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



Exhibit 32.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (i)
    
    the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended
September 30, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  By:/s/ John EmeryJohn Emery
Chief Executive Officer and Director
(Principal Executive Officer)
  40
THE VISUAL AIDS ON THE FOLLOWING 

PAGES ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND 

NOT INTENDED FOR OFFICIAL USE.

TO PURCHASE OFFICIAL VISUAL AIDS PLEASE CONTACT 

THE SPECIALTY CROPS INSPECTION DIVISION’S 

EQUIPMENT AND FORMS DEPOT 

USDA, AMS, FVP, SCI

831 MITTEN ROAD, ROOM 200

BURLINGAME, CA 94010

PHONE: 650-552-9073

FAX: 650-552-9147

EQUIPMENT CATALOG
BUNCHED ITALIAN SPROUTING BROCCOLI 

FOR IDENTIFICATION ONLY 

The two stalks above are bunched together and are not a defect. The most desirable color for 

broccoli stalks is from green to dark green. However, some varieties of broccoli have a 

purplish to blue color. There are no color requirements for broccoli, therefore, this is not a 

defect. 

BRO-1-IDENT

APRIL 1997
Theareasdepictedabove(starring)areNOTscoredasadefect.

Starringmaybereportedatapplicant’srequest.

USDABRO-2-IDENTSeptember2017

StarringonBroccoli

(Whitish-YellowtoLightGreenPatternsonCrown)
ITALIAN SPROUTING BROCCOLI 

FAIRLY COMPACT 

Broccoli, Photo No. 1

August 1990

(Previously No. 1, no date)
ITALIAN SPROUTING BROCCOLI 

FAIRLY COMPACT 

Broccoli, Photo No. 2

August 1990

(Previously No. 2, no date)
ITALIAN SPROUTING BROCCOLI 

COMPACT 

Broccoli, Photo No. 3

August 1990

(Previously No. 3, no date)
ITALIAN SPROUTING BROCCOLI 

NOT FAIRLY COMPACT 

Broccoli, Photo No. 4

August 1990

(Previously No. 4, no date)
ITALIAN SPROUTING BROCCOLI 

NOT FAIRLY COMPACT 

Broccoli, Photo No. 5

August 1990

(Previously No. 5, no date)
ITALIAN SPROUTING BROCCOLI 

COMPACT 

Broccoli, Photo No. 6

August 1990

(Previously No. 6, no date)
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

 

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

**New Holland Credit Company, LLC**

 

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of New Holland Credit Company, LLC (“NHCC”), as Servicer pursuant to the Sale andServicing Agreement dated as of August 1, 2022 (as amended from time to time, the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”) by and amongNHCC, CNH Capital Receivables LLC and CNH Equipment Trust 2022-B, does hereby certify that:

 

1.            NHCC is Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.

 

2.            The undersigned is duly authorized as required pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate tothe Indenture Trustee.

 

3.            This Certificate is delivered pursuant to Section 4.9(a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement and Item 1123 of Regulation AB.

 

4.            A review of the Servicer’s activities during the 12 month period ending (and including) December 31, 2023 and of its performanceunder the Sale and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.

 

5.            To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreementin all material respects throughout the 12 month period ending (and including) December 31, 2023.

 

6.            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 27th  day of March, 2024.

 

 

 

 

March 27, 2024
#### Alice I. SANDEFER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. REYNOLDS SECURITIES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and John J. Fleming, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 79CA0988.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I.

May 29, 1980.

Rehearing Denied July 31, 1980.

Certiorari Denied Oct. 6, 1980.

*691Head, Moye, Carver & Ray, John F. Head, Karen C. Gehlhausen, Denver, for plaintiff-appellant.

Ireland, Stapleton & Pryor, P.C., William G. Imig, Diane J. Acker, Denver, for defendants-appellees.

KELLY, Judge.

Alice Sandefer instituted this action against Reynolds Securities, Inc., an investment brokerage firm, and John J. Fleming, a registered representative of that firm, alleging several claims for relief arising out of transactions covered by the Colorado Securities Act. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because of compulsory arbitration provisions in the contracts executed by the parties. On appeal, Sandefer argues among other things, that under § 11-51-125(7), C.R.S. 1973, arbitration agreements between brokers and investors are unenforceable. We agree and reverse.

Section 11-51-125(7) provides that “[a]ny condition, stipulation, or provision binding any person acquiring any security to waive compliance with any provision of this article or any rule or order under this article is void.” Although Colorado courts have never determined whether agreements to arbitrate future controversies between a customer and a broker are invalid under this statutory subsection, the quoted language is virtually identical to that of 15 U.S.C. § 77n. The United States Supreme Court has held that § 77n renders compulsory customer-broker arbitration agreements unenforceable as applied to disputes arising under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1933. *Wilko v. Swan,*346 U.S. 427, 74 S.Ct. 182, 98 L.Ed. 168 (1953).

Where the provisions and purposes of our statute parallel those of a federal enactment, federal authorities are highly persuasive. *Lowery v. Ford Hill Investment Co.,*192 Colo. 125, 556 P.2d 1201 (1976). We adopt the reasoning of *Wilko*that, while arbitration is strongly favored as a method of resolving disputes, *see Ellis v. Rocky Mountain Empire Sports, Inc.,*Colo.App., 602 P.2d 895 (1979), the subsection of the Colorado Securities Act invalidating provisions waiving investors’ rights under the Act applies to waiver of judicial trial and review. *See Wilko*v. *Swan, supra.*

Here, Sandefer alleged the violation of § 11-51-125(1), C.R.S. 1973, which incorporates within it a provision for a judicial remedy. The arbitration agreement of the contract was an attempt to waive compliance with this subsection. Under § 11-51-125(7), C.R.S. 1973, such an attempted waiver is void.

In view of the conclusions we have reached, it is not necessary to consider the other assignments of error.

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

COYTE and SMITH, JJ., concur.
# Dregon Kate Brown, Gove rn or January 7 , 2015 Mr. Byron H. Huffman Federa l Aviation Administration Acting D i rector , Office of A i rport Compl i ance 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C . 20591 Dear Mr. Huffman, 3040 25th Street , SE Sa l e m , O R 9730 2- 11 25 Phone: (503) 3 78-4880 Toll Free: (800) 874-0102 FAX: (503) 373- 1688

This letter is sent in res ponse to your letter to Oregon Governor Kate Brown dated November 24 , 2015 relating to t he FAA po l icy and procedures co n cern in g the use of Airport Revenue; Proceeds from T axes on Aviation F uel, (79 Fed. Reg 6628 amendment) . Your letter asked for statements of compliance with the poli cy . I am happy to report that the state of Oregon is i n full compl i ance w ith the amendme nt as a l l state and loca l tax revenue on avi ation fuel is returned to the aviation system . If you have a ny questions, my contact ema i l i s mitch .t.swecker@aviation.state . or . us and my phone number is 503 - 378-2340. Resp e ctfully S u bmitted ,

Director Oregon Department of Av i at i on

Cc : Karmen For e Po l icy and Budget Analyst, Office of Chief Financia l Officer, Thomas MacDonald Senior Leg i s lative A nalyst, Legislative Fiscal Office, Ju l ie Neburka .
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6006

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROHAN WILSON TEAGNE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CR-98-33, CA-01-530-7)

Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 22, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rohan Wilson Teagne, Appellant Pro Se. Bruce A. Pagel, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Rohan Wilson Teagne seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West

Supp. 2001), and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and orders and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the

district court. United States v. Teagne, Nos. CR-98-33; CA-01-530-7

(W.D. Va. July 16, 2001; Oct. 16, 2001). 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
Exhibit
10.18


 


EXTENSION


 


Pursuant
to that certain Convertible Promissory Note, dated on or about January 3, 2019 (the “Note”), by BioLife4D Corporation (“Borrower”)
in favor of EchoVenture, LLC (“Lender”), Lender has loaned to Borrower the sum of $75,000.00. Pursuant to the Note, Borrower
has the right to extend the Maturity Date (as defined in the Note) until January 31, 2024. Accordingly, Borrower hereby extends the Maturity
Date of the Note until January 31, 2024.


 


	Dated: January 12, 2022	 
	 	 	 
	BIOLIFE4D CORPORATION	 
	 	 	 
	BY: 	/s/
    Steven Morris              	 
	 	Steven
    Morris, CEO
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 15, 2019.

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, October 15, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A20A0284. THE STATE v. ANTHONY JAQUEZ BUTLER.

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW 

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
### NUMBER 13

- 12

- 00 755

- CR



## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

EX PARTE JUAN MALDONADO

On a ppeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

of Nueces County, Texas.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Perkes, and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

On September 11, 2013, the Court abated this appeal and remanded the matter to

the trial court for consideration of a motion to dismiss. T he State of Texas, by and

through its Assistant District Attorney, the Hono rable James Odell , has filed a motion to

reinstate and dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.2(a). Accordingly, the

State’s motion to reinstate is GRANTED.

No decision of this Court having been delivered to date, we GRANT the State’s

motion and dismiss the appeal. Having dismissed the appeal at the State’s request, no2

motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

10th d ay of October , 20 13

.
**EXHIBIT
        32.1**
 
 **CERTIFICATION
        OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**
 
 **PURSUANT
        TO**
 **18
        U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**
 **AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 I,
        Liang
        Zhang, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
        Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the amended Quarterly
        Report
        of Synutra International, Inc. on Form 10-QSB/A for the fiscal quarter ended
        September 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
        or
        15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
        in
        such amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A fairly presents in all material
        respects the financial condition and results of operations of Synutra
        International, Inc.
 
 September
                  28, 2006By:
              /s/ Liang
                  ZhangName: Liang
                  ZhangTitle:Chief
                  Executive Officer
391 A.2d 675

#### Commonwealth v. Boyd, Appellant.

Submitted June 13, 1977.

Elaine DeMasse, Assistant Defender, and Benjamin Lerner, Defender, for appellant; Randolph L. Goldman, Assistant District Attorney, and F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Order affirmed.

WATKINS, former P. J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
| 1.     | Such      Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009,      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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period      ended March 31, 2009, fairly represents in all material respects, the      financial condition and results of operations of Artcraft V,      Inc. |

| Date:      June 12, 2009                    |
|---------------------------------------------|
|                                        |
| Artcraft      V, Inc.                       |
|                                        |
| By: /s/      Li Te      Xiao                |
| Li      Te XiaoChief      Executive Officer |
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906  OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The
certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Mueller Water Products, Inc. (the "Report") for the
purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code.

I,
Dale B. Smith, the Chief Executive Officer of Mueller Water Products, Inc., certify that, to the best of my knowledge:



|Date: March 31, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/DALE B. SMITHDale B. Smith
Chief Executive Officer
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Nuclear Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR; ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BD01]

                    Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.313(c) and 2.321(b), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) in the above-captioned                     *Indian Point*                     proceeding is hereby reconstituted by appointing Administrative Judge Michael F. Kennedy to serve on the Board in place of Administrative Judge Kaye D. Lathrop.                

                    All correspondence, documents, and other materials shall continue to be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule.                     *See*10 CFR 2.302*et seq.*

 Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of April 2012.

E. Roy Hawkens,

Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel.

[FR Doc. 2012-8896 Filed 4-12-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4298

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SCOTTY RAY PULLIAM,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, 

District Judge. (1:06-cr-00015-CCE-1)

Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 29, 2016

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ames Colby Chamberlin, LAW OFFICES OF AMES C. CHAMBERLIN, 

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael A. DeFranco, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Scotty Ray Pulliam appeals the 21-month sentence imposed by 

the district court upon revocation of his supervised release. 

On appeal, Pulliam’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there 

are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether 

the district court adequately explained Pulliam’s revocation 

sentence. Although notified of his right to do so, Pulliam has 

not filed a pro se supplemental brief. Our review of the record 

reveals no error in the district court’s explanation of 

Pulliam’s sentence. See United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 

640 (4th Cir. 2013); United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 

547 (4th Cir. 2010).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s revocation

judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Pulliam, in 

writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the 

United States for further review. If Pulliam requests that a 

petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition 

would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for 

leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must 

state that a copy thereof was served on Pulliam. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
AMS Ground Beef Contractor Indicator Organism Performance - Fiscal Year: 20221/,2/

Standard PlateCount3/ Total Coliforms4/ Generic E. coli

5/

Contractor

# Sub-lots Produced

(% of Total)

#Exceeding 

Critical Limit

% Exceeding 

Critical Limit

#Exceeding 

Critical Limit

% Exceeding 

Critical Limit

#Exceeding 

Critical Limit

% Exceeding 

Critical Limit

C1 2,014 (18.5) 0 0 3 0.15 4 0.20

C3 859 (7.9) 0 0 0 0 1 0.12

C4 2,422 (22.2) 0 0 0 0 3 0.12

C5 1,407(12.9) 0 0 0 0 2 0.14

C9 3,181 (29.1) 0 0 7 0.22 6 0.19

C18 106 (1.0) 0 0 0 0 0 0

C23 370 (3.4) 0 0 1 0.27 1 0.27

C24 97 (0.9) 7 7.22 0 0 0 0

C29 212 (1.9) 4 1.89 0 0 0 0

C20 29 (0.3) 0 0 0 0 0 0

C37 218 (2.0) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 10,915 (100.0) 11 0.10 11 0.10 17 0.16

1/A full description of the ground beef purchase program specification is available at https://www.ams.usda.gov/selling-food/product-specs#Beef. 2/Production Dates: October 1, 2021 to September 30,2022. 3/Standard Plate Count Critical Limit: 100,000 CFU/g. 4/Total Coliforms Critical Limit: 1,000 CFU/g. 5/Generic E. coli Critical Limit: 500 CFU/g.
1

Thomas Finseth

From: Jordan, Ronald <Jordan.Ronald@epa.gov>

Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 8:30 AM

To: Thomas Finseth

Subject: FW: AEP John E Amos 308 Data Request - Deadline Extension

Attachments: AEP 308 deadline extn reqst 11-13-14.pdf

From: Timothy W Lohner [mailto:twlohner@aep.com]  

Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 2:09 PM

To: Flanders, Phillip

Cc: Jordan, Ronald

Subject: AEP John E Amos 308 Data Request ‐ Deadline Extension

Mr. Phillips, AEP is requesting a two‐week extension of the deadline to respond to the EPA Section 308 data request

regarding pilot scale studies conducted at the American Electric Power (AEP) John E. Amos Plant (request attached).  As

Mr. Jordan and I discussed by telephone earlier today, AEP will make every effort to submit the information in a timely

manner; however, an extension to December 5th would assure our ability to provide the information in a suitable

format.  As explained in the attached letter, due to the breadth of the 308 request and the unique circumstances

involving the study participants, it will simply take more time to gather the information and prepare it for submittal to

the agency.

Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to your response.

Tim  

Tim Lohner, Ph.D. Consulting Environmental Specialist

American Electric Power, 1 Riverside Plaza, Columbus, OH 43215

614‐716‐1255   twlohner@aep.com
# C_2004094EN.01003508.xml

| 17.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/35

---

Removal from the register of Case C-436/02 (1)

1

(2004/C 94/96)

By order of 22 January 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case C-436/02: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland.

---

(1)  OJ C 19 of 25.01.2003.

1

---
DISMISS; Opinion Filed April 8, 2013.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-13-00381-CV

IN RE BILLY RAY RISLEY, Relator

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. W74-11690-K

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices O'Neill, Lang-Miers, and Evans 

Opinion by Justice Evans

Before the Court is relator’s petition for writ of mandamus complaining that the trial 

court has failed to properly handle and rule on his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The facts 

and issues are well known to the parties, so we need not recount them herein. This Court does 

not have jurisdiction over relator’s petition. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (West 

Supp. 2011); In re Hampton, No. 05-07-00440-CV, 2007 WL 1168446 at *1 (Tex. App.–Dallas 

Apr. 20, 2007, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Accordingly, we DISMISS relator’s petition for a 

writ of mandamus for want of jurisdiction.

130381F.P05

/David W. Evans/

DAVID W. EVANS

JUSTICE