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



Section 906 Certification



In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of NCI, Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company certifies, to the best of his knowledge and belief 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |                                     
|----------------------- |  | ------------------------------------
|Date: December 2 , 2005 |  | /s/ Charles K Narang                
|                        |  | Charles K. Narang                   
|                        |  | Chairman of the Board,              
|                        |  | Chief Executive Officer and Director
|                        |  | (Principal Executive Officer)       



A signed original of the written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to NCI, Inc. and will be retained by NCI, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to theincorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-131145, 333-72786,333-79639, 333-43353 on Form S-8 and Nos. 333-54830, 333-51278, 333-76885, 333-61951,333-58031 on Form S-3 of our report dated February 26, 2007 relating tothe consolidated financial statements (which report expresses an unqualifiedopinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the Company’sadoption of the provisions of Statementof Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (revised 2004) *Share-BasedPayment*, effective January 1, 2006 and the Company’s adoption of theprovisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 158, *Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and OtherPostretirement Plans*, effective December 31, 2006) ofInvestors Financial Services Corp., and our report dated February 26, 2007relating to management's report on the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of InvestorsFinancial Services Corp. for the year ended December 31, 2006.
| /s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE  LLP |
|-------------------------------------|
| Boston, Massachusetts               |
| February 26, 2007              |

 

----
Douglas W. Domenech 

Secretary of Natural Resources 

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

Street address: 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219 

Mailing address: P.O. Box 1105, Richmond, Virginia 23218 

Fax (804) 698-4500 TDD (804) 698-4021 

www.deq.virginia.gov 

\JlJN 0 3 2013 

Ms. Diana Esher, Director 

Air Protection Division (3APOO) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III 

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029 

David K. Paylor 

Director 

(804) 698-4020 

1-800-592-5482 

Reference: Northern Virginia 

PM2.s Nonattainment Area -

Maintenance Plan and 

Mobile Source Budget 

Dear Ms. Esher: 

Pursuant to the requirements of § 110 of the Clean Air Act, we are officially requesting 

approval of a revision to the Conunonwealth of Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

approved under the authority of§ 10.1-1307.2 A of the Virginia Air Pollution Control Law and 

submitted in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 51 (Requirements for Preparation, 

Adoption, and Submittal oflmplementation Plans). As provided in§ 174 of the Clean Air Act, 

the plan was prepared by the Metropolitan Washington Air Quality Conunittee (MWAQC). 

The revision consists of an air quality maintenance plan in support of a concurrent, 

separate request to redesignate the 1997 Northern Virginia PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard Nonattainment Area (Counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William; 

Cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas, and Manassas Park) to attainment. The 

purpose of the plan is to ensure that emissions of PM2.5, sulfur dioxide (S02), and nitrogen 

oxides (NOx) do not exceed the 2007 attainment year levels through 2025, enabling the area to 

continue to meet the 1997 NAAQS for PM2.5. The plan contains control measures that are 

currently in place and will be continued in order to maintain PM2.5, S02, and NOx emissions at or 

below the 2007levels. The revision also contains motor vehicle emissions budgets for the years 

2007, 2017, and 2025. The purpose of the motor vehicle emissions budgets is to ensure that 

transportation emissions conform to the requirements of the proposed plan for maintaining 

compliance with the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (transportation conformity). 
Enclosed are the following: 

1. Maintenance plan, which includes the motor vehicle emissions budgets. 

2. Certification of public participation activities. 

3. Record of hearing and summary of public comment. 

4. An electronic copy (CD) of the complete submittal. This electronic copy is an exact 

duplicate of the hard copy. 

If you have any questions or need additional information, please let us know. 

David K. Pay lor 

DKP\kgs 

TE.MPLA TES\SIP-PLAN\PLNOO 

SIP\NONA TIN PLANS\NV A3-PM\NVPM-MP-SIP.DOC 

Enclosures
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**370 KA 11-00687**  PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ELIJAH ADAMS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 3.)

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JAMES ECKERT OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (ROBERT J. SHOEMAKER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Vincent M. Dinolfo, J.), rendered February 24, 2011. The judgment revoked defendant’s sentence of probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by vacating the sentence and as modified the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to Monroe County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the same memorandum as in People v Adams ([appeal No. 1] ___ AD3d ___ [Mar. 20, 2015]).

Entered: March 20, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 5 

77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD 

CH ICAGO, IL 60604-3590 

FEB 2 ~ 2012 

REPLY TO THE ATTENTION OF 

John Watkins, P.E. 

Chief, Office of Coastal Management 

Ohio Department ofNatural Resources 

105 West Shoreline Drive 

Sandusky, Ohio 44870 

Re: Request for 15 Day Extension 

Dear Mr. Watkins: 

WN-16J 

In accordance with 15 C.P.R. § 930.41(b), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approves 

your request for a 15 day extension to submit your consistency determination. EPA has 

documented that our request letter was received by your agency on December 23, 2011. As 

such, we now expect to receive your determination by March 7, 2012, and if necessary, 

conditions, based on specific enforceable policies, that would permit the Ohio Department of 

Natural Resources to concur with EPA's consistency determination. Please provide a current 

copy of the enforceable policies for your state with your response. If the Ohio Department of 

Natural Resources fails to furnish a reply within this time period, EPA will presume your 

concurrence. 

If you have any question, please contact Sean Ramach of my staff, at 312-8 86-5284 or 

rarnach. sean@epa. gov. 

Sincerely, 

Director, Water Division 

Recycled/Recyc lable • Pnnted w1th Vegetable 0 11 Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (50% Postconsumer)
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2057 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain lamps used in liquid 

chromatography or spectrophotometry. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. CARPER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain lamps used in 

liquid chromatography or spectrophotometry. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN LAMPS USED IN LIQUID CHROMA4 TOGRAPHY OR SPECTROPHOTOMETRY. 

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 Ultraviolet lamps filled with 

deuterium gas (provided for 

in subheading 8539.49.00) ... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2057 IS

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

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

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

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### John MANOUS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-83-598.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Nov. 1, 1984.

ORDER REVERSING CONVICTION AND REMANDING FOR NEW TRIAL

The appellee, State of Oklahoma, has filed a “Motion for Order to Remand Case to Trial Court with Instructions to Vacate *474Judgment and Sentence and Grant Appellant a New Trial” in the above styled and numbered appeal, conceding that a possible conflict of interest exists because Tom Giu-lioli, who originally represented the appellant later accepted a position as an Assistant District Attorney and aided in the prosecution of the appellant. See, *Skelton v. State,*672 P.2d 671 (Okl.Cr.1983).

Being sufficiently advised in the premises, this Court finds that the State’s motion should be and the same hereby is GRANTED, and the above styled and numbered cause should be and the same hereby is REVERSED and REMANDED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

WITNESS OUR HANDS AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT this 1st day of November, 1984.

HEZ J. BUSSEY, P.J.

ED PARKS, J.

TOM BRETT, J.
TYPE: EX-12.1
DESCRIPTION: STATEMENTS RE: COMPUTATION OF RATIOS
EXHIBIT 12.1

                                AEARO CORPORATION
                CALCULATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
                                   (UNAUDITED)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                  Year Ended September 30,
                                                     1997         1998        1999      2000       2001
                                                   --------    --------    --------   --------   --------
<S>                                                <C>         <C>         <C>        <C>        <C>
Earnings:
Pre tax income (loss) from continuing operations
                                                   $ (5,959)   $ (9,242)   $ 10,297   $ 12,624   $  5,325
Fixed Charges ..................................     28,419      27,984      26,152     26,497     25,757
                                                   --------    --------    --------   --------   --------
Earnings as defined ............................   $ 22,460    $ 18,742    $ 36,449   $ 39,121   $ 31,082
                                                   --------    --------    --------   --------   --------

Fixed Charge:
Interest Expense, net ..........................   $ 26,665    $ 26,152    $ 24,322   $ 24,387   $ 23,666
Interest component of operating lease ..........      1,754       1,832       1,830      2,110      2,091
                                                   --------    --------    --------   --------   --------
Fixed charges as defined .......................   $ 28,419    $ 27,984    $ 26,152   $ 26,497   $ 25,757
                                                   --------    --------    --------   --------   --------

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges .............       --          --           1.4        1.5        0.9
                                                   ========    ========    ========   ========   ========

</TABLE>




Note:    Ratio of earnings to fixed charges is defined pre-tax income from
         continuing operations plus fixed charges divided by fixed charges.
         Fixed charges include interest (including amortization of debt issuance
         costs) and a portion of rental expense assumed to represent interest.
         Earnings for the years ended September 30, 1997, 1998 and 2001were
         insufficient to cover fixed charges by $6.0 million, $9.2 million and
         $3.8 million, respectively.
Exhibit 32.2



|             |  |   |  |                                                                                                                                                  
|------------ |  | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|EXHIBIT 32.2 |  |  |  | CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the Form 10-Q) for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 of Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings, Inc. (the Issuer).

The undersigned hereby certifies that the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the
information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.

Date:
May 8, 2009



|       |  |                        
|------ |  | -----------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ RANDALL T. MAYS    
|Name:  |  | Randall T. Mays        
|Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Issuer and will
be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission, or its staff, upon request.
#### A & B PIPE AND SUPPLY CO., A *&*B Utility Supplies, Inc., and A & B Steel Co., Appellants, v. TURNBERRY TOWERS CORP. and Turnberry Corp., Appellees.

No. 86-637.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 16, 1986.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 29, 1987.

Neil A. Shanzer, Miami, for appellants.

Siegfried, Kipnis & Rivera and Samuel C. Reiner, Coral Gables, for appellees.

Before HENDRY, NESBITT and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.

HENDRY, Judge.

Appellants, plaintiffs below, question the correctness of a final summary judgment entered in favor of defendants. We reverse and remand upon the following briefly stated analysis.

Shortly after defendants filed their motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs no*262ticed defendants for depositions to be taken five days prior to the hearing on the motion. Defendants immediately moved for a protective order, requesting additional time to prepare to be deposed. On the date of the scheduled depositions, defendants failed to appear. Plaintiffs then moved for sanctions and/or to compel discovery, which motion, along with defendants’ motion for a protective order, was never ruled upon. Following the hearing, final summary judgment was entered for defendants.

It is plaintiffs’ position that their ability to defend against the summary judgment motion was thwarted by their inability to depose defendants.

We find merit in plaintiffs’ contention. In *Commercial Bank of Kendall v. Heiman,*322 So.2d 564, 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), we held that:

> it was premature for the trial court to award the defendant a summary judgment when the plaintiff, through no fault of its own, had not completed its discovery.

In *Cullen v. Big Daddy’s Lounges, Inc.,*364 So.2d 839 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), we relied upon *Commercial Bank*in reversing summary judgment for defendant, entered pri- or to plaintiffs’ completion of their discovery and where the court had not yet ruled upon plaintiffs’ motion to compel. *See also Danna v. Bay Steel Corp.,*445 So.2d 704 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); *Moore v. Freeman,*396 So.2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); *Lovelace v. Sobrino,*280 So.2d 514 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973).

The record in the instant case similarly discloses that the judgment appealed from was entered prematurely. We therefore have not considered the other points raised in this appeal. The final summary judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings, which may include further motions for summary judgment after discovery is completed.

Reversed and remanded.
October 13, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ALAN POZZERLE, Appellant

NO. 14-14-00610-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### STATE ex rel. Ronald A. STARWOOD v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 88-KH-1820.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 18, 1988.

In re Starwood, Ronald A.; applying for writ of mandamus, supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court, Div. “F”.

Denied. Relator’s motions do not indicate into which case they should be filed. Relator should resubmit his motions to the trial court and specify the docket number into which they should be filed.
**Exhibit
      32**





Certification
      of Principal Executive and Financial Officer


Pursuant
      to


Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
      September 30, 2006 (the “Report”) of Highbury Financial Inc. (the “Registrant”),
      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, the
      undersigned hereby certify that, to the best of the undersigned’s 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 Registrant for the
      period certified.




Date:
                November 14, 2006
            
            By:
            
            /s/
                Richard S. Foote**Richard
                S. Foote****President
                and Chief Executive Officer****(Principal
                Executive Officer)**By:
            
            /s/
                R. Bradley Forth**R.
                Bradley Forth****Executive
                Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and
                Secretary****(Principal
                Financial Officer)**
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2062 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2062

     To extend the suspension of duty on phosphoric acid, tris (2-
                           ethylhexyl) ester.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To extend the suspension of duty on phosphoric acid, tris (2-
                           ethylhexyl) ester.

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

SECTION 1. PHOSPHORIC ACID, TRIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL) ESTER.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.24.62 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to phosphoric acid, tris (2-
ethylhexyl) ester) is amended by striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting 
``12/31/2011''.
    (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>
```
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION




Each of the undersigned officers of
Cyalume Technologies Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies that,
to his knowledge, the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q to which this
certification is attached (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and that the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.




/s/  DEREK
      DUNAWAYDate: August 14,
      2009
              
              Derek Dunaway, Chief Executive
      Officer(the Principal Executive
      Officer)





Date: August 14,
      2009
                
                /s/  MICHAEL
      BIELONKOMichael Bielonko, Chief Financial
      Officer(the Principal Financial
      Officer)





This certification is being furnished
and not filed, and shall not be incorporated into any document for any purpose,
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or the Securities Act of
1933.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2463 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2463

         To suspend temporarily the duty on Normal Paraffin M.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To suspend temporarily the duty on Normal Paraffin M.

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

SECTION 1. NORMAL PARAFFIN M.

    (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       Normal Paraffin M   Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/ ''.
                          (Alkanes C10-C14)                                                  31/2011.......
                          (CAS No. 93924-07-
                          3) (ASTM D-156)
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          2710.19.90)......

    (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>
```