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



Certification Pursuant to Section 906

of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Direct Digital
Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2021, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark Walker, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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 Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|Date: | March 31, 2022 | /s/
    Mark Walker                 
|----- | -------------- | ------------------------------------
|      |                | Mark Walker,                        
|      |                | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|      |                | (Principal Executive Officer)
Dolan Chemical Laboratory 4001 Bixby Road Groveport, OH 43125 T: 614-836-4221, Audinet 210-4221 F: 614-836-4168, Audinet 210-4168 http://aepenv/labs 

## Water Analysis

Location: Mountaineer Plant Report Date: 2/15/2012 Sample Number: 120671-001 Date Collected:02/09/2012 08:00 Date Received:2/10/2012 

### 1st Stage Feed Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL ug/L Selenium, Se 370 0.5 DPC EPA 200.8 0.1 02/14/2012 12:54 

### Sample Number: 120671-002 Date Collected:02/09/2012 08:00 Date Received:2/10/2012 

## 2nd Stage Feed Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL ug/L Selenium, Se 15.6 0.5 DPC EPA 200.8 0.1 02/14/2012 12:59 

### Sample Number: 120671-003 Date Collected:02/09/2012 08:00 Date Received:2/10/2012 

## Bioreactor Effluent Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL ug/L Selenium, Se 1.41 0.5 DPC EPA 200.8 0.1 02/14/2012 13:04 

### Sample Number: 120671-004 Date Collected:02/10/2012 07:45 Date Received:2/10/2012 

## 1st Stage Feed Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL ug/L Selenium, Se 399 0.5 DPC EPA 200.8 0.1 02/14/2012 13:08 

### Sample Number: 120671-005 Date Collected:02/10/2012 07:45 Date Received:2/10/2012 

### 2nd Stage Feed Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL ug/L Selenium, Se 6.74 0.5 DPC EPA 200.8 0.1 02/14/2012 13:13 

### Sample Number: 120671-006 Date Collected:02/10/2012 07:45 Date Received:2/10/2012 

## Bioreactor Effluent Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL ug/L Selenium, Se 1.42 0.5 DPC EPA 200.8 0.1 02/14/2012 13:18

THIS TEST REPORT RELATES ONLY TO THE ITEMS TESTED AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL WITHOUT WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE LABORATORY. ALL TEST RESULTS MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACCREDITING AUTHORITY, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

Brian Snyder, Chemist II Email bssnyder@aep.com Tel. 614-836-4224 Fax 614-836-4168 Audinet 210-4224

Mountaineer Plant, 120671 Page 1 of 1
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 June 1, 2016

s0525

Order 

Clerk

June 1, 2016

151947 & (12)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 151947

COA: 326885

Antrim CC: 14-004665-FH

MATTHEW JAMES TROJANEK,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 27, 2015 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for 

consideration, as on leave granted, of the issues not addressed by that court during its 

initial review of this case. With regard to the defendant’s challenge to costs, leave to 

appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be 

reviewed by this Court prior to the completion of the proceedings ordered by the Court of 

Appeals. The motion to amend the application for leave to appeal is DENIED.
III 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 592 

Designating October 9, 2018, as ‘‘National Ada Lovelace Day’’ and honoring 

the life and legacy of Ada Lovelace, the first computer programmer. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 25, 2018 

Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mrs. FISCHER) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating October 9, 2018, as ‘‘National Ada Lovelace 

Day’’ and honoring the life and legacy of Ada Lovelace, 

the first computer programmer. 

Whereas Augusta Ada King-Noel, Countess of Lovelace, now 

known as Ada Lovelace, was born on December 10, 1815, 

in London, United Kingdom; 

Whereas, from a young age, Lovelace displayed a gift for 

mathematics, languages, and the sciences; 

Whereas, at the age of 17, Lovelace began to study mathematics under the guidance of scientist and translator 

Mary Somerville and, later, logician Augustus de Morgan; 

Whereas, in 1833, Lovelace was introduced to inventor and 

mechanical engineer, Charles Babbage, and began to 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 592 ATS 

study his designs for the Analytical Engine, a mechanical 

computer; 

Whereas Lovelace was the first person to recognize that the 

Analytical Engine could be used to manipulate symbols 

and letters and was the first person to theorize that the 

Analytical Engine could be used to create music and 

graphics; 

Whereas, in 1843, Lovelace published step-by-step instructions for using the Analytical Engine to calculate Bernoulli numbers ‘‘without having been worked out by 

human head and hands first’’; 

Whereas these insights gave Lovelace an unparalleled vision 

of the future of computer science, and she stated that 

‘‘[a] new, a vast and a powerful language is [being] developed for the future use of analysis, in which to wield 

its truths so that these may become of more speedy and 

accurate practical application for the purposes of mankind’’; 

Whereas the work of Lovelace went widely unrecognized until 

the 1950s, when her papers were republished, and their 

significance and her contributions to the fields of computer science and mathematics were finally acknowledged; 

Whereas, in the 1980s, to honor the contributions of 

Lovelace, the Department of Defense named its newly 

created computer language ‘‘Ada’’ after Lovelace; 

Whereas the second Tuesday in October is annually celebrated as Ada Lovelace Day and is intended to honor 

women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and their accomplishments and contributions to 

academia and the world; and 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 592 ATS 

Whereas Ada Lovelace died on November 27, 1852, leaving 

behind a legacy of poetic science and reasoning, in which 

the arts and sciences are woven together to find new insights: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates October 9, 2018, as ‘‘National 

3 Ada Lovelace Day’’; and 

4 (2) honors the life and contributions of Ada 

5 Lovelace, a leading woman in science and mathe6 matics and the first computer programmer. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 30, 2013

h0923

Order 

Clerk

September 30, 2013

147258 & (14)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147258

COA: 313808

Saginaw CC: 76-000293-FY

ROGER L. LYLES,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to add issues is GRANTED. The application for 

leave to appeal the February 28, 2013 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it 

is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by 

MCR 6.502(G).
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 29, 2010 

jam 

Order 

 

April 29, 2010 

140997 (22) 

PAULA ANN NICE, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140997 

 COA: 295543 

MICHAEL KENNETH FRY, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

___________________________________ 

 On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it 

is DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be 

liable for filing fees. 

 Within 21 days of the certification of this order, defendant shall pay to the 

Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $4.00, shall submit a copy of this order 

with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned 

with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being 

filed in this Court. 

 If defendant timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly 

payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of 

the deposits made to defendant’s account until the payments equal the balance due of 

$371.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court. 

 Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) defendant shall not file further appeals in 

this Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. 

 The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to defendant 

and return defendant’s pleadings with this order.
# allegiant'" August 22, 2014 U.S. Department ofTransportation Docket Operations, M-30 West Building, Ground Floor Room W12-140 1200 New JerseyAvenue SE Washington, DC 20590 RE: Docket No. FAA-2014-0451; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-122-AD 

# • To Whom It May Concern; AllegiantAir requests the FAA note thatthe proposedAD is related to AD 2007- 10-04. Per Boeing SB MD80-55A070, any cracks found during inspection will affect compliance with FAAAD 2007-10-04.Additionally, current aircraft status ofBoeing SB MD80-55A065, as referenced in AD 2007-10-04, provides configuration definition to the proposed rulemakingperthe table in Boeing SB MD80-55A, para l.A. Respectfully Submitted,

Christopher House Manager, Governmental Affairs Allegiant Travel Company


# •• ••••

·.. 

### .... .
..... .0:
8360 S. Durango Drive · Las Vegas, Nevada 89113 " 702.851.7300 702.851.7301 allegiant.com
# In the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

══════════ No. WR

- 92,376

- 02

══════════

EX PARTE OSCEAS CANTU , Applicant

═══════════════════════════════════════

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. 2015

- DCR

- 00 691

- C IN THE 197 th DISTRICT COURT FROM CAMERON COUNTY

═══════════════════════════════════════

Y EARY , J., filed a concurring opinion , in which S LAUGHTER , J., joined.

Applicant was convicted in 201 5 of Continuous Sexual Abuse of a Child and sentenced to 7 5 years’ imprisonment. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Cantu v. State , No. 13

- 16

- 00002

- CR (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi

- Edinburgh July 13, 2017) (not designatedCantu

– 2

for publication).
In May of 2022, Applicant filed an application for writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction. T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC . art. 11.07. In his application, he alleges ineffective assistance of trial counsel, new scientific evidence, and false testimony

. Today, the Court remands this application to the trial court to further develop the record. I join the Court’s remand order. But I write separately to address my thoughts concerning the doctrine of laches and its possible application to this case. See Ex parte Smith , 444 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (holding a trial court has the authority to sua sponte consider the doctrine of laches); Ex parte Bazille , ___ S.W.3d ___,
No. WR

- 89,851

- 02, 2022 WL 108348 (Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 12, 2022) (Yeary, J., concurring).
The doctr ine of laches ought to be considered in a case like this one. Applicant’s trial occurred in 201 5 , but this writ application was not filed until almost 7 years later. 1 The record is also silent regarding circumstances that may excuse Applicant’s delay

. A t least some explanation for the long delay in filing should be provided. Consistent with this Court’s precedent, the trial court “ may sua sponte consider and determine whether laches should bar relief.” Smith , 444 S.W.3d at 667. If the trial court does so, it must give Applicant the opportunity to explain the reasons for the delay and give the State’s

1 “Our revised approach will permit courts to more broadly consider the diminished memories of trial participants and the diminished availability of the State’s evidence, both of which may often be said to occur beyond five years after a conviction becomes final.” Ex parte Perez , 398 S.W.3d 206, 216 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (citing Ex parte Steptoe , 132 S.W.3d 434, 437

– 39 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (Cochran, J., dissenting)).Cantu

– 3

prosecutors and/or former counsel for Applicant an opportunity to state whether Applicant’s delay has caused any prejudice to their ability to defend against Applicant’s claims. Id. at 670. And ultimately, the trial court may include findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning the doctrine of laches in its response to this Court’s remand order. With these additional thoughts, I join the Court’s order.

FILED : August 24, 2022 DO NOT PUBLISH
Exhibit 32.1

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as Chief Executive Officer of Owl Rock Technology Finance Corp. II (the “Company”), does hereby certify that to the undersigned’s knowledge:

 

1) the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2) the information contained in the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

|                      |        |        |                         |
|----------------------|--------|--------|-------------------------|
| Date: March 16, 2022 |   | By:    | /s/ Craig W. Packer     |
|                 |   |   | Craig W. Packer         |
|                 |   |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JORGE CORTES MACEDO; YESENIA

OROZCO DE LA PAZ,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-70838

Agency Nos. A096-064-388

 A096-064-389

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 8, 2011** 

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Jorge Cortes Macedo and Yesenia Orozco De La Paz, natives and citizens of

Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)

order denying their motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. §

1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. 

FILED

MAR 28 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-70838

Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part

and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to

reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than a year after the final

administrative order was entered in their case. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). We

lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority

to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d

1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002). If we had jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision,

we would find no abuse of discretion.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ request to

withdraw from their grant of voluntary departure on grounds that petitioners failed

to demonstrate that they filed their motion prior to the expiration of their voluntary

departure period. See Dada v. Mukasey, 554 U.S. 1, 21 (2008) (alien must be

permitted to withdraw a voluntary departure request before expiration of the

departure period).

Petitioners’ remaining contentions are unavailing.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

FRANK AIELLO,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 218 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

FRANK AIELLO,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 219 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 21st day of December, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
U. S. Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Marketing Service

NOTICE OF SALE OF COTTON

FOR RELEASE AT 1:00 P.M. CT December 5, 2019

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

Invitation 2020U0007 dated December 4, 2019.

Invitation 2020U0007

Catalog 

Lot No. Catalog Location Purchaser Pounds Sold 

Price Sold (per 

Pound) CCC Revenue 

14 Sweetwater, TX Brighann Marketing Inc 992 0.3004 $298.00 

15 Sweetwater, TX Brighann Marketing Inc 1,562 0.3004 $469.22 

16 Sweetwater, TX

ALLENBERG COTTON 

CO. 25,235 0.4 $10,094.00 

 

27,789 $10,861.22
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D 17

- 1354

_____________________________

C ITY OF H IALEAH /S EDGWICK CMS

,

Appellant,

v.

T ONY B ONO
,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Gerardo Castiello, Judge

.

Date of Accident: December 2, 2013

February 5, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.

A FFIRMED

.

W ETHERELL
, R AY
, and W INOKUR
, JJ., concur

.

_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or2 9.331

.

_____________________________

David Goehl of Martinez Roman Goehl, P.A., Miami

, for Appellant.

Kimberly A. Hill of Kimberly A. Hill, P.L., Fort Lauderdale

, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6331

RUSSELL DAVID WOOD,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief

District Judge. (2:14-cv-00169-RBS-LRL)

Submitted: May 19, 2015 Decided: May 22, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Russell David Wood, Appellant Pro Se. Leah A. Darron, OFFICE OF 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Russell David Wood seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Wood has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 
3

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED