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





CERTIFICATION





PURSUANT
TO RULE 13A-14(B) OR RULE 15D-14(B)





OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of EPL Intermediate, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen
E. Carley, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to §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 result of operations of the
      Company.





Date: May
12, 2009





/s/ Stephen E. CarleyStephen
      E. CarleyPresidentEPL
      Intermediate, Inc.





This
certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and not
for any other purpose. A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided to EPL Intermediate, Inc. and will be retained by
EPL Intermediate, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DINAH JONES and WILLIAM §

POTTER, §

§ No. 442, 2016

Plaintiffs Below, §

Appellants, § Court Below: Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

v. § 

§ C.A. No. N14C-12-159

CLYDE SPINELLI, LLC., dba, §

PINE VALLEY APARTMENTS, § 

§

Defendants Below, §

Appellees. §

Submitted: March 15, 2017

Decided: March 16, 2017

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN and SEITZ, Justices.

O R D E R

This 16th day of March 2017, it appears to the Court that the judgment of 

the Superior Court should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons assigned 

in its Order dated July 8, 2016.

1

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 

Court is hereby AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice 

 

1

Jones v. Spinelli, C.A. No. N14C-12-159 (Del. Super. Jul. 8, 2016) (ORDER).
Table 1 from Sierra Club and Earth Justice Comments

Annual Unit Generation Number of Units Total Generation (MMWh/yr) Number in Study

0.1- 1 million MWh 361 174 6

1-2 million MWh 125 179 6

2-3 million MWh 102 253 9

3-4 million MWh 114 395 14

4-5 million MWh 50 221 8

5-9million MWh 42 253 9
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7379

EDDIE DEAN PANNELL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-00-706-2)

Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 4, 2002

Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eddie Dean Pannell, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Eddie Dean Pannell appeals the district court’s order denying

his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001) petition as

untimely filed. We have reviewed the record, the district court’s

opinion, and Pannell’s informal appellate brief. Because Pannell

failed to challenge on appeal the basis for the district court’s

ruling, he has not preserved this issue for our review. 4th Cir.

R. 34(b). In any event, it is clear that the district court correctly found Pannell’s § 2254 petition untimely. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We

also deny Pannell’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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.

DISMISSED
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

Federal Aviation 

Administration

Flight Standards Service 

Civil Aviation Registry, AFS-700 

P.O. Box 25504 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125-0504 

(405) 954-3116 

WEB Address: http://registry.faa.gov 

AFS-700-LTR-1 (01/14) 

 

 

 

May 5, 2014 

Mr. Hans-Gunter Vosseler 

Blackbird Aviation, LLC 

8600 Airport Blvd. 

Leesburg, Fl. 34788 

Dear Mr. Vosseler: 

This is in response to your letter received January 24, 2014, sent to the public docket 

(No. FAA-2014-0044) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf 

of Blackbird Aviation LLC (Blackbird) for an exemption from Subpart C §47.65 of Title 

14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow 

Blackbird to obtain a Dealer’s Aircraft Registration Certificate (dealer’s certificate) 

without meeting the U.S. citizenship definition of Title 49 United States Code (49 USC) 

40102(a)(15) and 14 CFR §47.2. 

As stated in 14 CFR §47.61(b), “A Dealer’s Aircraft Registration Certificate is an 

alternative for the Certificate of Aircraft Registration issued under Subpart B (part 47).” 

Historically, the Civil Aviation Registry, Aircraft Registration Branch (Registry), has 

interpreted this language to mean that in making the decision whether to issue a dealer’s 

certificate, a favorable determination must be made that finds the applicant is also eligible 

for a Certificate of Aircraft Registration (aircraft certificate) under Subpart B of part 47. 

The Registry has consistently applied the same alternative form of registration 

requirement, under Subpart B, when considering petitions for exemption from the U.S. 

citizenship requirement of 14 CFR §47.65. 

Based on Blackbird’s petition for exemption, it appears you are aware that non-citizen 

limited liability companies are not eligible for a Certificate of Aircraft Registration or a 

Dealer’s Aircraft Registration Certificate, absent the FAA granting an exemption to the 

U.S. citizenship requirement of 14 CFR §47.65. 

With respect to petitions for exemption of the U.S. citizenship requirement of §47.65, it 

has been the historical practice of the Registry to only grant such exemptions when the 

petitioner is a non-citizen corporation. The Registry has granted exemptions to noncitizen corporations because non-citizen corporations are alternatively eligible for 

registration under 14 CFR §47.3(a). Unlike non-citizen corporations, Blackbird is a noncitizen LLC that is not alternatively eligible for registration under 14 CFR §47.3(a). 
2 

AFS-14-134-E 

Based on our review of your petition for exemption, and the applicable statutes and 

regulations, the issuance of an exemption from the U.S. citizenship requirement of 14 

CFR §47.65, to a non-citizen LLC, would be inconsistent with the Federal Aviation 

Regulations, statutes, and prior practices of the Registry. 

In light of the foregoing, no further action will be taken on your request. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

John G. Bent 

Manager, Civil Aviation Registry
EXHIBIT 99.03

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                               ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Annual Report of New Frontier Media, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
Weiner, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 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)
and 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/ Michael Weiner
------------------------------------
Michael Weiner
President
June 27, 2003











A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to New Frontier Media, Inc. and will be retained by New Frontier Media,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-23-00182-CR

Alejandro Garcia

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

187th District Court of Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2022CR4999

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

December 7, 2023
EXHIBIT 32.02

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of New Frontier Media, Inc., a Colorado company (the “Company”), hereby certifies that, to her knowledge on the date hereof:

(a) the Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2007, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(b) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Karyn L. MillerChief Financial Officer

June 14, 2007
Aug. 13, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management Sy stem 1200 New Jersey

Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 Re: Amendment to Exemption 11842 ProFly Drones DJ I S1000 This is a request for an amendment to Exemption No. 11842 Regulatory Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 1148 , granted to ProFl y Drones . This amendment will provide for the addition of the DJ I S1000 multirotor sUAS aircraft to the inventory of approved aircraft for use during VLOS operations currentl y covered under Exemption 11842 . These airframes are commerciall y available to the general public, as are all components used to complete them. In addition, all configurations of these components follow standard, well established practices. No aspect of these aircraft is proprietary to ProFly Drones in design or manufacture.
DJI Innovations Model S1000 N570CT S1000 Operation manual : http://download.dji - innovations.com/downloads/s1000 _plus/en/S1000_Plus_release_note_en.pdf
#### GENINA MARINE SERVICES, INC. v. MOBIL OIL EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION SOUTHEAST, INC.

No. 87-C-1112.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 12, 1987.

In re Genina Marine Services, Inc.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CA86 0298; Parish of St. Mary, 16th Judicial District Court, Div. “C”, No. 72750.

Denied.
Exhibit 32.1





SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS




This Certificate is being delivered pursuant to the requirements of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud) of Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedures) of the United States Code and shall not be relied on by any person for any other purpose.




The undersigned, who are (i) the Chief Executive Officer of UMTH Land Development, L.P., the general partner of United Development Funding III, L.P. (the “Partnership”) and (ii) the Chief Financial Officer of UMTH Land Development, L.P., the general partner of the Partnership, each hereby certify as follows:




The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Partnership (the “Report”), which accompanies this Certificate, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and all information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.









Dated this 17th day of May, 2010.










/s/ Hollis M. Greenlaw
 Hollis M. Greenlaw
 Chief Executive Officer of UMTH Land Development, L.P., sole general partner of theRegistrant, and President and Chief Executive Officer of UMT Services, Inc., sole general partner of UMTH Land Development, L.P.
 
 
 /s/ Cara D. Obert
 Cara D. Obert
 Chief Financial Officer of UMTH Land Development, L.P., sole general partner of the Registrant
 
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT
      32.1





CERTIFICATION





PURSUANT
      TO RULE 13A-14(B) OR RULE 15D-14(B)





OF
      THE
      SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of EPL Intermediate, Inc. (the "Company")
      on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 24, 2008 as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen
      E. Carley, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
      adopted pursuant to §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 result of operations of the
                Company.




Date:
      November 7, 2008





/s/
                Stephen E. CarleyStephen
                E. CarleyPresidentEPL
                Intermediate, Inc.





This
      certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and
      not
      for any other purpose. A signed original of this written statement required
      by
      Section 906 has been provided to EPL Intermediate, Inc. and will be retained
      by
      EPL Intermediate, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or its staff upon request.
IIA

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 50

To disapprove a final rule promulgated by the Environmental Protection

Agency concerning water pollution.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 17, 2000

Mr. CRAPO (for himself, Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire, Mr. HUTCHINSON,

Mr. CRAIG, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. COVERDELL, Mr. ENZI, Mr. GRAMM, and

Mr. INHOFE) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read

twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

JOINT RESOLUTION

To disapprove a final rule promulgated by the Environmental

Protection Agency concerning water pollution.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the En4 vironmental Protection Agency relating to water pollution

5 under the total maximum daily load program (65 Fed.

6 Reg. 43586), and such rule shall have no force or effect.

Æ
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA- 2011 - 0385 Directorate Identifier: 2010NM256AD

MMEL TR 01 -27/04Z, I2 --- 7/09 MMEL TR 01 -27/05Z, I2 --- 7/09 SAGEM 418 - 27 - 011, R1 --- 1/28/10 SAGEM 6259 - 27 - 006, R1 --- 6/23/10

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Suppleme ntal AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 03/05/2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                               5


<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                  147,739
<SECURITIES>                            715,000
<RECEIVABLES>                           736,937
<ALLOWANCES>                            (50,391)
<INVENTORY>                             203,765
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        1,954,958
<PP&E>                                  1,161,122
<DEPRECIATION>                          (1,009,964)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          5,519,648
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   6,401,218
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             240,000
<COMMON>                                669,143
<OTHER-SE>                              (3,426,038)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            5,519,648
<SALES>                                 6,071,011
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        6,071,011
<CGS>                                   5,982,142
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           10,491,667
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        26,690
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      177,411
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (10,553,519)
<INCOME-TAX>                            800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (10,554,319)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                            (10,554,319)
<EPS-BASIC>                             (.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (.20)


</TABLE>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16
- 2297

RONNIE LEE ALSTON , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. OURISMAN CHEVROLET “ET AL” , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Paula Xinis , District Judge. ( 8:15

- cv
- 03740

- PX )

No. 16
- 2298

In re: RONNIE LEE ALSTON,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (8:15

- cv
- 03740

- PX)

Submitted : March 30 , 2017 Decided: April 3, 2017

Before TRAXLER and WYNN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.2 No. 16

- 2297, Dismissed; No. 16

- 2298, Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.
Ronnie Lee Alston, Appellant; Petitioner Pro Se. Richard W. Evans, MCCARTHY WILSON, LLP, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated proceedings, Ronnie Lee Alston seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice hi s amended complaint for fail ure to state a
claim , and petitions for a writ of mandamus related to that case

. Alston asks that the writ
of mandamus instruct the district court to assign a different judge to his underlying case, require the return of seized property, order discovery, and set a trial date. Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.”
Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). Here, t he district court’s order was entered on the docket on September 16, 2016

. The notice of appeal was filed 45 days later , on October 31, 2016 . Because Alston failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal in No. 16

- 2297 for lack of jurisdiction. Additionally, we conclude that Alston has not met any of the requirements for the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See United States v. Moussaoui , 333 F.3d 509, 516

- 17 (4th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny mandamus relief in No. 16

- 2298. We dispense with oral argument in these4 proceedings because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional pr ocess.
No. 16

- 2297, DISMISSED , No. 16

- 2298, PETITION DENIED
EXHIBIT 32.1




                              Certification of CEO
           pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
          regarding Quarterly Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended
                                 March 31, 2003

         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, 2004, (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:    June 21, 2006            By:       /s/ Harmon H. Hardy
         -------------            --------------------------------
                                  Harmon H. Hardy
                                  Chief Executive Officer and
                                  Chief Financial Officer