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

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Report on Form 10-K of Investors Financial Services Corp. (the “Company”)for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed on March 2, 2006 (the“Report”), I, Kevin J. Sheehan, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, herebycertify, pursuant to 18. U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

1.                 The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.                 Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| /s/ Kevin J. Sheehan    |
|-------------------------|
| Kevin J. Sheehan        |
| Chairman and            |
| Chief Executive Officer |
| March 2, 2006      |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Investors Financial Services Corp. andwill be retained by Investors Financial Services Corp. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

In connection withthe Report on Form 10-K of Investors Financial Services Corp. (the “Company”)for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed on March 2, 2006 (the“Report”), I, John N. Spinney, Jr., Senior Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18. U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,to my knowledge:

1.                 The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.                 Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| /s/ John N. Spinney, Jr. |
|-------------------------------|
| Senior Vice  President and    |
| Chief Financial  Officer      |
| March 2,  2006           |

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Investors Financial Services Corp. andwill be retained by Investors Financial Services Corp. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
#### MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Appellant, v. The CORPORATION COMMISSION OF OKLAHOMA and The State of Oklahoma, Appellees.

No. 58075.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Oct. 25, 1983.

Dyer, Powers, Marsh & Armstrong by Joe M. Fears, Tulsa, for appellant.

Robert D. Stewart, Jr., Gen. Counsel and Patrick D. Shore, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Oklahoma Corp. Com’n, Oklahoma City, for ap-pellees.

HODGES, Justice.

The dispositive issue on certiorari is whether the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, appellee, has the power to require the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, appellant, to provide lockers for road crews at the Muskogee terminal. We find that it does not.

The question is controlled by our holding in *St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. State,*268 P.2d 845, 850 (Okl.1953). In *St. Louis,*the Court reversed an order of the Corporation Commission which had required construction of medical facilities, for employees because the Commission exceeded the powers prescribed by the Okla. Const, art. 9 §§ 18, 19. The same rationale is applicable to this case. The Commission may regulate functions of corporations falling within its jurisdiction, only if the activity is impressed with a public interest. The power does not extend to adjudication of private labor disputes. Although art. 9 § 181 empowers the Commission to resolve *45problems between a corporation and its employees, any resolution by the Commission must be based on the request of the interested parties. The rule is that the Commission’s powers of regulation must be construed to refer to the obligations of a corporation concerning the corporation’s public duties.2

In the absence of a request by the interested parties, pursuant to the Okla. Const, art. 9 § 18, the Corporation Commission does not have the power to require appellant to install lockers. This function is confined to the contractual relationship between the railroad and its employees, and does not relate to any public duty imposed on the railroad.

CERTIORARI GRANTED; OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; ORDER OF THE CORPORATION COMMISSION REVERSED.

BARNES, C.J., and IRWIN, LAVENDER, DOOLIN, HARGRAVE, OPALA, and WILSON, JJ., concur.

1

. It is provided by the Okla. Const. art. 9 § 18 in pertinent part:

> “... Upon the request of the parties interested, it shall be the duty of the Commission, as far as possible, to effect, by mediation, the *45adjustment of claims, and the settlement of controversies, between transportation or transmission companies and their patrons or employees.”

2

. *Public Service Co. of Okla. v. State,*645 P.2d 465 (Okl.1982).
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2246 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2246

        To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Clethodim.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

Mrs. Feinstein introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
        To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Clethodim.

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

SECTION 1. CLETHODIM.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.24.74 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Clethodim) is amended by 
striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2148 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2148

            To suspend temporarily the duty on Sodium brick.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

  Mr. Alexander (for himself and Mr. Corker) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
            To suspend temporarily the duty on Sodium brick.

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

SECTION 1. SODIUM BRICK.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Sodium brick (CAS   Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        No. 7440-23-5)                                                     31/2011.......
                        (provided for in
                        subheading
                        2805.11.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Order entered June 5, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01385-CR

RAMON MARTINEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F12-61013-S

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On May 20, 2015, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why the 

reporter’s record had not been filed. On June 2, 2015, we received the reporter’s record. 

Therefore, in the interest of expediting the appeal, we VACATE the May 20, 2015 order 

requiring findings.

Court reporter Debi Harris did not include State’s Exhibit nos. 1, 2, 3, and 8, DVDs, with 

the record she filed. Therefore, we ORDER court reporter Debi Harris to file, within SEVEN 

DAYS of the date of this order, a supplemental record with State’s Exhibit nos. 1, 2, 3, and 8.

Appellant’s brief is due by July 27, 2015.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to Debi Harris, court reporter, and to 

counsel for all parties.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:**

__ 201 1 NM -

____ 089

______ - AD **Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it a ppropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
#### Stephen KOTKIS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. Stephen KOTKIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Stephen J. KOTKIS, Petitioner, v. Howard R. BERMAN, et al., Respondents.

Nos. 87-0438, 87-0473 and 87-0513.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 8, 1987.

Gary Brookmyer of Broad and Cassel, Miami, for Stephen Kotkis.

Terrence P. O’Connor of Morgan, Carratt and O’Connor, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Howard R. Berman and Michael J. Weil.

PER CURIAM.

We deny the two applications for certio-rari and affirm all of the trial court orders being reviewed in these consolidated proceedings. *Cf Rollins Burdick Hunter of New York, Inc. v. Euroclassics Limited, Inc.,*502 So.2d 959 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); *Walton v. Turlington,*444 So.2d 1082 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); *Ulinsky v. Avignone,*148 *30N.J.Super. 250, 372 A.2d 620 (App.Div.1977).

ANSTEAD, LETTS and STONE, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 99

                    Certification of CEO and CFO Pursuant to
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                             as Adopted Pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In  conjunction  with  the Annual Report on Form 10-K of UST Inc. ("Registrant")
for  the  fiscal  year  ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the "Report"), Jeremy D. Peter-Hoblyn,
as  Chief  Executive  Officer  of  Registrant,  and  David W. Whitwell, as Chief
Financial  Officer  of  Registrant, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350,  as adopted pursuant to906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
best  of  his  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
     Registrant.





                  /S/
                  --------------------------------

                 CHIEF  EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
                 MARCH  25,  2003

                 /S/
                 ---------------------------------
                 CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, VICE PRESIDENT AND TREASURER
                 MARCH  25,  2003


This  certification accompanies the Report pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act  of  2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act  of 2002, be deemed filed by Registrant for purposes of 18 of the Securities
Exchange  Act  of  1934,  as  amended.


<PAGE>
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 30, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, November 30, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17A0644. IMAGE PROPERTIES, LLC et al. v. FIFTH THIRD BANK.

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW 

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6383** 
CALVIN LYNDALE GADDY, a/k/a Calvin L. Gaddy , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL; WARDEN JOSEPH MCFADDEN; ASSOCIATE WARDEN BLACKWELL, All of Under Color of State Laws , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Anderson
. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 8:15

- cv - 02772

- J FA )

Submitted : July 28, 2016 Decided: August 2, 2016

Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Calvin Lyndale Gaddy , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Cal vin Lyndale Gaddy appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1 )(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Gaddy that failure to file timely , specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845

- 46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas
v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Gaddy has waived appellate review by fail ing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.1

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

The undersigned hereby certifies that,
to his or her knowledge, (i) the Form 10-Q filed by Bank of Wilmington Corporation (the Issuer) for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in that report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer on the dates and for the periods presented therein.



|                      |  |                                      
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: August 11, 2006 |  | /s/ Cameron Coburn                   
|                      |  | Cameron Coburn                       
|                      |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
## Appendix C.3

Secondary Organic Aerosol Module Modifications in CMAQ

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation

Division of Air Pollution Control

9 th Floor L&C Annex

401 Church Street

Nashville, TN 37243[This page intentionally left blank.]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7737

In Re: CARLOS DUKE,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-90-389)

Submitted: January 29, 1999 Decided: March 19, 1999

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carlos Duke, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Carlos Duke filed this petition for a writ of mandamus asking

this court to compel the district court to “produce a statement of

opinion.” The granting of a writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy

to be used in extraordinary circumstances. See In re Beard, 811

F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). A petitioner must show that he has

a clear right to the relief sought, that the respondent has a clear

duty to perform the act requested by petitioner, and that there is

no other adequate remedy available. See In re First Fed. Sav. &

Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Duke has failed to

make the requisite showing for such extraordinary relief; the

appropriate vehicle for challenging the district court’s decision

is an appeal. See In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 58, 60 (4th

Cir. 1979). Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, we deny his petition for a writ of mandamus.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
<PAGE>   1
                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
NAME OF SUBSIDIARY OF AEARO                                  STATE OR OTHER JURISDICTION OF
CORPORATION                                                  INCORPORATION
---------------------------                                  ------------------------------

<S>                                                          <C>
Aearo Company                                                Delaware
Cabot Safety Intermediate Corporation                        Delaware
CSC FSC, Inc.                                                Virgin Islands
Aearo Canada Ltd.                                            Canada
Aearo SRL                                                    Italy
Aearo Proteccion Laboral SA                                  Spain
Aearo SARL                                                   France
Aearo Peltor AB                                              Sweden
Peltor LA Invest AB                                          Sweden
Peltor Holding AB                                            Sweden
Peltor LP Invest AB                                          Sweden
Peltor AB                                                    Sweden
Aearo Ltd.                                                   United Kingdom
Peltor Ltd.                                                  United Kingdom
Aearo GMBH                                                   Germany
Peltor SARL                                                  France
Peltor Forvaltnings AB                                       Sweden
Telek AB                                                     Sweden
Peltor AG                                                    Switzerland
</TABLE>
DISMISS and Opinion Filed January 7, 2022 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-01096-CR 

No. 05-21-01097-CR 

No. 05-21-01098-CR 

KODY LYNNCLAY BLEVINS, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause Nos. F21-70163-V, F21-70164-V & F21-70162-V 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Myers, and Justice Nowell 

Opinion by Chief Justice Burns 

Before the Court are appellant’s December 23, 2021 motions to withdraw his 

appeals. The motions are signed by appellate counsel and appellant. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.2(a). We grant the motions and dismiss these appeals. 

Do Not Publish 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b) 

211096F.U05 

 

/Robert D. Burns, III/

ROBERT D. BURNS, III 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

KODY LYNNCLAY BLEVINS, 

Appellant 

No. 05-21-01096-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F21-70163-V. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice 

Burns. Justices Myers and Nowell 

participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal. 

Judgment entered January 7, 2022 

 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

KODY LYNNCLAY BLEVINS, 

Appellant 

No. 05-21-01097-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F21-70164-V. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice 

Burns. Justices Myers and Nowell 

participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal. 

Judgment entered January 7, 2022 

 
 –4– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

KODY LYNNCLAY BLEVINS, 

Appellant 

No. 05-21-01098-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F21-70162-V. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice 

Burns. Justices Myers and Nowell 

participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal. 

Judgment entered January 7, 2022
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 8 (Thursday, January 12, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1919-1920]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-625]


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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, January 18, 2012; 11 a.m.-12 p.m.

PLACE: Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, Maryland.

STATUS: Closed to the Public.

Matter To Be Considered: Compliance Status Report.
    The Commission staff will brief the Commission on the status of 
compliance matters. For a recorded message containing the latest agenda 
information, call (301) 504-7948.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product

[[Page 1920]]

Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 
504-7923.

    Dated: January 10, 2012.
Todd A Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-625 Filed 1-10-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Elton L. CARY.

No. 88-K-2358.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 20, 1989.

In re Cary, Elton L.; — Defendants); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CR88-0054; Parish of Vernon, 30th Judicial District Court, Div. “A”, No. 41599.

Prior report: La.App. 535 So.2d 417.

Denied.