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

CERTIFICATE OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER  Pursuant to Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18 United States Code

The undersigned, being the Principal Executive Officer of Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. (the "Partnership"), hereby certifies that the Partnership's Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007, filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)), 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Date:
October 30, 2007

| |  | By: | /s/STEPHEN J. J. LETWINStephen J. J. Letwin Managing Director
(Principal Executive Officer)
| |  | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 437 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 437

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to codify authority under 
    existing grant guidance authorizing use of Urban Area Security 
   Initiative and State Homeland Security Grant Program funding for 
   enhancing medical preparedness, medical surge capacity, and mass 
                       prophylaxis capabilities.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Medical Preparedness Allowable Use 
Act''.

SEC. 2. USE OF CERTAIN HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT FUNDS FOR ENHANCING 
              MEDICAL PREPAREDNESS, MEDICAL SURGE CAPACITY, AND MASS 
              PROPHYLAXIS CAPABILITIES.

    Section 2008 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 609) is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)--
                    (A) by redesignating paragraphs (10) through (14) 
                as paragraphs (11) through (15), respectively; and
                    (B) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following 
                new paragraph (10):
            ``(10) enhancing medical preparedness, medical surge 
        capacity, and mass prophylaxis capabilities, including the 
        development and maintenance of an initial pharmaceutical 
        stockpile, including medical kits, and diagnostics sufficient 
        to protect first responders, their families, immediate victims, 
        and vulnerable populations from a chemical or biological 
        event;''; and
            (2) in subsection (b)(3)(B), by striking ``subsection 
        (a)(10)'' and inserting ``subsection (a)(11)''.

            Passed the House of Representatives January 31, 2017.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
115th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 437

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to codify authority under 
    existing grant guidance authorizing use of Urban Area Security 
   Initiative and State Homeland Security Grant Program funding for 
   enhancing medical preparedness, medical surge capacity, and mass 
                       prophylaxis capabilities.
```
# C_2010246EN.01000401.xml

| 11.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 246/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 July 2010 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-582/08) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Value-added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 169 to 171 - Thirteenth Directive 86/560/EEC - Article 2 - Refund - Taxable person not established in the European Union - Insurance transactions - Financial transactions)

2010/C 246/05

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and M. Afonso, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: I. Rao and S. Hathaway, acting as Agents, and K. Lasok QC)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 169, 170 and 171 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) and of Article 2(1) of Thirteenth Council Directive 86/560/EEC of 17 November 1986 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in Community territory (OJ 1986 L 326, p. 40) — National legislation which does not permit the recovery of input tax paid in respect of certain insurance and financial transactions carried out by taxable persons not established in Community territory

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.

1

---
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certification of the PrincipalFinancial Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S. C. Section 1350**

 

In connection with theAnnual Report on Form 10-K of Kaiser Group Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”)for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Marian P. Hamlett,Chief Financial Officer 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)  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 

 
| March 29, 2005 |   /s/ Marian P. Hamlett |   |
|---------------------|-----------------------------------|--------|
|                | Marian P. Hamlett,                |
|                | Chief Financial Officer           |

 

----
Exhibit 24(b)


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-3 (No. 333-34969) of BCAM International, Inc. of our report, dated
September 26, 1997, on the statements of operations and cash flows of Drew Shoe
Corporation for the year ended December 31, 1996 which appear elsewhere in this
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of BCAM International, Inc. for the year ended
December 31, 1997.


                                                 /s/ J. H. COHN LLP

Roseland, New Jersey
April 20, 1998
**Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 September 2009 – Commission v Austria**

**(Case C-477/08)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2005/36/EC – Recognition of professional qualifications – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 8)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 of that directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs. |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       3,512,819
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         100,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             2,600,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  7,500,849
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                     61,730,085
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,200,398
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              77,255,929
<DEPOSITS>                                  70,093,528
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            907,124
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,767,085
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,488,192
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              77,255,929
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              6,536,735
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              399,890
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               147,314
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             7,083,939
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           3,436,277
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,443,348
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        3,640,591
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  473,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             (2,811)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              2,028,650
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,603,599
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,603,599
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   942,558
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.29
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.33
<LOANS-NON>                                     93,505
<LOANS-PAST>                                    11,303
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                127,000
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               922,613
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  228,959
<RECOVERIES>                                    33,744
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,200,398
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,185,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         15,398


</TABLE>
# C_2021471EN.01003102.xml

| 22.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 471/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 471/31

---

Order of the President of the Court of 1 September 2021 — European Commission v HSBC Holdings plc, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC Continental Europe, formerly HSBC France

(Case C-806/19 P) (1)

(2021/C 471/39)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 432, 23.12.2019.

---
# C_2009044EN.01002201.xml

| 21.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/22

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-273/08) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2001/81/EC - Atmospheric pollutants - Failure to communicate programmes for the reduction of emissions, national emission inventories and annual projections for the year 2010)

(2009/C 44/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and A. Alcover San Pedro, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to draw up and communicate, within the prescribed time-limits, the documents provided for in Articles 6, 7 and 8 of Directive 2001/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants (OJ 2001 L 309, p. 22)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | declares that, by failing to communicate to the Commission of the European Communities, within the prescribed time-limit, the programmes, inventories and annual projections for the year 2010 relating to the progressive reduction of its emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile organic compounds (VOC) and ammonia (NH3), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2001/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declares that, by failing to communicate to the Commission of the European Communities, within the prescribed time-limit, the programmes, inventories and annual projections for the year 2010 relating to the progressive reduction of its emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile organic compounds (VOC) and ammonia (NH3), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2001/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants;

2

X

3

| 2. | orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.

1

---
##### 



Exhibit 23



|(DELOITTE LOGO) | Deloitte & Touche LLP
122 1st Ave. S.
Suite 400, PCS Tower
Saskatoon SK S7K 7E5
Canada
 
Tel: (306) 343-4400
Fax: (306) 343-4480
www.deloitte.ca
|--------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc.:



| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 33-37855 on Form S-8;     
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------
| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 333-19215 on Form S-8;    
| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 333-93773 on Form S-8;    
| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 333-53531 on Form S-8;    
| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 333-75742 on Form S-8;    
| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 333-75744 on Form S-8;    
| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 333-27685 on Form S-3;    
| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 333-89350 on Form S-3; and
| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 33-57920 on Form S-3DPOS  

of our reports dated February 6, 2004 appearing in this Annual Report on Form
10-K of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. for the year ended December 31,
2003.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Chartered Accountants

Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada

March 11, 2004

|                             |  |                             
|---------------------------- |  | ----------------------------
|(DELOITTE LETTERHEAD BOTTOM) |  | (DELOITTE LETTERHEAD BOTTOM)
## Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions

On behalf of this Federal Agency, I certify that collection of information encompassed by this request complies with 5

CFR 1320.9 and related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3).

Title: (150 characters max)



### OMB #: Docket ID#: (for office use only)



### The following topics summarize the proposed information collection that certification covers. By signing below, you

are certifying your Principal Office’s compliance. If you are unable to certify any of these provisions, please identify

and explain the reason in number 18 of your accompanying Supporting Statement:



#  A. It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;



#  B. It avoids unnecessary duplication;



#  C. It reduces burden on small entities;



#  D. It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous language that is understandable to respondents;



#  E. Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;



#  F. It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;



#  G. It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3) about:

(i) Why the information is being collected;

(ii) Use of information;

(iii) Burden estimate;

(iv) Nature of response (voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory);

(v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and

(vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;



#  H. It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management

and use of the information to be collected;



#  I. It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology (if applicable);



#  J. It makes appropriate use of information technology; and



#  K. It reflects appropriate input from all agency offices, such as OPEPD and OGC

. POs must ensure all policy

issues are addressed prior to ICRAS submittal ( i.e. , any policy issues with grant applications) so the ICR is ready

for public view ing

.



### Your office must certify approval of all submitted information collection requests. Your signature authorizes

PIRMS to pos t the information collection request for public comment . If this collection should not be publicly

available, please provide reasons to PIRMS via e

- mail to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov with your official ICRAS submittal.

PIRMS does not share Information collections tied to a proposed or draft rule with the public until the publication date

of that rule.

Digital Signature of Principal Office Official or Designee
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JOSE E. PINEDA PAZ

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 23

- 00296

- CR

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 13

of Bexar County , Texas

Cause No. 709327

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 2 5 TH DAY OF J ULY 2024.

G INA M. PALAFOX

, Justice

Before Alley , C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 7064

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. WILLIAM SYKES, a/k/a Black , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Leonie M. Brinkema , District Judge. ( 1:13

- cr - 00350

- LMB

- 3 )

Submitted : Dec ember 1 4 , 2023 Decided: December 19, 2023

Before GREGORY and RUSHING , Circuit Judges , and MOTZ , Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
William Sykes, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-7064 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/19/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: William Sykes appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. Upon review, we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s determination that, under the pertinent 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, compassionate release was not warranted. See United States
v. Kibble , 992 F.3d 326, 329

- 31 (4th Cir. 2021 ) (providing standard of review and outlining steps for evaluating compassionate release motions)

. Accordingly, we affi rm the district
court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 23-7064 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/19/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-01-00600-CR

Rocky Lee Taylor, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 146TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 38,197, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING

Rocky Lee Taylor appeals from an order revoking community supervision and

imposing sentence of ten years’ imprisonment. The underlying offense is aggravated assault. See

Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.02 (West 1994).

Taylor’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous

and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable

grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d

807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v.

State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App.

1969). A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to Taylor, and he was advised of his right to examine

the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.
2

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous

and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel’s

motion to withdraw is granted.

The order revoking community supervision is affirmed.

__________________________________________

Bea Ann Smith, Justice

Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices B. A. Smith and Yeakel

Affirmed

Filed: February 7, 2002

Do Not Publish