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 Annual Report of Charys Holding Company, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended April 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Billy
V. Ray, Jr., 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) 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.

     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.

Date: August 15, 2005

                                 /s/ Billy V. Ray, Jr.
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                 Billy V. Ray, Jr., Chief Executive Officer


<PAGE>
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Dick DAMON, Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of the State of Colorado (Ex-Officio Unemployment Compensation Commission of Colorado), and Colorado Disposal, Inc., Respondents.

No. 83CA0043.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. II.

Dec. 22, 1983.

*432Kent Denzel, Commerce City, for petitioner.

Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Joel W. Cantrick, Sol. Gen., Patricia A. Blizzard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondent Indus. Com’n.

Robert G. Good, Littleton, for respondent Colorado Disposal, Inc.

KELLY, Judge.

Claimant seeks review of a final order of the Industrial Commission reducing his unemployment compensation benefits for violating a company rule. *See*§ 8-73-108(9)(a)(VII), C.R.S.1973 (1982 Cum.Supp.). He contends that the employer failed to carry its burden of establishing that his violation of the rule was material to the performance of his duties. We set aside the order.

Claimant was a heavy equipment operator at the employer’s landfill. After his hiring, the employer instituted a policy requiring all workers to have a valid driver’s license. The claimant’s license was subsequently revoked, and he was discharged for violating the license policy, although the employer’s witness testified that the claimant was in other respects a good employee.

The Commission found that claimant was discharged for violating the employer’s license rule and reduced his benefits, stating that the employer was compelled to discharge claimant for its “own protection, because of liability reasons and because of certain enforcements that had to be adhered to concerning [its] insurance coverage.” The record is devoid of any evidence justifying these conclusions.

When an employee is discharged for violating a company rule, benefits may not be reduced under § 8-73-108(9)(a)(VII), unless the violation could have resulted in “serious damage” to the employer’s interests or endangered the “life of the worker or other employee.” *Cf. Casias v. Industrial Commission,*38 Colo.App. 261, 554 P.2d 1357 (1976). Here, the employer presented no evidence that the claimant’s lack of a driver’s license was injurious to its interests or that it created a significant safety risk to the claimant or to other employees. A driver’s license is evidence of competence to operate motor vehicles on a public highway, *see*§ 42-1-102 and § 42-2-101(1), C.R.S.1973, but is not required to operate heavy equipment on the premises of a private landfill.

Since there was no evidence presented to show that the claimant’s lack of a driver’s license was material to his ability to perform properly and safely the duties for which he was employed, the order must be set aside. Section 8-74-107(4), C.R.S.1973 (1982 Cum.Supp.); *Allen v. Industrial Commission,*36 Colo.App. 330, 540 P.2d 358 (1975).

We need not determine the other issues raised by the claimant.

The order is set aside and the cause is remanded with directions that the claimant be awarded full unemployment compensation benefits.

SMITH and VAN CISE, JJ., concur.
#### Egbert THOMAS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 87-2907.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 9, 1988.

Rehearing Denied March 21, 1988.

Egbert Thomas, in pro. per.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, NESBITT and JORGENSON, JJ.

*309PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Newton v. State,*513 So.2d 1271 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); *Smith v. State,*513 So.2d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); *Bell v. State,*453 So.2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); *See Straight v. State,*488 So.2d 530 (Fla.1986); *Key v. State,*452 So.2d 1147 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), *review denied,*459 So.2d 1041 (Fla.1984).
```

       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
       ------------------------------------------------------------------

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-63020, No. 333-113834, and No. 333-38765),
Registration Statements on Form S-4 (No. 333-11742, No. 333-38759, and No.
333-70522) and on Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-112107, No.
333-71063, and No. 333-44742) of Armor Holdings, Inc. of our report dated
March 14, 2006 relating to the financial statements, management's assessment
of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in
this Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
------------------------------
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Jacksonville, Florida
March 14, 2006
```
J 

f 

PO Box 71249, Fairbanks, AK 99707-1249· (907) 452-1151 • www.gvea.com "

I

I 

Your Touchstone Energy' Cooperative ~~

I

, CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED ! 

! 

7008 1830 0004 3326 5473 I 

l July 14, 2010 

Jezebele Alicea 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPA West - Room 6233U 

1301 Constitution Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

RE:	 Extension Request for Response to Steam Electric Power Generating Industry 

Development of Effluent Limitation Guidelines Information Collection Request 

Dear Ms. Alicea, 

Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) received the Environmental Protection 

Agency's (EPA) request for information. We understand that it will be used to develop 

new effluent limitation guidelines and standards for the Steam Electric Power 

Generating Industry. 

GVEA is a rural, not-for-profit electric cooperative in Interior Alaska. We own and 

operate four power plants that utilize primarily oil and coal to generate electricity. The 

electricity generated by these plants is delivered to more than 43,547 electric meters 

spread across 3,893 square miles. 

Our power plants and 3,099 miles of transmission and distribution lines operate under 

harsh arctic conditions. GVEA's mission is to provide safe, reliable and affordable 

electricity. In an effort to control costs, employees are tasked with multiple duties. Even 

with these efforts, GVEA has some of the highest electric rates in the country primarily 

due to limited fuel options and high costs associated with operating under remote arctic 

conditions. 
Ms. Jezebele Alicea -2- July 14, 2010 

EPA's ICR arrived at an inopportune time. The large amount of information requested 

demands coordination of staff from several sections of GVEA. GVEA is in the process 

of completing the expansive Clean Air Act NESHAP ICR due to EPA the end of AUgust. 

Coupled with day to day operations, compliance duties, the evaluation and 

implementation of new regulations and the absence of key staff needed for ICR 

completion, we simply do not have sufficient resources to complete the ICR in a timely, 

thorough and accurate manner. 

GVEA recognizes it is of utmost importance that EPA receives reliable and accurate 

data. We respectfully request a 60-day extension to complete the ICA. Your request 

was received by GVEA on June 24, 2010. Should the extension be granted, the new 

due date would be November 22 2010. Of course, GVEA will make a concerted effort to 

complete and submit the ICR prior to that time but would appreciate the extra 60 days. 

Thank you for considering our request and please contact me if you have any questions 

at (907) 451-5627 or by email atked@gvea.com. 

Sincerely, 

Kristen u is 

Environmental Officer
STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSFORATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION ^ 

In the Matter of: 

AIR EVAC EMS, INC. 

FAA CASE NO.: 2007CE030026 

C^ ff^' 

HEARING DATE REQUEST ^ 

•j-' ^ i f • 

The undersigned counsel for the Respondent is planning to be on an out-of-state 

vacation for a family reunion from June 9, 2010 through June 18, 2010 and therefore 

requests that the hearing not be scheduled until June 28, 2010 at the earliest. 

Respectfully submitted, 

COOLING & HERDERS 

isey 

JO M^ffiri Street, Suite 2400 

'KansasCity, MO 64105 

Telephone: (816)474-0777 

Facsimile: (816)472-0790 

iramsev(a),coolinglaw.com 

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT 

AIR EVAC EMS, INC. 

FAA CASE NO.: 2007CE030026 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on the j 5 _ day of May 2010,1 forwarded the original and one 

(1) copy of the foregoing Hearing Date Request via United States Mail, Certified, Return 

Receipt Requested to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2W1000 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Additionally one (1) copy of the foregoing Answer to Complaint was forwarded 

via United States mail, certified, return receipt requested to: 

Mark G. Camacho 

Senior Enforcement Attorney 

Federal Aviation AdraiiiistEatioa 

Office of Regional Counsel 

901 Locust, Room 506-

Kansas City, MO 64106-2641 

F:\Cases\FAA ENFORCEMENT ACTIONSVAJR EVAC\Pleadings\2007CE030026\Hearing Date Request.May4.2010.doc 

FAA CASE NO.: 2007CE030026
#### STATE ex rel. Dennis SHELTON v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 88-KH-2938.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 27, 1989.

In re Shelton, Dennis; — Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or writs; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “G”.

Denied. No particularized need shown.
#### Danny Lewis CANION, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-81-517.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

May 11, 1983.

Robert A. Ravitz, First Asst. Public Defender, Okl. County, Oklahoma City, for appellant.

Jan Eric Cartwright, Atty. Gen., William H. Luker, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BRETT, Judge:

Danny Lewis Canion, the appellant, was 17 years old when he allegedly committed the offenses of rape in the second degree and oral sodomy. He was tried as an adult on both charges, pursuant to 10 O.S.1979 Supp., § 1104.2, after the District Court of Oklahoma County denied his Motion to Certify as a Child. A jury found the appellant guilty in Case No. CRF-80-4049, and fixed punishment at one year imprisonment for oral sodomy and two years imprisonment for second degree rape.

The appellant submits only one assignment of error for review. He contends that the trial court was without jurisdiction to hear the oral sodomy charge because oral sodomy is not an enumerated felony under the Reverse Certification Law, 10 O.S.1979, Supp., § 1104.2. That law was enacted in *261978 to permit the State to prosecute sixteen and seventeen year olds charged with certain enumerated felonies as adults. This Court upheld the constitutionality of that statute in *State ex rel. Coats*v. *Rakestraw,*610 P.2d 256 (Okl.Cr.1980). One of the offenses for which persons of that age group may be tried as adults is nonconsensual sodomy. Sodomy is prohibited conduct under 21 O.S.1981, § 886, crime against nature. *Berryman v. State,*283 P.2d 558 (Okl.Cr.1955). The appellant seeks to have this Court hold that the district court did not have jurisdiction over him for the reason that he was charged under Section 1104.2 with oral sodomy rather than nonconsensual sodomy. This Court declines to engage in the semantics game urged by the appellant.

The appellant and the State stipulated to a statement of facts in lieu of providing this Court with the transcript. Briefly stated, the appellant, who was carrying a gun and using it to intimidate the prosecutrix, forced her to enter his car and engage in oral sodomy and sexual intercourse. At trial he testified that she consented to both the sodomy and the intercourse. The jury, after being instructed that force was an element of both rape and sodomy, returned a guilty verdict on both counts, reflecting a determination that the acts were noncon-sensual.

The prohibited act under Section 1104.2 is sodomy, which will be punished if committed without the consent of the other participant. The appellant was found guilty of nonconsensual sodomy. The fact that the information particularly described the type of sodomy committed as oral in no way acted to remove the crime from within Section 1104.2. The appellant’s argument that he could not be tried as an adult for oral sodomy under that section is unpersuasive. Thus, the judgment and sentence is affirmed.

BUSSEY, P.J., and CORNISH, J., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 KeyOn Communications Holdings, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Annette Eggert, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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.

|                       |     |                               
|---------------------- | --- | ------------------------------
|Date: August
 14, 2008 | By: | /s/ Annette Eggert            
|                       |     |                               
|                       |     | Annette
 Eggert               
|                       |     | Chief
 Financial Officer      
|                       |     | (Principal
 Financial Officer)

---
Exhibit 99(b)

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         In connection with the Form 10-K of Indian River Banking Company for
the year ended December 31, 2002, I, Phillip L. Tasker, Treasurer and Chief
Financial Officer of Indian River Banking Company , hereby certify pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

(1) such Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002, 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 such Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2002, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Indian River Banking Company



 /s/ Phillip L. Tasker
------------------------------------------
Phillip L. Tasker
Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
JOSHUA GOGG I NS

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 0720

_________ ____________________/

Opinion filed September 22, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. James O. Shelfer , Judge

.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Kathleen Stover, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS

, BILBREY

, and WINOKUR

, J J

. , CONCUR.
April 20, 2011

Mr. Chris Benich Vice President, Aerospace Regulatory Affairs Honeywell

101 Constitution Ave. NW Washington, DC 20001

Dear Mr. Benich:

We have received your April 14, 2011, correspondence withdrawing your December 16, 2010, petition on behalf of Honeywell Aerospace for an exemption from § 21.603 (a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR).

Your letter has been placed in the public docket (No. FAA-2010-1288). No further action will be taken on your petition.

Sincerely,

/s/ Brenda D. Courtney Manager, Aircraft and Airport Rules Division
50201.

#### BOWEN v. THE STATE.

Submitted February 4, 1975

Decided March 4, 1975.

*Charles D. Flinn, Jr.,*for appellant.

*F. Larry Salmon, District Attorney,*for appellee.

Pannell, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of a felony in that he unlawfully and intentionally damaged the dwelling of Mrs. J. A. Bowen without her consent by fire and explosion. He appeals alleging error on the failure of the trial judge to direct a verdict because of insufficiency of evidence, and overruling of motion for new trial on general grounds.

There was evidence that while defendant’s mother was at the hospital with his sick father and unable to leave him, defendant repeatedly called her and demanded that she come and cook for him. Upon being told that she could not, he stated, more than once, to her that "I just hope that you have somewhere to come when you do come.” The house burned. There was testimony from third parties that defendant told them that he burned,the house but was not sure how. There was evidence that defendant was drinking or drunk.

The evidence was sufficient to go to a jury and sufficient to uphold their verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Quillian and Clark, JJ., concur.*
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6015** 

GLENN LEE WILLIAMS , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v.
DARLENE DREW , Respondent

– Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Greenville
. Terry L. Wooten , District Judge. ( 6:10

- cv - 02412

- TLW )

Submitted : February 28, 2011 Decided: March 9, 2011

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and D IAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Gl enn Lee Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Glenn Lee Williams , a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2010) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Williams v. Drew , No. 6:10

- cv - 02412

- TLW (D.S.C. Dec. 17, 2 010) . 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.
AFFIRMED
#### STATE ex rel. Sawyer LEWIS v. CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT and The State of Louisiana.

No. 89-KH-0164.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 24, 1989.

In re Lewis, Sawyer; — Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writ; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “A”, No. 257-998.

Granted for the sole purpose of transferring the application to the district court with instructions to the trial judge to act on relator’s motion to correct an illegal sentence filed via certified mail on October 27, 1988.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

In Re: A. H. ROBINS COMPANY,

INCORPORATED,

Debtor.

No. 98-1522

LENORE WIDMARK,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

DALKON SHIELD CLAIMANTS TRUST,

Trust-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.

Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge;

Blackwell N. Shelley, Bankruptcy Judge.

(CA-85-1307-R)

Submitted: September 30, 1998

Decided: October 26, 1998

Before WIDENER, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Michael Villeck, Howard Eison, SANDERS, SANDERS, BLOCK &

WOYCIK, P.C., Mineola, New York, for Appellant. Orran Lee
Brown, Sr., DALKON SHIELD CLAIMANTS TRUST, Richmond,

Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Lenore Widmark, a Dalkon Shield Claimant, elected to resolve her

claim through binding arbitration. The arbitrator issued an unfavorable decision, concluding that Widmark's pelvic inflammatory disease did not arise from her use of the Dalkon Shield. Widmark then

filed a motion to vacate the arbitrator's decision in the district court.

The district court denied the motion, and Widmark appealed.

We vacate and remand. Widmark established that she used the

Dalkon Shield and suffered from pelvic inflammatory disease, an

injury appearing in Exhibit A to the Claims Resolution Facility. She

therefore was entitled to the presumption of causation announced in

In re A. H. Robins Co. (Reichel v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust),

109 F.3d 965 (4th Cir. 1997), because the presumption applies in

binding arbitration. See In re A.H. Robins Co. (King v. Dalkon Shield

Claimants Trust, 1998 WL 544770, at *1 (4th Cir. Aug. 17, 1998)

(unpublished). We vacate the order of the district court because the

arbitrator did not apply the presumption. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

in the materials before the court and oral argument would not aid the

decisional process. In light of this disposition, the motion to accelerate oral argument is denied, and the case is remanded to the district

court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

VACATED AND REMANDED*

_________________________________________________________________

*The motion of the Trust filed October 5, 1998, to submit a surrebuttal

brief is granted.

 2