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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

November 13,
2007

U.
S. Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F Street, N. E.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Ladies
and Gentlemen:

The
certification set forth below is being submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission solely for the purpose of complying with Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of
the United States Code. This certification is not to be deemed to be filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and does not constitute a part of the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q (the "Report") accompanying this letter and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.

I,
Robert E. Driscoll, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Mirant Americas Generation, LLC (the "Company"), certify that, subject to the qualifications noted below, to the best
of my knowledge:



|Name: |  | /s/ROBERT E. DRISCOLLRobert E. Driscoll President and Chief Executive Officer |  | 
|----- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Mirant Americas Generation, LLC and will be retained by Mirant Americas Generation, LLC
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 99.19


EXPERT CONSENT
 We hereby consent to (i) the filing of the written disclosure regarding the technical report entitled “NI 43-101 Technical Report and Mineral Resource Estimate on the Lemarchant Deposit, South Tally Pond VMS Project, Central Newfoundland,Canada" dated March 2, 2012 (the “Report”) and technical information in the Report other than resource estimation disclosed in the Annual Information Form (the “AIF”) for the year ended December 31, 2013 of Canadian Zinc Corporation (the “Company”) and (ii) the use of our name in the AIF and the Annual Report on Form 40-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2013 filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and any amendments thereto incorporating by reference the Company’s AIF.
 Dated this 20thday of March, 2014.
 RDF Consulting Ltd.
 /s/ RDF Consulting Ltd.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4741 

To require the Postmaster General to designate a single, unique ZIP code 

for particular communities, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 8, 2018 

Mr. ZELDIN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To require the Postmaster General to designate a single, 

unique ZIP code for particular communities, and for 

other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF ZIP CODES. 

4 Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment 

5 of this section, the Postmaster General of the United 

6 States Postal Service shall designate a single, unique ZIP 

7 code for, as nearly as practicable, the communities of 

8 Flanders, Northampton, and Riverside in the Town of 

9 Southampton, New York. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
# C_2008301EN.01006001.xml

| 22.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/60

---

Action brought on 10 October 2008 — Intel v Commission

(Case T-457/08)

(2008/C 301/99)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Intel Corp. (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: N. Green QC, K. Bacon, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decisions; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decisions;

| — | Extend the deadline for submission of Intel's reply to the supplementary statement of objections (‘SSO’) to a period of 30 days from the date on which Intel is given access to the relevant documents of the complainant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Extend the deadline for submission of Intel's reply to the supplementary statement of objections (‘SSO’) to a period of 30 days from the date on which Intel is given access to the relevant documents of the complainant;

| — | Order the Commission to pay Intel's costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay Intel's costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of this application the applicant seeks annulment, pursuant to Article 230 EC, of the Hearing Officer's decision of 15 September 2008 taken under Article 10 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC (1) in Case COMP/C-3/37.990 — Intel relating to a proceeding under Article 82 EC, together with a decision by the Commissioner on or about 6 October 2008. The contested decisions concern the refusal on the part of the Commission to procure, particularly from the complainant in the case, certain documentary evidence that the applicant claims to be directly relevant to the allegations made by the Commission in the SSO. The Hearing Officer has also rejected Intel's submission that it cannot respond properly to the SSO without being provided with those documents, and has refused to further extend the deadline for Intel to file its reply to the SSO.

1

The applicant puts forward two pleas in law in support of its claims.

First, the applicant submits that the decisions contain errors in law and it claims that the time-limit for its reply to the SSO cannot start to run unless the file is materially complete; otherwise the undertaking wouldn't be able to exercise effectively its rights of defence.

Secondly, the applicant argues that the contested decisions are manifestly illegal because they permit the Commission to continue with an investigation which is discriminatory and partial, and which prevents the applicant from exercising its rights of defence. The applicant claims that this constitutes the violation of the principle of sound administration which requires the Commission to adopt its decision on the basis of all available factual and legal information which might have a bearing on the result.

---

(1)  Commission Decision of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of hearing officers in certain competition proceedings, OJ L 162, p. 21.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          13,955
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,654
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (75)
<INVENTORY>                                        227
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,931
<PP&E>                                           6,247
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,300)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  20,952
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,007
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              889
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             3
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,430
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    20,952
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,808
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,675
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   338
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (613)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 246
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,388)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        40
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,428)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  11,442
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,014
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.86
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.86


</TABLE>
# Substance Use - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Appalachian Diseases of Despair, 2023 This study analyzes the impact of diseases of despair on mortality within the Appalachian Region, focusing on mortality from three main causes: alcohol, prescription drug, and illegal drug overdose; suicide; and alcoholic liver disease/cirrhosis of the liver. It includes data through 2021 and serves as an update to previous ARC reports exploring the same issues.The post Appalachian Diseases of Despair, 2023 appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Appalachian Diseases of Despair, 2022 This study analyzed the impact of diseases of despair on mortality within the Appalachian Region, focusing on mortality from three main causes: alcohol, prescription drug, and illegal drug overdose; suicide; and alcoholic liver disease/cirrhosis of the liver. It served as an update to ARC reports from&#160;2017 and 2020 looking at the same issues, providing two [&#8230;]The post Appalachian Diseases of Despair, 2022 appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Appalachian Diseases of Despair, 2020 This study analyzed the impact of diseases of despair on mortality within the Appalachian Region, focusing on mortality from three main causes: alcohol, prescription drug, and illegal drug overdose; suicide; and alcoholic liver disease/cirrhosis of the liver. It served as an update to the 2017 ARC report looking at the same issues, providing three additional [&#8230;]The post Appalachian Diseases of Despair, 2020 appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Report of Recommendations: ARC’s Substance Abuse Advisory Council This report includes 14 recommendations developed by ARC’s Substance Abuse Advisory Council to support a robust recovery ecosystem in Appalachia.The post Report of Recommendations: ARC&#8217;s Substance Abuse Advisory Council appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Issue Brief: Health Disparities Related to Opioid Misuse in Appalachia Practical Strategies and Recommendations for Communities This brief summarizes relevant health statistics, offers key strategies and resources for communities to explore, and provides recommendations aimed at reducing health disparities in the Appalachian Region related to opioid misuse.The post Issue Brief: Health Disparities Related to Opioid Misuse in Appalachia Practical Strategies and Recommendations for Communities appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Appalachian Diseases of Despair, 2017 This study analyzed the impact of diseases of despair on mortality within Appalachia, focusing on increasing morbidity and mortality from three main causes: alcohol, prescription drug, and illegal drug overdose; suicide; and alcoholic liver disease.The post Appalachian Diseases of Despair, 2017 appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
Exhibit 99.2





Certification of Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)





In connection with
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 (the Report) of MCG Capital Corporation (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Janet
C. Perlowski, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certifies, to the best of my knowledge, that:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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





/s/    JANET C. PERLOWSKIName: Janet C. Perlowski Date:   August 14, 2002
DRAFT 8/9/11 rev.

San Joaquin Valley: Motor Vehicle Emission Budget Line Item Adjustments - 2007 SIP vs 2011 SIP Revision

The following table compares and explains the improvements made to the line item adjustments for the motor vehicle emissions 

budgets as part of the 2011 update of the 2007 San Joaquin Valley 8-Hour Ozone SIP. ARB’s new heavy duty truck model 

aggregates several adjustments that were previously separate line items. These include the cleaner in-use diesel truck, public fleet, 

reflash and idling rules. The improvements to the motor vehicle emissions budgets are consistent with those included in the updated 

Reasonable Further Progress demonstration.

2007 SIP 2011 SIP Revision

EMFAC 2007 EMFAC 2007

Existing Measures

 Local Reductions 

 State Reductions

SJV Rule 9310 - school bus

Indirect Source Rule

AB 1493

Moyer - on-road

HDDT Chip Reflash

HDDT Public Fleet & Solid Waste Rules

HDDT Idling Rule

SJV Rule 9310 - school bus (adjusted)1

Indirect Source Rule2

AB 1493

Moyer - on-road

New/Proposed Measures

 Local Reductions 

 State Reductions

Trip Reduction Rule

In-Use HDDT Rule

Smog Check Improvements

Reformulated Gasoline

Expanded Vehicle Retirement

Trip Reduction Rule (adjusted)3

Heavy Duty Diesel Truck Model4

 In-Use HDDT Rule

 HDDT Chip Reflash

 HDDT Public Fleet & Solid Waste Rules

 HDDT Idling Rule

Smog Check Improvements (adjusted)5

Reformulated Gasoline

Expanded Vehicle Retirement6

1

Scaled to reflect updated emissions inventory projections for school buses

2

SIP credit for indirect source rule (ISR) was removed per U.S. EPA rulemaking

3

Trip reduction rule benefits have been adjusted to reflect actual reductions.

4

ARB’s new truck emission model incorporates the individual truck-related measures that were previously estimated as per measure offmodel adjustments. 

5

The 2007 SIP included all proposed smog check improvements. The 2011 revision only included the following: low pressure evap test, more 

stringent cutpoints, inspection of light and medium duty diesels and visible smoke test.
DRAFT 8/9/11 rev.

6

Expanded vehicle retirement program benefits have not yet been fully quantified and are not included in the transportation conformity

budgets.

X:\2007-2008 SIPs\2011 Ozone Update\Submittal Docs\SJV SIP Update Chart 080911.docx
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6587

DANIEL ALLEN, SR., Petitioner - Appellant,

versus RAYMOND SMITH, Superintendent, Respondent - Appellee, and THEODIS BECK, Secretary of North Carolina Corrections, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-503-5-BO) Submitted: October 18, 2004 Decided: November 18, 2004 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel Allen, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).PER CURIAM: Daniel Allen, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). By failing to challenge in his informal brief the district court’s finding regarding timeliness, Allen has waived his right to challenge the district court’s dismissal of his § 2254 petition as untimely. 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Moreover, our independent review of the record reflects that his petition was indeed untimely. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
exv10w2



 




Exhibit 10.2








	 	 
	 	
    
Bank of America

Commercial Banking

Los Angeles—West

CA9-159-02-04

2049 Century Park East

Suite 200

Los Angeles, CA  90067-3101





March 17, 2005



MERCURY AIR GROUP, INC.



5456 McConnell Avenue




Los Angeles, CA 90066




Attention: Joe A Czyzyk, Chief Executive Officer



Re: Loan Agreement dated as of July 29, 2004, as amended



Dear Joe:



We refer to that certain Loan Agreement dated as of
July 29, 2004, as amended (the “Loan Agreement”),
executed between Bank of America, N.A. (the “Bank”)
and Mercury Air Group, Inc., Maytag Aircraft Corporation,
Mercury Air Cargo, Inc., MercFuel, Inc., Hermes Aviation, Inc.
and Mercury Air Center — Long Beach, Inc. (the
“Borrowers”).



Pursuant to Paragraph No. 9.10 (Cash dividends and Stock
Repurchases) of the Loan Agreement, the Bank hereby consents to
allow the Borrower to repurchase Borrower stock during fiscal
year 2005, in an aggregate amount not to exceed $1,000,000.00.
This consent is expressly limited to the repurchase described
herein and shall not constitute a consent to future repurchases.



Except as herein provided, all of the terms and conditions of
the Loan Agreement remain in full force and effect.



If you have any questions regarding this letter, please do not
hesitate to contact the undersigned.



Very truly yours,



BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.



/s/ P. Holloway-Dobson









Pamela Holloway-Dobson




Senior Vice President




(310) 785-6081
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [License No. 02/02-0654]

Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small Business Administration under section 309 of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, and 13 CFR 107.1900 of the Code of Federal Regulations to function as a small business investment company under the Small Business Investment Company License No. 02/02-0654 issued to Saratoga Investment Corp. SBIC, L.P., said license is hereby declared null and void.

Bailey DeVries,

Associate Administrator, Office of Investment and Innovation, United States Small Business Administration.

[FR Doc. 2024-00018 Filed 1-4-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
^2.:::: , 

o '': ! 

^j-^1^\^<^ <4^..i^^^w^ ^ 

z ^ -

^-/'^ 

s4> 

r --v-z--/ 

^ ^ 

0'/'^-.=^''^^. 

<:' . ^- !J^^^ ^ ^
**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: November 6, 2003