alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit  32
-----------

                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  Alpha  Wireless Broadband
(the  "Company")  on  Form  10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed
with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof
(the  "Report"),  I,  the  undersigned in the capacity and on the date indicated
below,  hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(18  U.S.C.  Section  1350),  that  to  my  knowledge:

     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:  May  12,  2005

/s/  Albert  R.  Reda
---------------------
Chief  Executive  Officer


                                       31
<PAGE>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 88965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28386]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES


Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules; Hearing of the Judicial 
Conference

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the United States.

ACTION: Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules; notice of cancellation 
of open hearing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The following public hearing on proposed amendments to the 
Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure has been canceled: Bankruptcy 
Rules Hearing on January 19, 2024.

DATES: January 19, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: H. Thomas Byron III, Esq., Chief 
Counsel, Rules Committee Staff, Administrative Office of the U.S. 
Courts, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One Columbus 
Circle NE, Suite 7-300, Washington, DC 20544, Phone (202) 502-1820, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2173544d4452624e4c4c48555544447e72444253445540535861404e0f5452424e545355520f464e57"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4715322b223404282a2a2e333322221814222435223326353e07262869323424283235333469202831">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The announcement for this hearing was 
previously published in the Federal Register on August 9, 2023 at 88 FR 
53917.

(Authority: 28 U.S.C. 2073.)

    Dated: December 20, 2023.
Shelly L. Cox,
Management Analyst, Rules Committee Staff.
[FR Doc. 2023-28386 Filed 12-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210-55-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
APPENDIX “B3”

 User Manual: Align T-Rex 700
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard D. Jordan, Appellant.

— Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed and matter remitted to Oneida County Court for resentencing, in accordance with the following Memorandum: Defendant’s conviction for assault *650in the first degree was not repugnant to his acquittal of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. Viewing the elements of each offense, as charged by the court *(see, People v Loughlin,*76 NY2d 804; *People v Green,*71 NY2d 1006; *People v Tucker,*55 NY2d 1, *rearg denied*55 NY2d 1039), the jury could have found that defendant’s initial possession of the knife was without the intent to use the knife unlawfully against the victim *(see, People v Garcia,*72 AD2d 356, 361, *affd*52 NY2d 716; *People v Hudson,*163 AD2d 418, 419). The court’s charge, to which defendant had no objection, defined each charge separately and required that the jury consider them separately. If, as defendant now claims, he could not have committed assault in the first degree without by the same conduct committing criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, defendant should have asked the court to submit these counts in the alternative. The court’s charge, unobjected to by the defendant, permitted the verdict returned here *(see, People v Olean,*143 AD2d 369, 373, *Iv denied*72 NY2d 1048).

Reviewing this record in light of the factors enunciated by the Court of Appeals in *People v Taranovich*(37 NY2d 442), we reject defendant’s argument that the 14-month delay from arrest to trial deprived him of his constitutional right to a speedy trial. We do conclude, however, that the defendant was improperly sentenced as a second felony offender based upon a 1984 Florida conviction for grand theft. The Florida statute in effect at the time made it a felony to steal property with a value greater than $100, whereas the New York threshold for a felony was $250. Consequently, defendant’s 1984 Florida conviction is not a predicate felony for sentencing purposes *(see, People v Olah,*300 NY 96; *People v Rodgers,*128 AD2d 418, *lv denied*70 NY2d 655; *People v Brooks,*73 AD2d 564). Accordingly, defendant’s adjudication as a second felony offender must be vacated and the matter remitted for resentencing. (Appeal from Judgment of Oneida County Court, Buckley, J. — Assault, 1st Degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Pine and Lowery, JJ.
October 8 , 2013



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ALFRED STEFFONE SHEP HERD , Appellant

NO. 14

- 13

- 00845

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. The record indicates that the appeal should be DISMISSED. The Court orders the ap peal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.
We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sammie Brown, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), rendered June 19, 1989, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, after a non-jury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

On appeal the defendant contends that the Police Officer did not have probable cause to arrest him, and therefore that the evidence should have been suppressed. We do not agree. The police officer testified that while he was sitting in his parked vehicle, in an area which had a high incidence of narcotics trafficking, the codefendant approached him and asked him if he "wanted anything”. After the officer indicated that he wanted to purchase drugs, the codefendant walked across the street to where the defendant stood. The defendant then produced a plastic packet, which the officer identified as a container commonly used to hold controlled substances. This testimony, when combined with the officer’s experience, established probable cause for the defendant’s arrest and the search incident thereto *(see, People v McRay,*51 NY2d 594, *211603-604; *People v McLeod,*161 AD2d 671; *People v Alvarez,*160 AD2d 885; *People v Goggans,*155 AD2d 689).

The defendant’s contention regarding his representation at trial is meritless. The evidence, the law and the circumstances of this case, when viewed in their totality as of the time of the representation, indicate that trial counsel provided meaningful representation *(see, People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137). "It is not for this court to second-guess whether a course chosen by defendant’s counsel was the best trial strategy, or even a good one, so long as defendant was afforded meaningful representation” *(People v Satterfield,*66 NY2d 796, 799-800; *see also, People v Sullivan,*153 AD2d 223, 227). We find that the strategies employed by counsel were reasonable. The tactic of stipulating to the fact that cocaine and marihuana were the substances found in the plastic bag was a prudent strategy, reasonably designed to avoid lengthy testimony by the police chemist which might have emphasized in the mind of the trier-of-fact the quantity and quality of the contraband recovered *(see, People v Cox,*146 AD2d 795, 796). Further, a waiver of an opening and closing statement "is not necessarily indicative of ineffective legal representation” *(People v Aiken,*45 NY2d 394, 400).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J. P., Eiber, Balletta and Ritter, JJ., concur.
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45872 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45873 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45874 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45875 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45876 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45877 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45878 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45879 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45880 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45881 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45882 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45883 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45884 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45885 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45886 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45887 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45888 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45889 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45890 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45891 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45892 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45893 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45894 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45895 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45896 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45897 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45898 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45899 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45900 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45901 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45902 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45903 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45904 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45905 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45906 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45907 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45908 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45909 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45910 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45911 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45912 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45913 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45914 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45915 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45916 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45917 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45918 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45919 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45920 1994
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 45921 1994
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 115 (Tuesday, July 31, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S5729]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          TRIBUTE TO ALEX HALL

 Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Alex Hall, an 
intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work he has 
done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past 
several weeks.
  Alex is a graduate of Lincoln High School in Sioux Falls, SD. 
Currently, he is attending the University of New Mexico where he is 
majoring in philosophy and psychology. He is a hard worker who has been 
dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience.
  I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Alex for all of the 
fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to 
come.

                          ____________________
```
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  registration
statements  (No.  33-80690  and  33-82552)  on Form  S-8  and  the  registration
statement on Form S-3 that is Post-Effective Amendment No. 4 to the registration
statement (No.  33-31234) on Form S-1 of Jordan American  Holdings,  Inc. of our
report dated March 8, 2000 accompanying the consolidated financial statements of
Jordan American  Holdings,  Inc. and  Subsidiaries as of and for the years ended
December 31, 1999 and December 31, 1998,  which are part of the Annual Report on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 1999.

                                                          SPICER, JEFFRIES & CO.

Denver, Colorado
March 27, 2000
#### REECE v. STATE.

No. A-11795.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

July 8, 1953.

Dwight Malcolm, Lawton, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., and James P. Garrett, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

JONES, Judge.

The defendant Johnny Reece was charged by an information filed in the County Court of Comanche County with the unlawful transportation of whiskey. A jury was waived. The defendant was tried, found guilty, and sentenced to serve 30 days in the county jail and to pay a fine of $500.

The only proposition presented by the appeal is whether the trial court erred in overruling the motion to suppress evidence filed by the defendant.

At the hearing on the motion to suppress evidence, the defendant testified that he was driving a black Dodge panel truck in the City of Lawton on October 16, 1951, when his attention was attracted to some officers who were blowing their siren in an attempt to stop him. That he stopped the truck, and the officers made a search of the truck and found 36 cases of whiskey, which belonged to the defendant. The defendant swore, and he was corroborated by the officers, that they did not have a search warrant for the search of the truck, nor a warrant of arrest for the defendant. The officers did not contend that the defendant violated any law in their ■ presence, and their sole basis for stopping him was upon suspicion that he was transporting whiskey by reason of a report that had been made to them by an individual who purportedly saw several cases of whiskey transferred from a green panel truck to a black panel truck, which answered the description of the truck being driven 'by the accused at the time the search was made.

The search was made on mere suspicion and if the defendant had owned the property which was searched or had any proprietary interest in it, the motion to suppress would have been good. However, on cross-examination of the defendant at the time he testified in support of his motion to suppress, he testified that he owned a garage known as the J. & B. garage, that the Dodge panel truck had been brought into his garage for repair, that at the time of the transportation of the whisr key he had taken the truck from his garage without the knowledge or consent of the owner. He testified he did not know *337the name of the owner. Under such a state of facts, the court properly overruled the motion to suppress evidence, because it is well settled that :

> “The constitutional provision guaranteeing one immunity from unlawful search and seizure is personal, and one accused will not be heard to object that the search of the property or premises of some third person is a violation of his constitutional rights.” Trent v. State, Okl.Cr.App., 242 P.2d 470, 471.

For other cases following this rule, see Tacker v. State, 72 Okl.Cr. 72, 113 P.2d 394; Edwards v. State, Okl.Cr.App., 228 P.2d 672; Combs v. State, Okl.Cr.App., 233 P.2d 314; State v. Simpson, 91 Okl.Cr. 418, 219 P.2d 639.

The judgment and sentence of the County Court of Comanche County is affirmed.

POWELL, P. J., and BRETT, J., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 88102-88103]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27894]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.


[[Page 88103]]


    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel; Topics in Kidney Diseases.
    Date: January 5, 2024.
    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Santanu Banerjee, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of 
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2106, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 
435-5947, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2446454a41564e414157116449454d480a4a4d4c0a434b52"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5a383b343f28303f3f296f1a373b333674343332743d352c">[email protected]</span></a>.

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: December 14, 2023.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-27894 Filed 12-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>   1



                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.2


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS




The Board of Directors 
TSX Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the following registration 
statements on Form S-8 of ANTEC Corporation of our report dated May 30, 1997,
relating to the consolidated balance sheet of TSX Corporation and subsidiary,
as of  December 31, 1996, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, changes in stockholders'  equity, and cash flows for the
twelve-month periods ended the last Saturday of  October, 1996, 1995, and 1994,
which report appears in the December 31, 1997, annual  report on Form 10-K of
ANTEC Corporation.
        
     No. 33-71384      Amended and Restated Employee Stock Incentive Plan

     No. 33-71386      ANTEC Corporation Director Stock Option Plan

     No. 33-71388      ANTEC Corporation Employee Stock Purchase Plan

     No. 33-89704      ANTEC/Keptel Exchange Options

     No. 333-11921     ESP Stock Plan

     No. 333-12131     ANTEC Corporation Amended and Restated Employee Stock
                       Incentive Plan

     No. 333-19129     TSX Corporation 1996 Second Amended an Restated 
                       Long-Term Incentive Compensation Program; TSX 
                       Corporation 1993 Amended and Restated Directors Stock 
                       Option Plan, As Amended; TSX Corporation 1994 W.H. 
                       Lambert Stock Option Agreement.
                           



                                               KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
        


El Paso, Texas
March 23, 1998
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5630]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Mr. CLAY:
       H.R. 6257.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Clause 2 of Section 3 of Article IV of the Constitution: 
     The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all 
     needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or 
     other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in 
     this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any 
     Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
```
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 244 (Thursday, December 21, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 88253]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28098]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Copyright Royalty Board

37 CFR Part 380

[Docket No. 19-CRB-0005-WR (2021-2025) COLA (2024)


Cost of Living Adjustment to Royalty Rates for Webcaster 
Statutory License; Correction

AGENCY: Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), Library of Congress.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On November 30, 2023, the Copyright Royalty Judges amended 
regulations governing royalty rates that commercial and noncommercial 
noninteractive webcasters pay for eligible transmissions pursuant to 
the statutory licenses for the public performance of and for the making 
of ephemeral reproductions of sound recordings. That document contained 
an incorrect reference to a rate. This document corrects that 
reference.

DATES: 
    Effective date: This correction is effective December 20, 2023.
    Applicability dates: The adjusted rates as published on November 
30, 2023, are applicable to the period January 1, 2024, through 
December 31, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anita Brown, (202) 707-7658, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f1928393b19d9e92df969e87"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="187b6a7a5874777b367f776e">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 30, 2023, at 88 FR 83508, the 
Copyright Royalty Judges published a rule that contained an incorrect 
reference to a rate in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. This 
document corrects that reference.

Correction

    In the Federal Register of Thursday, November 30, 2023, in FR Rule 
Doc. 2023-26221, appearing on page 83508, make the following 
correction:
    1. On page 85309, in the first column, in the fourth paragraph, 
correct ``$0.20025'' to read ``$0.0025''.

    Dated: December 15, 2023.
David P. Shaw,
Chief Copyright Royalty Judge.
[FR Doc. 2023-28098 Filed 12-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410-72-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 32

Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title
18,United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 (the
Form 10-K), of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: February 24, 2017



By:

/s/ Jochen E. TilkJochen E. TilkPresident and Chief Executive Officer


Date:
February 24, 2017



By:

/s/ Wayne R. BrownleeWayne R. BrownleeExecutive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-K
pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K, Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title
18,United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K.