: HDV GHG rule: weight reduction credit issues

Byron:

We understand that Navistar has requested that the EPA (and possibly NHTSA) add 13L engines to the 

list of items eligible for weight reduction credits in the GHG rule. (By "credit" I mean being able to run 

GEM with a higher weight reduction input.) While we do not object to Navistar's making such a request, 

we want the agencies to know that Navistar has not gotten industrywide agreement for this credit. 

Daimler does not support the credit. In particular, we see the idea as (1) lacking in scientific rigor and (2) 

possibly self-serving. 

Specifically, regarding the first point, we believe that a lot more contributes to total vehicle mass than just 

the bare engine weight. The full engine system weight would capture cooling system weight, 

aftertreatment and associated hardware, mounting provisions, accessories, etc. In particular, a 

lightweight 13L engine, operated frequently at high torque, may require a relatively heavy cooling system, 

the weight of which is not appropriately captured by Navistar's proposal. Yes a 13L engine and its cooling 

system will likely be lighter than a 15L, but not by the amount that Navistar proposes. We would be 

happy to work with the agency and our industry colleagues to develop a more scientifically robust 

procedure for credits based on full system weight. While we are at it, we should also consider other 

equally valid weight savings, such as that for a reduced weight cab and cab-mount assembly, a reduced 

weight drive train, etc.

Regarding the second point, we think that a manufacturer who has primarily 13L engines to offer (besides 

two low rated 15L offerings) is trying to get a competitive advantage from the agency seal of approval that 

would come with this credit. For example, where a manufacturer offers no equivalent 15L engine rating, 

why should the manufacturer get credit for putting a 13L engine into the vehicle? In short, because we 

believe the agencies should not give competitive advantages to one manufacturer or another, we do not 

support the credit.

One final point, in case we have not yet made this clear to the agencies: we think the weight reduction 

table, with credits for aluminum parts, needs much work before it is ready for the regulation. Many of the 

parts on the list (e.g., the hood, fairings, fan shroud) are made of plastic or fiberglass, such that going to 

aluminum would increase the weight. Again, we would be happy to work with the EPA and NHTSA in 

developing a more robust list or, alternatively, a procedure for taking weight into account.

Thanks,

Dave

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

David Kayes

Compliance and Regulatory Affairs --- Environmental Compliance

Daimler Trucks

(503) 745-9162 Office

(503) 265-9838 Mobile

David.Kayes@Daimler.com

If you are not the intended addressee, please inform us immediately that you have received this e-mail in 

error, and delete it. We thank you for your cooperation.