alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.6





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
   TO 18 U.S.C. §1350,
   AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
   SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the annual report of Canadian Zinc Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the period ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John F. Kearney, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


March 20, 2014
/s/ John F. KearneyJohn F. KearneyPresident and Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Canadian Zinc Corporation and will be retained by Canadian Zinc Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 10.1

                  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the use of this Annual Report (Form 20-F) of Frisco Bay Industries
Ltd. of our report dated April 19, 2002 with respect to the Company's
consolidated financial statements for the year ended January 31, 2002.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8) pertaining to the Frisco Bay Industries Ltd. Stock Incentive Plan of Frisco
Bay Industries Ltd. of our report dated April 19, 2002, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Frisco Bay Industries Ltd.
included in this Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended January 31, 2002.



/s/  Richter, Usher & Vineberg



Chartered Accountants

Montreal, Canada
June 25, 2002
Exhibit
32





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


AND
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the quarterly Report of TheraBiogen, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),we, Kelly T. Hickel,
Chief Executive Officer and William Warchus, principal financial officer,
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 result of operations of the Company.





November
10, 2009





/s/ Kelly
T. Hickel


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


Kelly T.
Hickel


Chief
Executive Officer





/s/
William Warchus


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


William
Warchus


Principal
Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 21

NB&T FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

At December 31, 2007



|                                    |  |                       |  |                       |  
|----------------------------------- |  | --------------------- |  | --------------------- | -
|NAME OF CORPORATION                 |  | STATE OFINCORPORATION |  | PERCENTAGEOFOWNERSHIP |  
|The National Bank and Trust Company |  | Ohio                  |  | 100                   | %
|NB&T Insurance Agency Group, Inc.   |  | Ohio                  |  | 100                   | %
|NB&T Insurance Agency, Inc.         |  | Ohio                  |  | 100                   | %
|NB&T Statutory Trust III            |  | Delaware              |  | 100                   | %



67
#### CHURCHILL v. DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT CO., Inc., et al.

No. 35535.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Sept 29, 1953.

Claud Briggs, Oklahoma City, for petitioner.

Fenton, Fenton and Thompson, Oklahoma City, Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for respondents.

*593CORN, Justice.

Claimant sought an award on the ground of change of condition. On April 25, 1952, an award was denied. On May 9, 1952, claimant filed this proceeding to review the award. On the same date claimant died and there has been no revivor and no proceeding commenced to revive. A motion to dismiss for failure to revive has been filed. The motion is not resisted. The motion must be sustained.

We have held that where an action is brought, or an appeal filed, and the party bringing the action or filing the appeal dies and there is no revivor within one year such action or appeal will be dismissed. Jackson v. Scott, 70 Okl. 85, 173 P. 70; Oklahoma City v. Wright, 51 Okl. 772, 152 P. 451. The rule is applicable here.

Dismissed.
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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

MICHAEL J. MAKI,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-30367

D.C. No. 3:11-cr-05488-RBL

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 24, 2013** 

Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Michael J. Maki appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

his guilty-plea conviction and 48-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute

controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) and 846;

and distribution of a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),

FILED

OCT 03 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-30367

(b)(1)(C). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Maki’s counsel

has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to

withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Maki the opportunity to file a

pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has

been filed. 

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief as to Maki’s conviction. 

We accordingly affirm Maki’s conviction. 

Maki waived the right to appeal his sentence. Because the record discloses

no arguable issue as to the validity of the sentencing waiver, we dismiss Maki’s

appeal as to his sentence. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th

Cir. 2009). 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I, Bert W. Hogue, Chief Financial Officer of Epoch Biosciences, Inc. (the
Company), certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:  (1)
    
    the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December
31, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
780(d)); 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 26, 2004
    By:
    /s/ Bert W. HogueBert W. HogueVice President and Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 123 (Thursday, September 13, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S6289]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                                 prayer

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Today's opening prayer will be offered by Rev. 
Father Marcel Rainville from St. Michael's College in Burlington, VT.

 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On page S6289, September 13, 2012, the Record reads: . . . will 
be offered by Reverend Father Marcel from . . .
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: . . . will be 
offered by Rev. Father Marcel Rainville from . . .

 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  The guest Chaplain offered the following prayer:
  With humble hearts, let us pray.
  Gracious God, You make us stewards of Your creation so that in all 
things we may honor the gift of life which You bestow on us each day.
  We pray for these our elected officials as they work to perform the 
sacred mission of service taken up on behalf of all the citizens of 
this Nation that thirsts for God. Guide them with good judgments in the 
exercise of their duties. May Your spirit of wisdom abide with them in 
shaping a more benevolent world according to Your great love, and may 
the hearts of Your people, especially these present, be open to the 
needs of all our brothers and sisters.
  We pray in Your great Name. Amen.

                          ____________________
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-8566
TERRY LEE MCCLAIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY; J. T. GALBREATH, PNC, BYDIR, OIC, Dispersing Officer, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CA-95-415-3-MU) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 31, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terry Lee McClain, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. However, we affirm the district court's dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1988) on the grounds that Appellant's complaint,filed ten years after the cause of action had accrued, is timebarred. 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.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.2

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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of ONEOK Partners, L.P. (the Company) for the period
ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Curtis L. Dinan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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.





|                                       
|---------------------------------------
|/s/ Curtis L. Dinan                    
|Curtis L. Dinan Chief Financial
Officer

February 27, 2008

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 ONEOK Partners, L.P. and will be retained by ONEOK Partners, L.P. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, James W. Dennis, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of HealtheTech, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: 

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designated under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date:  July 30, 2003
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2012 - 0184 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2011 -NM - 118 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR - M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
<PAGE>   1
                           PAIRGAIN TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

                       EXHIBIT 21.1--LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
                                                            STATE OR JURISDICTION
       NAME OF LEGAL ENTITY                                   OF INCORPORATION
----------------------------------------                    ---------------------
<S>                                                         <C>
PairGain Services Group, Inc.                               Delaware
PairGain Canada Holding Ltd.                                Canada
PairGain Canada, Inc.                                       Canada
PairGain International Sales Corp.                          U. S. Virgin Islands
PairGain Technologies AG                                    Switzerland
PairGain Wallingford Design Center, Inc.                    Delaware
PairGain do Brasil Ltda.                                    Brazil
</TABLE>

All are wholly-owned subsidiaries of PairGain Technologies, Inc.
A college completion rate is the percentage of persons ages 25 

and over with a bachelor’s degree or more. The map uses natural 

breaks in the distribution to organize the data into groups of 

common values. 

College Completion Rates in Appalachia, 2013–2017

(County Rates)

Map Created: August 2019

Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 

American Community Survey, 2013–2017

0 50 100

Miles

GEORGIA

ALABAMA

MISSISSIPPI

SOUTH

CAROLINA

NORTH CAROLINA

VIRGINIA

WEST

VIRGINIA

KENTUCKY

OHIO ILLINOIS INDIANA

WISCONSIN

MICHIGAN

DE

NJ PENNSYLVANIA

MARYLAND

NEW YORK

TENNESSEE

4.9% - 14.6%

14.7% - 21.2%

21.3% - 31.9%

32.0% - 52.6%

U.S. average = 30.9%

Appalachian average = 23.7%

Completion Rate

(Natural Breaks Classification)
V 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4634 

For the relief of Arpita Kurdekar, Girish Kurdekar, and Vandana Kurdekar. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 12, 2017 

Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Arpita Kurdekar, Girish Kurdekar, and 

Vandana Kurdekar. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR ARPITA 

4 KURDEKAR, GIRISH KURDEKAR, AND 

5 VANDANA KURDEKAR. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

7 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

8 Act, Arpita Kurdekar, Girish Kurdekar, and Vandana 

9 Kurdekar shall each be eligible for issuance of an immi10 grant visa or for adjustment of status to that of an alien 

11 lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon filing an 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4634 IH

1 application for issuance of an immigrant visa under sec2 tion 204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful 

3 permanent resident. 

4 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Arpita Kurdekar, 

5 Girish Kurdekar, or Vandana Kurdekar enters the United 

6 States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), 

7 he or she shall be considered to have entered and remained 

8 lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for ad9 justment of status under section 245 of the Immigration 

10 and Nationality Act as of the date of the enactment of 

11 this Act. 

12 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

13 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap14 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica15 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

16 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

17 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.— 

18 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res19 idence to Arpita Kurdekar, Girish Kurdekar, and Vandana 

20 Kurdekar, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper 

21 officer to reduce by 3, during the current or next following 

22 fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas that are 

23 made available to natives of the country of the aliens’ birth 

24 under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality 

25 Act or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4634 IH

1 that are made available to natives of the country of the 

2 aliens’ birth under section 202(e) of such Act. 

3 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

4 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural 

5 parents, brothers, and sisters of Arpita Kurdekar, Girish 

6 Kurdekar, and Vandana Kurdekar shall not, by virtue of 

7 such relationship, be accorded any right, privilege, or sta8 tus under the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

Æ 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 32.1****CERTIFICATION**     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), theundersigned officer of IPC Holdings, Ltd. (the“Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’sknowledge, that:     The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the yearended December 31, 2004 (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations ofthe Company.     /s/ James P. Bryce           Name: James P. Bryce Title:    Chief Executive OfficerDated: March 4, 2005     The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is notbeing filed as part of the Report.