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 on Form 10-Q of Chelsea Therapeutics International, Ltd. (the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report), I, Simon Pedder, President and Chief Executive Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the
periods presented in the Report.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Simon PedderSimon PedderPresident and Chief Executive OfficerNovember 1, 2010
EXHIBIT 21



                                  SUBSIDIARIES




Subsidiaries of Harvest Restaurant Group, Inc.
----------------------------------------------

         1.   Hartan, Inc., a Texas corporation
         2.   Harvest Restaurants, Inc., a Texas corporation
         3.   Cluckers Restaurants, Inc., a Texas corporation
         4.   Harvest Rotisserie on Tezel, Inc., a Texas corporation
         Red Lion Food Court, Inc., a Texas corporation


Subsidiaries of Hartan, Inc.
----------------------------

         1.   That Chicken Place, Inc., a Georgia corporation
         2.   Tanner's/Vinings, Inc., a Georgia corporation
         3.   Tanner's Oaks, Inc., a Georgia corporation
         4.   Tanner's Spalding, Inc., a Georgia corporation
         5.   Tanner's Mill, Inc., a Georgia corporation
         6.   Tanner's - Lawrenceville, Inc., a Georgia corporation
         7.   Tanner's - Tucker, Inc., a Georgia corporation
         8.   Northwest Store, Inc., a Georgia corporation
         9.   Tanner's Lilburn, Inc., a Georgia corporation
         10.  Tanner's Catering, Inc., a Georgia corporation
         11.  Central Administration, Inc., a Georgia corporation
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 23

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

The Board of Directors
ARV Assisted Living, Inc:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement No.
333-16269 on Form S-3 of ARV Assisted Living, Inc. of our report dated June
20, 1997, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of ARV Assisted Living,
Inc. and subsidiaries as of March 31, 1997, and 1996, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity, and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended March 31, 1997, and
related schedule, which report appears in the March 31, 1997, annual report on
Form 10-K of ARV Assisted Living, Inc.

                                        /s/ KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

Orange County, California
June 30, 1997
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2303 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Caprolactone-Trimethylolpropane 

Copolymers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. BROWN (for himself and Mr. VOINOVICH) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on CaprolactoneTrimethylolpropane Copolymers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CAPROLACTONE-TRIMETHYLOLPROPANE CO4 POLYMERS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 CaprolactoneTrimethylolpropane copolymers (CAS 37625–56–2) 

(provided for in subheading 

3907.99.01) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2303 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
(May 20, 1991)

#### Jean Adolphe et al., Appellants, et al., Plaintiff, v Raul *584Ramirez, et al., Respondents.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), dated August 15, 1989, which granted the motion of the defendant Raul Ramirez for summary judgment dismissing the complaint with respect to all plaintiffs except the plaintiff Marie Mondesir, and denied the cross motion for summary judgment in their favor.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the respondent Raul Ramirez.

The record supports the Supreme Court’s determination that the affirmations of the appellants’ physicians consisted of conclusory allegations based on subjective complaints of pain. The mere repetition of the word "permanent” in the affidavits of a plaintiff or a treating physician does not suffice to establish serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Summary judgment should be granted to the defendant where a plaintiff’s evidence is limited to conclusory assertions tailored to meet statutory requirements *(see, Lopez v Senatore,*65 NY2d 1017, 1019).

Under the circumstances, the appellants failed to raise a triable issue of fact on the crucial issue of "serious injury” and the granting of the defendant Ramirez’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint with respect to them was proper *(see, Scheer v Koubek,*70 NY2d 678; *Reid v Spivack,*160 AD2d 859).

We have considered the remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Kunzeman J. P., Balletta, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
Senecal Shoreline Permit #97 Docket No. 95-8-15 Vtec

Senecal Shoreline Permit #98 Docket No. 96-8-15 Vtec

Cert of Appropriateness 451 Appletree Point 

Rd. 

Docket No. 103-8-15 Vtec

Cert of Appropriateness 465 Appletree Point 

Rd. 

Docket No. 104-8-15 Vtec

ENTRY REGARDING MOTION

Title: Oral Motion to Remand 

Filer: Larsen Land Trust 

Attorney: James A. Dumont 

Filed Date: March 21, 2016 

No response filed 

The motion is GRANTED. 

All parties other than the City of Burlington and Agency of Natural Resources have 

entered into a Settlement Agreement resolving all issues within these four coordinated 

matters. The City wishes for the two appeals of Certificates of Appropriateness to be remanded 

to the Development Review Board (DRB) for consideration of the parties’ resolution. ANR (and 

all other parties) ask that the two appeals of Shoreline Permits be placed on inactive status to 

await a final decision of the City of Burlington DRB. 

 We therefore REMAND Docket Nos. 103-8-15 and 104-8-15 to the City of Burlington 

DRB to consider the Amended Permit Conditions as identified with the parties’ Settlement 

Agreement. We also place Docket Nos. 95-8-15 Vtec and 96-8-15 Vtec on inactive status and 

 

STATE OF VERMONT

SUPERIOR COURT 

Vermont Unit 

ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION
await a motion or request to reactive these two appeals. 

So ordered. 

Electronically signed on March 21, 2015 at 9:07 AM pursuant to V.R.E.F. 7(d). 

_________________________________________ 

Thomas G. Walsh, Judge 

Superior Court, Environmental Division 

Notifications: 

James A. Dumont (ERN 1948), Attorney for Appellant Larsen Land Trust 

James A. Dumont (ERN 1948), Attorney for Appellant Lauritz Larsen 

James A. Dumont (ERN 1948), Attorney for Appellant Douglas Campbell 

James A. Dumont (ERN 1948), Attorney for Appellant Christine Campbell 

James A. Dumont (ERN 1948), Attorney for Appellant Kathleen Cooke 

James A. Dumont (ERN 1948), Attorney for Appellant James Cooke 

James A. Dumont (ERN 1948), Attorney for Appellant Shanta Eastman 

James A. Dumont (ERN 1948), Attorney for Appellant Ian Bleakney 

James A. Dumont (ERN 1948), Attorney for Appellant Jeff Haig 

James A. Dumont (ERN 1948), Attorney for Appellant Burr Miller 

James A. Dumont (ERN 1948), Attorney for Appellant DeLora Miller 

James A. Dumont (ERN 1948), Attorney for Appellant Morgan Sparks 

Matthew B. Byrne (ERN 2486), Attorney for Appellee Alfred Senecal 

Matthew S. Stern (ERN 5743), Attorney for party 15 Co-counsel 

Kimberlee J. Sturtevant (ERN 4778), Attorney for Interested Person City of Burlington 

dchamber
#### The Ellis-Young Company, a Corporation Organized and Existing Under the Laws of the State of Georgia, Plaintiff in Error, v. East Coast Lumber Company, a Corporation Organized and Existing Under the Laws of the State of Wisconsin, Defendant in Error.

This case was decided by Division A.

Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Per Curiam.

The writ of error is dismissed on the authority of the Ellis-Young Company v. Putnam Lumber Co., decided this day.

All concur.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 15096]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6109]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL11-44-002]

Bonneville Power Administration; Notice of Compliance Filing

    Take notice that on March 6, 2012, the Bonneville Power 
Administration (Bonneville) submitted a compliance filing with Pro 
Forma sheets in response to the Commission's Order.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Iberdrola Renewables, Inc. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 137 
FERC ] 61,185 (2011) (``Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
[email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 27, 2012.

    Dated: March 7, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-6109 Filed 3-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OCTOBER 24, 2013

NO. 03-13-00068-CR

Demarcus Kresean Jordan, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 27TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND FIELD

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being 

considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in the trial court’s 

judgment: IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that the judgment 

of the trial court is in all things affirmed; and it appearing that the appellant is indigent and 

unable to pay costs, that no adjudication as to costs is made; and that this decision be certified 

below for observance.
#### Suwannee & San Pedro Railroad Company, Appellant, v. West Coast Railway Company, Appellee.

ON RE-HEARING.

A petition for re-bearing that is a re-argument of tbe case with comments on tbe evidence will not be entertained.

This case was decided by Division A.

*613The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

*Roberson é Small*and *S. S.*Sanford, for Petition.

Cockrell, J.

A paper entitled Petition for Rehearing has been marked filed here and has been presented to us for consideration.

A cursory examination of the so styled petition for rehearing, consisting of thirteen type-written pages shows that.it is an attempt to reargue the whole case heretofore presented to, and duly considered and decided by, this court. Issue is taken with the court on practically every finding of law or fact, with voluminous excerpts from the evidence and petitioner’s comments thereon. Should a re-hearing be granted such zeal on the part of counsel might be commendable, but it is out of place in an ex-parte petition.

Following the long established rule of this court, frequently expresed in its Reports, we shall decline to entertain the petition or permit it to become part of our records. Jones v. Fox, 23 Fla. 462, 2 South. Rep. 853; Sauls v. Freeman, 24 Fla. 225, 4 South. Rep. 577; Summerlin v. Thompson, 31 Fla. 369, text 391, 12 South. Rep. 667; Steele v. State, 33 Fla. 354, 14 South. Rep. 841; Florida Land Rock Phos. Co. v. Anderson, 39 South. Rep. 392, decided at this term.

Shackleford, C. J., and Whitfield, J., concur.

Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, jj., concur in the opinion.
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

The undersigned hereby certify that pursuant to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 1350(a), the Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the "Form 10-K") of Hearst-Argyle Television, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at and for the periods indicated.

Dated:
February 25, 2009

By:

/s/ DAVID J. BARRETT Name: David J. Barrett
Title:President and Chief Executive OfficerBy:

/s/ HARRY T. HAWKS Name: Harry T. Hawks
Title:Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

The Board of Directors and Stockholders 

World Airways, Inc.: 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-13575, No. 333-14461, No. 333-33704,No. 333-33706 and No. 333-14457) on Form S-8 and registration statements (No. 333-39673, No. 333-35054 and No. 333-46406) on Form S-3 of World Airways, Inc. of our report dated March 11, 2003 relating to theconsolidated balance sheets of World Airways, Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders’ deficiency, and cash flows for each of the years in thethree-year period ended December 31, 2002, which report appears in the December 31, 2002 annual report on Form 10-K of World Airways, Inc. 

 

Our report refers to a change, effective January 1, 2000, in the Company’s method of accounting for certain aircraft maintenancecosts. 

 

KPMG LLP 

 

McLean, Virginia 

March 26, 2003 

 

62
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 Annual Report of Dynamic Health Products, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mandeep K. Taneja, Chief Executive Officer and President 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Mandeep K. Taneja                
|Mandeep K. Taneja                    
|Chief Executive Officer and President
|March 14, 2007
================================================================================

Exhibit 32.2


                            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  Zandaria  Ventures  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended  December 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned,  in the  capacities  and  on  the  dates  indicated  below,  hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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 the Company.


Date:  February 14, 2007


/s/ Steven Cozine
------------------------------------------
Steven Cozine, Principal Financial Officer
### ~~ 

## Total Service Telecom, Inc., Exemption/Rulemaking Docket Folder Summary 

### \il' V iew all documents and comm ents in this Docket Docket 10 : FAA - 20 1 6 - 2900 Agency : F e d e ra l Av i a ti on Adm i n i s t ration ( F AA) Parent Agency : D e partment of T ransportation ( DOT ) Summary : T o t a l servi ce T e l eco m. I nc .• Exe mption / Rul e ma k ing

- View Fewer Docket Details



### Docket Details 

# 0 Related RINs : Non e Related Dockets : None Disposition : Pend i ng 

## Primary Documents Vie wA ll (2) Subt y pe : P etiti on - sect ion 333 Type : Nonru l e m aki ng



### U . S . D O T/ FAA - Noti ce to Se ct i o n 333 of t h e F AA M ode rn i z a t i o n a nd Refo r m A ct o f 2 012 Pet i t i o ne rs . . 

# # Ot he r Posted: 06 ml20 16 ID : F AA - 20 1 6 - 2900-{)002 

### T o ta l Servi ce Te l ecom , I nc . , Exe m pt i o n / R u l e m a k i ng 

# # Othe r Pos t ed: 0 1 12 BI20 1 6 ID : F AA

- 20 1 6 - 2900-{)00 1 

## Total Service Telecom, Inc ., Exemption / Rulemaking Do cktt F old tr**umm.;~ry** 

### Q) 

### Viow all documtnto 1nd commtntt In tlllo Oocbt D o cl< t iiD : FAA-2016·2900 A gency : Fe4eral AY13IIOR A4mlnl$lt3tiOn (FAA)**Su~ry :**  

## T 1)131 

### SeMte 

## Te-te' om 

## Inc**EJ<empuonJR\IJerT~ikltlg Dock~t** **~n.ails** 

## 0

Rt l

•ttd RI N .: None Rtlattd Doek t ts : Nooo Dlspositton · · endJf\9 

## Pn m a ry Document s VteWAI (2) 

### Pa r.nt A g t ncy: DepartMent 01 Tran$POna:oon (00l)

Su btypt:**~li!oon** - 

### setiiQfl 333 Typ1 : NonrutemaJang



### U S DOT / FAA - 

### NotK:e lo Secl100 333 ollhe FAA**ModemtZa~on** 

### alld 

### Relorm Act 

### ol2012 Pebltoners Ollltt 

## Tola l Servtee Telecom Inc ExemplJOniRulemaklng Ottltr 

### 10; FM-21111>-21100.0001 Co mm ent P eriod C l os ed 

# a;.un,;;."IM

'91!d.!i!iiiM
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00358

- CR

Donald Grady Haynes

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 372nd District Court

o f Tarrant County (1299959D )

October 24, 2013

P er C uriam

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for

want of jurisdiction

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2153 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2153

  To suspend temporarily the duty on grocery bags of nonwoven fabric 
                        wholly of polypropylene.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on grocery bags of nonwoven fabric 
                        wholly of polypropylene.

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

SECTION 1. GROCERY BAGS OF NONWOVEN FABRIC WHOLLY OF POLYPROPYLENE.

    (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      Grocery bags of     Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        nonwoven fabric                                                    31/2011.......
                        wholly of
                        polypropylene, of
                        which the fabric
                        comprising the
                        outer surface of
                        the bag is at
                        least 70 grams
                        per square meter
                        and does not
                        exceed 110 grams
                        per square meter,
                        with handles of
                        nonwoven fabric
                        wholly of
                        polypropylene
                        sewn on, with a
                        capacity not to
                        exceed 23 liters
                        each, of a type
                        used to carry
                        food or beverages
                        purchased in
                        grocery stores,
                        supermarkets or
                        pharmacies or the
                        like (provided
                        for in subheading
                        4202.92.30)......

    (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 the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```