alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.2


                            CORD BLOOD AMERICA, INC.

    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 Cord Blood America, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Sandra D. Smith, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting
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 to the best of
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:   May 15, 2006


/s/Sandra D. Smith
---------------------------------------------
Sandra D. Smith
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       2,806,479
<SECURITIES>                                   295,046
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,058,649
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,160,174
<PP&E>                                      19,462,613
<DEPRECIATION>                              17,907,433
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          305,740
<BONDS>                                         24,608
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,385,006
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,715,354
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,895,783
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,153,315
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,825
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                717,643
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            717,643
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   717,643
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7554
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TROY ROLLE, a/k/a Robert Stan Marks, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CR-97-608) Submitted: January 19, 2006 Decided: January 25, 2006 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Troy Rolle, Appellant Pro Se. Harold Watson Gowdy, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Troy Rolle appeals the district court’s oral order denying his motion to modify his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000). Rolle sought relief based on the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005). The relief Rolle seeks is unavailable under § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Goines , 357 F.3d 469, 473 (4th Cir. 2004)(noting that § 3582(c)(2) authorizes a “district court to reduce the sentence imposed on a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(o)”); see also United States v. Moreno , 421 F.3d 1217, 1220 (11th Cir. 2005) (holding that “Bookeris inapplicable to § 3582(c)(2) motions”). Accordingly, we affirm. 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
EPA FORM 6100-3 (DBE Subcontractor Performance Form) Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program DBE Subcontractor Performance Form

This form is intended to capture the DBE 1 subcontractor’s 2 description of work to be performed and the price of the work submitted to the prime contractor. An EPA Financial Assistance Agreement Recipient must require its prime contractor to have its DBE subcontractors complete this form and include all completed forms in the prime contractors bid or proposal package.

Subcontractor Name Project Name

Bid/ Proposal No. Assistance Agreement ID No. (if known) Point of Contact

Address
Telephone No. Email Address

Prime Contractor Name Issuing/Funding Entity:

Contract Item Number Description of Work Submitted to the Prime Contractor Involving Construction, Services , Equipment or Supplies Price of Work Submitted to the Prime Contractor

DBE Certified By :

____ DOT

____ SBA

____ Other: ______________________

___________________ Meets/ exceeds EPA certification standards?

____ YES ____ NO ____ Unknown

1 A DBE is a Disadvantaged, Minority, or Woman Business Enterprise that has been certified by an entity from which EPA accepts certifications as described in 40 CFR 33.204-33.205 or certified by EPA. EPA accepts certifications from entities that meet or exceed EPA certification standards as described in 40 CFR 33.202.

2 Subcontractor is defined as a company, firm, joint venture, or individual who enters into an agreement with a contractor to provide services pursuant to an EPA award of financial assistance. OMB Control No: 2090-0030 Approval Expires: XX/XX/XXEPA FORM 6100-3 (DBE Subcontractor Performance Form) OMB Control No: Approved: Approval Expires:
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program

DBE Subcontractor Performance Form

I certify under penalty of perjury that the forgoing statements are true and correct. Signing this form does not signify a commitment to utilize the subcontractors above. I am aware of that in the event of a replacement of a subcontractor, I will adhere to the replacement requirements set forth in 40 CFR Part 33 Section 33.302 (c).

Prime Contractor Signature Print Name

Title Date

Sub c ontractor Signature Print Name

Title Date

The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Include the OMB control number in any correspondence. Do not send the completed form to this address.
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-19-00173-CR

__________________

MICHAEL WAYNE OSBORNE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 19-31505

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On June 5, 2019, we notified the parties that our jurisdiction was not apparent 

from the notice of appeal and warned that the appeal would be dismissed for want 

of jurisdiction unless we received a response showing grounds for continuing the 

appeal. Appellant filed a response, but he failed to articulate a valid basis for 

jurisdiction in that response.
2

Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the trial court has signed an order that 

is appealable at this time. See McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.—

Fort Worth 1996, no pet.) (holding that intermediate appellate courts lack

jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders unless such jurisdiction is expressly 

granted by statute). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

_________________________

HOLLIS HORTON

Justice

Submitted on August 6, 2019

Opinion Delivered August 7, 2019

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
Memo to Docket

To: Docket for Transport Rule

From: Jim Ketcham-Colwill

Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Policy Analysis and Review

Date: November 15, 2010

Regarding: November 12, 2010, meeting with PPL representatives on Transport Rule

PPL Attendees: Paulette C. Pidcock

Vice President-Federal Government Relations

PPL

900 Seventh Street, NW #510

Washington, DC 20001

Reid T. Clemmer

Environmental Supervisor

PPL Services Corp.

Arundhati Khanwalkar

Senior Director, Environmental Management

PPL

EPA OPAR Attendees: Rob Brenner, Director

Jim Ketcham-Colwill

Tamara Saltman

PPL representatives requested this meeting with the Office and Air and Radiation. PPL

representatives expressed general support for the proposed Transport Rule to replace the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule, but expressed strong concern about allocation provisions.

PPL representatives indicated that the company has predominately been a merchant 

power provider, (though it recently has acquired a regulated utility in Kentucky), and that 

their comments reflect that perspective. They expressed concern about the allocation 

provisions on grounds that the proposed approach (1) is unfair, (2) disadvantages 

companies that have invested in controls previously under the market-based CAIR 

system or for other reasons (e.g., in comparison to a heat-input-based approach, the 

proposed approach will provide many millions of dollars less in allowance value to 

companies plants that are already well controlled), (3) is based on emissions projections 

that are not reliable, and (4) may have negative environmental results because cleaner 

plants that previously controlled and receive fewer allowances may not be dispatched if 

less-well-controlled plants receive more allowances and receive a cost advantage from 

allowance allocations.
#### Ezzie PALMER v. LOYOLA UNIVERSITY, et al.

No. 86-C-2514.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 30, 1987.

In re Loyola University, et al.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. CA-5154; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “C”, No. 84-415.

Prior report: La.App., 496 So.2d 421.

Denied. The Court of Appeal was correct in setting aside the summary judgment, but this Court does not necessarily agree with the reasons assigned.

*208DIXON, C.J., concurs, agreeing that the case must be remanded for trial on the merits on all the issues.

MARCUS, J., concurs in the denial.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2280 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2280

     To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on Polyol R6405.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   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 extend temporarily the suspension of duty on Polyol R6405.

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

SECTION 1. POLYOL R6405.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.23.98 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Polyol R6405) is amended by 
striking the date in the effective column period 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>
```
#### Sidney D. CLEMONS v. Paul MALLETT and Susie Mallett.

86-64.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Sept. 4, 1987.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 8, 1988.

Sidney D. Clemons, pro se.

William R. Justice, Columbiana, for the Malletts.

ADAMS, Justice.

This is a pro se appeal filed by defendant Sidney Clemons from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs Paul and Susie Mallett. The Malletts filed suit against Clemons on November 18, 1985, seeking an injunction requiring Clemons to remove a fence he had built on their property. The suit also sought damages for trespass. Clemons filed a counterclaim for abuse of process, extreme outrage, and assault.

*688Prior to these claims, these same parties had come before this Court, and we had affirmed the judgment in favor of the Malletts with regard to a description of their property. *Clemons v. Mallett,*445 So.2d 276 (Ala.1984). Clemons subsequently erected a fence, which a survey showed to be on the Malletts’ property. Clemons would not remove the fence, so the Mal-letts filed this suit to have him declared a. trespasser, and to have the fence removed. The court issued an injunction against Clemons, ordering him to remove the fence; enforcement was stayed pending the outcome of this appeal.

Much of Clemons’s brief is an attempt to relitigate the description in the trial court’s order that we held to be correct on the first appeal involving these parties. Suffice it to say that once an issue is determined on appeal, it cannot be relit-igated in the trial court.

We have likewise carefully looked at each of Clemons’s pro se arguments and find each one to be without merit. Most of this case falls within the ambit of the *ore tenus*rule. That rule is that the judgment of the trial court based on factual findings made by the court upon *ore tenus*testimony will not be overturned on appeal as long as it is supported by competent evidence and is not manifestly unjust or plainly or palpably erroneous. *Adams v. Adams,*346 So.2d 1146 (Ala.1977). The judgment of the trial court is due to be affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

TORBERT, C.J., and JONES, SHORES and STEAGALL, JJ„ concur.
III

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 138

Expressing the sense of Congress that a day of peace and sharing should

be established at the beginning of each year.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 21, 2000

Mr. WELLSTONE (for himself, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. MOYNIHAN, Mr. REID, and Ms. LANDRIEU) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress that a day of peace and

sharing should be established at the beginning of each year.

Whereas human progress in the 21st century will depend

upon global understanding and cooperation in finding

positive solutions to hunger and violence;

Whereas the turn of the millennium offers unparalleled opportunity for humanity to examine its past, set goals for

the future, and establish new patterns of behavior;

Whereas the people of the United States and the world observed the day designated by the United Nations General

Assembly as ‘‘One Day in Peace, January 1, 2000’’

(General Assembly Resolution 54/29);

Whereas the example set on that day ought to be recognized

globally and repeated each year;
2

•SCON 138 IS

Whereas the people of the United States seek to establish

better relations with one another and with the people of

all countries; and

Whereas celebration by the breaking of bread together traditionally has been the means by which individuals, societies, and nations join together in peace: Now, therefore,

be it

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that—

3 (1) each year should begin with a day of peace

4 and sharing during which—

5 (A) people around the world should gather

6 with family, friends, neighbors, their faith com7 munity, or people of another culture to pledge

8 nonviolence in the new year and to share in a

9 celebratory new year meal; and

10 (B) Americans who are able should match

11 or multiply the cost of their new year meal with

12 a timely gift to the hungry at home or abroad

13 in a tangible demonstration of a desire for in14 creased friendship and sharing among people

15 around the world; and

16 (2) the President should issue a proclamation

17 each year calling on the people of the United States

18 and interested organizations to observe such a day

19 with appropriate programs and activities.

Æ
#### Belsey Unemployment Compensation Case.

Argued December 14, 1961.

Before Rhodes, P. J., Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ.

*281
      *Harry R. Back,*for appellant, submitted a brief.

*Sydney Reuben,*Assistant Attorney General, with Mm *David Stahl,*Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee..

January 16, 1962:

Opinion by

Woodside, J.,

In this unemployment compensation case the bureau, referee and the board all concluded that the claimant was not attached to the labor market and was therefore disqualified from receiving benefits under Section 401(d) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 P.S. §801 (d).

The claimant was last employed by the Curtis Publishing Company, Philadelphia. He was involuntarily retired by that company on December 30, 1960. On September 29, 1960, the claimant became sixty-five years of age and began receiving Social Security benefits in the sum of $120 per month.

On February 15, 1961, claimant completed his unemployment compensation forms. He indicated on these forms that he was not available for work where his annual earnings would exceed $1200. This amount is the maximum the claimant could earn and still collect Social Security benefits.

Section 401(d) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, supra, provides: “Compensation shall be payable to any employe who is or becomes unemployed, and who — (d) Is able to work and available for suitable work: . . .”

The claimant removed the restrictions limiting his earnings on June 1, 1961, but this appeal involves the compensable weeks prior to that date, and is governed by the *Barron Unemployment Compensation Case,*192*282Pa. Superior Ct. 353, 161 A. 2d 630 (1960). In that case, at page 355, this Court said: “As the claimant desired only such employment as would limit her wages to $1200 per year, the board properly concluded that she was not available for suitable work and was, therefore, ineligible for compensation under §401 (d) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, supra.”

Decision affirmed.
- 1 - Alexander Van der Bellen Managing Director and

Associate General Counsel

Delta Air Lines, Inc.

1212 New York Avenue NW Washington, DC 20005

202.842.4184

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

September 10, 2010

via email and regulations.gov

Paul L. Gretch Director, Office of International Aviation U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE Washington, DC 20590

Re: Delta Air Lines, Inc. Seasonal Service Notification (Nashville-Cancun, Los Angeles-Puerto Vallarta)

Docket DOT-OST-2005-22228

Dear Mr. Gretch:

By Order 2010-3-12, Delta Air Lines, Inc. (“Delta”) was granted, inter alia, certificate authority toengage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail on the NashvilleCancun and Los Angeles-Puerto Vallarta routes. Pursuant to footnote 6 of Order 2010-3-12, Delta hereby provides notice to the Department that going forward Delta will provide service on the Nashville-Cancun and Los Angeles-Puerto Vallarta routes on a seasonal rather than on a year-round basis.

Respectfully submitted,

Alexander Van der Bellen

cc: esta.rosenberg@dot.gov; linda.lundell@dot.gov; brian.hedberg@dot.gov; info@airlineinfo.com; msinick@ssd.com; carl.nelson@aa.com; hkamen@coair.com; dan.weiss@coair.com; jhill@dowlohnes.com; robert.land@jetblue.com; jyoung@yklaw.com; dkirstein@yklaw.com; john.fredericksen@suncountry.com; jeffrey.manley@united.com; steve.morrissey@united.com; howard_kass@usairways.com; benjamin.slocum@usairways.com; pmurphy@l opmurphy.com; EFaberman@wileyrein.com; robert.cohn@hoganlovells.com; pa trick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com; barbara.russell@virginamerica.com
#### Gene Stephen WILSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 87-1354.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 4, 1988.

Michael E. Allen, Public Defender and David A. Davis, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, Michael Sigman, Orlando, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and William A. Hatch, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. Appellant has requested this court to correct the sentence document for Count III, delivery of a controlled substance, in that neither the concurrent nor the consecutive box was checked. We note that pursuant to section 921.16 Florida Statutes, where, as here, the court does not direct that the sentence be served consecutively, a defendant shall serve the sentences concurrently.

JOANOS, WIGGINTON and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1




                              Certification of CEO
                         pursuant to Section 906 of the
               Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 regarding Annual Report
                on Form 10-KSB for the year ended March 31, 2007

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby
certify that:

         1. The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal period
ended March 31, 2007, (the Form 10-KSB) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         2. Information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company for the periods presented herein.




Date:    August 29, 2007         By: /s/ Harmon H. Hardy
         -------------           --------------------------------
                                 Harmon H. Hardy
                                 Chief Executive Officer and
                                 Chief Financial Officer