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





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Atlas America Public #14-2004 L.P. (the
"Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Freddie
M. Kotek, Chief Executive Officer of the Managing General Partner, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
            the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and


(2)
            the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Partnership.





By:
            /s/ Freddie M.
      KotekName:
            Freddie
      M. KotekTitle:
            Chief
      Executive Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate:
            August
      12, 2008
391 A.2d 698

#### Commonwealth v. Shaw, Appellant.

Argued March 20, 1975.

R. Walton, Assistant Defender, with him Vincent J. Ziccardi, Defender, for appellant; H. Spaeth, Assistant District Attorney, with him F. *630Emmett Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

WATKINS, former P. J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
#### Commonwealth ex rel. Nichols, Appellant, *v.*Hendrick.

Argued March 20, 1962.

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

*Malcolm W. Berko witz,*for appellant.

*Arlen Specter,*Assistant District Attorney, with him *Arthur J. Marion,*Assistant District Attorney, *Paul M. Chalfin,*First Assistant District Attorney, and *James G. Grumlish, Jr.,*District Attorney, for appellee.

*647April 12, 1962:

Opinion by

Montgomery, J.,

In this appeal from the dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, relator-appellant contends that he was denied due process as guaranteed by article I, section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, by the Due Process and Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, and also by the Magistrates’ Court Act of 1937, Act of June 15, 1937, P. L. 1743, No. 368, §§1-14, 42 P.S. 1101-1114 (PP). In support of his contention he assigns alleged irregularities relating to a preliminary hearing conducted in connection with a criminal proceeding wherein he was charged with larceny of an automobile and operating a motor vehicle without the consent of the owner. As a result of that hearing he was held for grand jury action, and committed in default of $1,000 bail, set by the magistrate.

Following a hearing on his petition for the writ, the lower court (Weinrott, J.) concluded that relator was not illegally detained and that he was not denied due process of law; and dismissed the petition. This appeal followed.

This appeal must be dismissed as interlocutory and as not involving any jurisdictional or constitutional question. In *Commonwealth ex rel. Nichols v.*Lederer, 193 Pa. Superior Ct. 482, 165 A. 2d 711, affirmed 404 Pa. 218, 172 A. 2d 319, we held appeals such as this to be interlocutory. In *Commonwealth v.*O’Brien, 181 Pa. Superior Ct. 382, 124 A. 2d 666, this Court held that a similar relator was not deprived of any constitutional rights because he had not been afforded a preliminary hearing in a criminal matter. Jurisdiction is not questioned, therefore *Commonwealth ex rel. DiDio v. Baldi,*176 Pa. Superior Ct. 119, 106 A. 2d 910, does not apply.

Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32
 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Naugatuck Valley Financial Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, John C. Roman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Lee R. Schlesinger, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by 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 result of operations of the Company as of the date and for the period covered by the Report.
 
 
 /s/ John C. Roman
 John C. Roman
 President and Chief Executive Officer
 (principal executive officer)
 
 /s/ Lee R. Schlesinger
 Lee R. Schlesinger
 Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
 (principal financial officer)
 
 
 Date: May 14, 2010
EAA Aviation Center ▪ PO Box 3086, Oshkosh, WI 54903-3086 ▪ Ph: 920-426-4800 ▪ Fax: 920-426-6560 ▪ www.eaa.org

October 13, 2010

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

400 7th Street S.W., Room PL 401

Washington, DC, 20591-0001

Dear Sirs:

Reference: Renewal of DOT Docket No. FAA-2001-9352, FAA Exemption 5745G, IAC 

Aerobatic Aircraft Fuel Reserve (14 CFR part 91.151(a)(1)).

EAA (Experimental Aircraft Association) is the world leader in recreational aviation. With an 

international membership of 170,000 people in more than 112 nations, EAA brings together 

aviation enthusiasts, pilots and aircraft owners who are dedicated to the continued growth of 

aviation, the preservation of its history and a commitment to aviation’s future. EAA programs, 

activities and events are known throughout the world for Preserving the heritage of aviation, 

Promoting access to flight, Protecting the right to fly, Preparing the future of aviation, and of 

our Passion for aviation safety and education.

The International Aerobatic Club (IAC) was formed in 1970 for the purpose of formalizing the 

Experimental Aircraft Association’s (EAA) Precision Flying Division into a true membership 

organization, to write the rules and to set up the corporate structure to promote "grass roots" 

aerobatics. Included within that purpose was to encourage the development of the basic skills 

needed in aerobatic flying through the creation of a "building block" system of aerobatic 

competition categories - what became the Sportsman, Intermediate, Advanced and Unlimited 

levels. These categories remain in place today with a Primary category added in the early 1990’s.

During a recent review of existing exemptions EAA and the IAC discovered that we had allowed 

this exemption to expire due to an oversight on our part. On August 22, 2009 IAC President 

Vicki Cruse died in England while participating in the World Aerobatic Championships. This 

tragedy and the ensuing change of leadership within IAC resulted in us missing submitting a 

renewal request for FAA Exemption 5745G.

The reasons regarding public interest and safety, as presented in the original petition dated 

March 8, 1979 (FAA Exemption No. 2689) through the most recent past renewal request dated 

September 28, 2007 (FAA Exemption No. 5745G) remain unchanged. 

EAA and IAC request Exemption 5745 be renewed for another 2-years.

Sincerely,

/s/

Randy Hansen

Government Relations Director
1 0 November, 2015 

## u.s, Department 

### qfTransportation 

### OgQket Operations

**y,jf:~t** 6uilding Ground Flo9r, Room **W12~140** 

### 1200 New
**Jer~ey** Avenue, 

### sg.,

**W~§hir:~ton** DC 20ti90 Subject Reqyestforan extension to Exemption No. 

### 10918A, Docket numb!9r FAA-2013-0779 Dear Sir/Madam, 

# OTbital 

# Anfl> Orbital Sciences Corporation, owner ofa Lockheed 

### L1011 Full Flight Simulator (FF$), 

### FAA#0049, respectfully requests a six month exten&ion to exemption 10918A, which expires on December 31, 2015. Reason forExtensionRequest: We continue

### to experience technical difficulties that are delaying the operation and 9ertification process. Orbital ATK has continued to strive with great determination and commitment

### to make the L1011 FFS operational. We have been plagued with simulator host computersoftw1;3re failures stemming from old hard drivesthat have proven to be unreliable. Our intent is to replace the legacy hard drives with digital systems. That notwithstanding, the certification deadline compels us to find 

### a way to make the existing components workso thatwe can obtain certification priorto making major modifications. We are pleased to reportthat, recently, Delta Air Lines has provided simulatorengineering support.

**Th~ir** k!'IOWiedge and experience with this particular simulator has proven to be invah,Jable with respect to 

### f!\lP!ilirlng and rebuilding the software. However, the technical issues combined with the **N!;)v~mb~r/December** holiday schedule has placed us in the **~mwanted** position of requesting an

**~~~f!~lf;)f'!** to exemption No. 10918Afrom December 31, 2015, to June 30, 2016. Jys!ification in 

### the public.interest: The originaljustification forthis exemption with respectto the Pegasus air launch satellite insertion vehicle is still pertinent. NASA has two satellites scheduled 

### for launch 

### on the Pegasus/L

### 1011 in 2016 and 2017, and a potential launch in 2019, Other governmentair launch programs are also under review, expanding the benefit of having the simulatorfor launch preparation flights. We arejust now beginning the flighttraining in preparation for launch ofthe CYGNSS space eraft from Cape Kennedy in October, 2016. Thankyou foryour consideration ofthis request. Please contact me should you have any questions.



# ;)4 Edward Dunlap Manager, L 1 011 Operations Orbital ATK 

### PO BOX 1087, Mojave. CA **93502~1087 (ilQW~rd.dunlap@ort>italatk.com**  

### LIPi" 1
**f,)11~009** Orbital S9iences Corporation" 45101 Warp Drive, Dulles, Virginia 20166 • {703) **406~6000**
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

RIVERSIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Respondent

v.

RIVERSIDE EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT 

PERSONNEL ASSOCIATION ESP-PSEANEA,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 625 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 28th day of April, 2021, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 96

Expressing the sense of Congress that the People’s Republic of China should

release immediately the crew members of the United States Navy EP–

3E Aries II reconnaissance aircraft that made an emergency landing

on the Chinese island of Hainan on April 1, 2001, and should release

immediately and intact that aircraft in accordance with international

law.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 3, 2001

Mr. TRAFICANT submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on International Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress that the People’s Republic

of China should release immediately the crew members

of the United States Navy EP–3E Aries II reconnaissance aircraft that made an emergency landing on the

Chinese island of Hainan on April 1, 2001, and should

release immediately and intact that aircraft in accordance with international law.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that the Gov3 ernment of the People’s Republic of China should release

4 immediately the crew members of the United States Navy
2

•HCON 96 IH

1 EP–3E Aries II reconnaissance aircraft that made an

2 emergency landing on the Chinese island of Hainan on

3 April 1, 2001, and should release immediately and intact

4 such aircraft in accordance with international law.

Æ
**
**Exhibit 15.3**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Report on Form 20-F (the “Report”) of our report dated March 29, 2021, relating to thefinancial statements of Spartan Acquisition Corp. III, (“Spartan”) which is contained in Amendment No. 3 to the registration statement on Form F-4 (SEC # 333-259916) filed by Athena N.V. on February 2, 2022. We also consent to thereference to us under the caption “Experts” in the Report. 

/s/ WithumSmith+Brown, PC 

New York, New York 

March 22, 2022 
**
IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 210

Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the establishment of a Disability

Arts Month.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 2, 2001

Mr. FROST submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on Government Reform

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the

establishment of a Disability Arts Month.

Whereas the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public

Law 101–336) guarantees equal rights and equal opportunity to more than 54,000,000 American citizens with

disabilities;

Whereas people of all ages can benefit from exposure to the

arts;

Whereas exposure to the arts can enhance a person’s success

in school, work, and relations with others;

Whereas exposure to the arts promotes a deeper understanding of the diversity and richness of human experience; and
2

•HCON 210 IH

Whereas the establishment of a Disability Arts Month would

provide an opportunity to recognize and reflect on the

many accomplishments of American artists with disabilities who have greatly enhanced the quality of life of the

people of the United States: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

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

3 (1) a Disability Arts Month should be estab4 lished; and

5 (2) the President should issue a proclamation

6 calling on the people of the United States to observe

7 such a month with appropriate programs and activi8 ties.

Æ
#### Vic LANDRY v. PAULI’S INCORPORATED.

No. 86-C-2505.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 23, 1987.

In re Landry, Vic; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 86-CA-232; Parish of Jefferson, First Parish Court, Div. “B”, No. 69013.

Prior report: La.App., 496 So.2d 431.

Denied.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 27, 2017. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, June 27, 2017 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A17D0475. MIRIAM FAJARDO-GUEVARA v. ACE HOMES LLC. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 17A01236
107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 299

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the two Houses of Congress assemble

3 in the Hall of the House of Representatives on Tuesday,

4 January 29, 2002, at 9 p.m., for the purpose of receiving
2

•HCON 299 EH

1 such communication as the President of the United States

2 shall be pleased to make to them.

Passed the House of Representatives January 23,

2002.

Attest:

Clerk.
107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 299

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for a joint session of Congress to receive

a message from the President on the state of theUnion.
#### Pamela Sue BUSH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. M-80-641.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

March 5, 1981.

*634Municipal Counselor, Ada, for appellee.

Lewis Watson, Ada, for appellant.

ORDER

The appellant was convicted in the Municipal Court Not of Record of the City of Ada, Oklahoma, of Disobeying a Lawful Order, their Case No. 160-9038. An appeal was taken to the District Court of Pontotoc County, Case No. CRM-79-853, in accordance with Laws 1977, c. 256, § 27-129, now 11 O.S.Supp.1980, § 27-129, and the district court affirmed the decision of the municipal court. The appellant now comes before this Court in accordance with Laws 1978, c. 248, § 1, now 11 O.S.Supp.1980, § 27-132.

The original record includes a certified copy of the district court minute, which minute was entered on June 25, 1980, and filed in the district court clerk’s office on June 26, 1980.

According to the Rules of this Court, judgment and sentence is “[t]he *formal*instrument which reflects the judgment and sentence of the trial court and the date it was pronounced.” 52 O.B.J. 52 (January 17, 1981), Rule 1.13(A) at 54. The district court clerk is responsible for including a certified copy of the judgment and sentence in the original record, Rule 2.2(A); and the attorney perfecting the appeal is ultimately responsible for the contents of the original record, Rule 2.4(A). A court minute is not equivalent to a formal judgment and sentence, and the formal judgment and sentence, signed by the judge, is not only the best evidence of the conviction, but also that document which is necessary to perfect an appeal. See *Stacey v. State,*79 Okl.Cr. 417, 155 P.2d 736 (1945).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the appellant file in this Court, Appeal No. M-80-641, a certified copy of a formal and final judgment and sentence entered by the District Court of Pontotoc County, Case No. CRM-79-853, within ten (10) days from the date of this order or alternatively show cause why this case should not be dismissed, IT Ig g0 ORDERED.

WITNESS OUR HANDS and the Seal of this Court this 5th day of March, 1981.

TOM BRETT, P. J.

HEZ J. BUSSEY, J.

TOM R. CORNISH, J.
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed December 10, 2014

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D14-909

Lower Tribunal No. 09-41553

________________



### Carieann M. Schmieder

, Appellant,

vs.



### NCL America, Inc.

, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Stanford Blake

, Judge.

Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, and Michael A. Winkleman and

Jacqueline Garcell

, for appellant.

McAlpin Conroy, and Richard J. McAlpin and Kassandra C. Doyle

, for

appellee.

Before SHEPHERD, C.J., and ROTHENBERG and EMAS, JJ.

SHEPHERD, C.J.Carieann M. Schmieder appeals from orders dismissing her negligence claim

for fraud on the court and a final judgment awarding NCL America, Inc.,

attorney’s fees and costs. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the order

dismissing Ms. Schmieder’s claim. NCL America, Inc., however, has conceded

error in the award of attorney’s fees and costs predicated upon section 768.79,

Florida Statutes (2013), which this Court has ruled inapplicable in admiralty cases.

See Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Cox

, 137 So. 3d 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014),

rev. dismissed

, 145 So. 3d 822 (Fla. 2014). 1 Accordingly, we reverse the judgment

awarding attorney’s fees and remand the award of costs to the trial court for

reconsideration.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded.

1 The trial court did not have the benefit of this Court’s holding in Cox

.

2
[No. 14023-7-III.

Division Three.

June 25, 1996.]

#### The City of Prosser, *Respondent,*v. Lyle R. Ratcliffe, et al., *Appellants.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Benton County, No. 90-2-00262-1, Fred R. Staples, J., entered March 31, 1994. *Dismissed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER 

Appellate case name: Carolyn James, Individually and As Next of Friend of Her Mother, 

Mary Olive Calkins v. Linda Carol Goehrs

Appellate case number: 01-12-00445-CV

Trial court case number: 0875812A

Trial court: 61st District Court of Harris County

The parties are ordered to file a supplemental brief responding to the following questions. 

Questions directed to Appellant James:

1. It is your contention that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the probate court had 

exclusive jurisdiction?

2. Do you agree that the trial court should have dismissed the case, even if you disagree 

with the other party on the proper rationale or vehicle for dismissal?

Questions directed to Appellee Ghoers:

1. Is it your contention that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because James lacked standing 

and, therefore, James’s counterclaims should have been dismissed?

2. Do you agree that the trial court should have dismissed the case, even if you disagree 

with the other party on the proper rationale or vehicle for dismissal?

Questions for both parties:

3. If you answered “yes” to both questions addressed to you above, do you contend that the 

proper resolution is a dismissal without prejudice to either party?

4. Does this Court need to determine the proper basis for dismissal to affirm a dismissal? If 

so, why?

The briefs may not exceed 5 pages in length. Both parties’ briefs are due no later than 

Wednesday, December 11, 2013, at 9:00 A.M.

Neither party is permitted to file a response to the supplemental brief of the other, absent 

leave of court.

It is ORDERED.
Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: December 9, 2013
U. S. Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Marketing Service

NOTICE OF SALE OF COTTON

FOR RELEASE AT 2:00 P.M. CT February 7, 2020

USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service today announced the sale of Cotton. The cotton bales were sold under 

Invitation 2020U0037 dated February 7, 2020.

Invitation 2020U0037

Catalog Lot 

No. 

Catalog 

Location Purchaser Pounds Sold 

Price Sold (per 

Pound) CCC Revenue 

8 MEMPHIS, TN Brighann Marketing Inc 494 0.3004 $148.40 

16 MEMPHIS, TN Brighann Marketing Inc 502 0.3004 $150.80 

23 GREENWOOD, 

MS Brighann Marketing Inc 2,381 0.3004 $715.25 

28 GREENWOOD, 

MS Brighann Marketing Inc 4,417 0.3004 $1,326.87 

7,794 $2,341.32