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

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United
States Code (18 U.S.C. § 1350), Michael M. Wick, M.D., Ph.D., the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Telik, Inc. (the Company), and Cynthia M. Butitta, the Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his or her knowledge:

1. The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
period ended September 30, 2010, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Periodic Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

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

In Witness Whereof, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 3rd day of November, 2010.



|                                     |  |  |  |                                                    
|------------------------------------ |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------
|/S/ MICHAEL M. WICK                  |  |  |  | /S/ CYNTHIA M. BUTITTA                             
|Michael M. Wick, M.D., Ph.D.         |  |  |  | Cynthia M. Butitta                                 
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  | Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer

This
certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Telik, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.4

March 18, 2004

Mr. John B. Benton
Mr. John A. MacAllister
Benton Consulting Partners
655 Deep Valley Drive
Suite 120
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274

Dear Jack and John,

Reference is to paragraph 2.2(e) of the Asset Purchase Agreement executed
between eFunds Corporation ("Purchaser") and Benton Consulting Partners
("Seller") dated January 30, 2004. The following language is hereby appended to
that citation:

"It is specifically agreed that for purposes of computation of the Voluntary
Attrition Rate, any instance or instances of death or permanent disablement of
the Acquired Work Force which may occur prior to the first anniversary or second
anniversary of the Closing Date will not be considered as voluntary
termination(s) of employment of Purchaser."

Sincerely,

/s/ Paul F. Walsh
Paul Walsh
Chief Executive Officer

APPROVED AS TO FORM
     LAW DEPT.

For Benton Consulting Partners

/s/ John B. Benton                                   /s/ John A. MacAllister
John B. Benton                                       John A. MacAllister
Seller                                               Seller
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 201 4 - 00 4 2 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 3 - CE - 0 5 0 - 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. No 

### 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 together. 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 with 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 M anager**  **Date**
December 3, 2014

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

400 7 th Street SW, Plaza 401

Washington, DC 20591

- 0001

Re: Exemption No. 4298, Docket No. 23290

Ladies/Gentlemen:

In accordance with Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14CFR) § 11.61, Airlines for

America (A4 A), on behalf of its member airlines 1 / and other similarly situated part 121 certificate

holders, petitions for an extension of Exemption No. 4298N (Docket No. 23290). This exemption is

sched uled to expire on March 31, 2015

.

Exemption No. 4298N provides relief from §§ 121.311(f) and 121.391(d ) of Title 14 CFR and

permits A4 A member airlines and other similarly situated part 121 certificate holders’ required

flight attendants to be located at the mid

- cabin flight attendant station during takeoff and landing on

Boeing 767 airplanes.

The conditions and circumstances, in regard to public interest and equivalent levels of safety, which

warranted the original grant of exemption, continue to exist. This exemption and its predecessor,

Exemption No. 429 8, have been in use for almost eighteen years with no known compromise of

safety.

____________________________________

1/ Operator Members:

Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, Atlas Air, Delta Air Lines, Federal Express, Hawaiian Airlines,

JetBlue Air ways, Southwest Airlines, United Airlines, U nited Parcel S ervice , US Airways.

Associate Members:

Air Canada.U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

Docket No. 23290

December 3, 2014

Page Two

The renewal of this exemption i s not a controversial issue. A4A believes that there is just cause to

waive the requirement of public notice of this petition. There is no substantial change to the

exemption and the renewal of this exemption is not pr ecedent setting, therefore, A4 A requests that

publication in the Federal Register be waived as unnecessary.

A summary of this petition as required by 14 CFR §11.81 is attached.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at (202) 626

- 4285

Very truly yours,

Airlines for America

By: __________________________

Paul W. Railsback

Director

- Operations

1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Suite 1100

Washington, D.C. 20004

- 1707

(202) 626

- 4285

prailsback@airlines.org

AttachmentU.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

Docket No. 23290

December 3, 2014

Attachment

SUMMARY OF ATA PETITION

Airlines for America , on behalf of its member airlines and other similarly situated Part

121 operators, petitions for an extension of Exemption No. 4298 Exemption No. 4298

provides relief from 14CFR §§ 121.391(d) and 121.311(f) and permits required flight

attendant(s) to be located at the mid

- cabin flight attendant station during takeoff and

landing on Boeing 767 aircraft.
Opinion filed March 29, 2019

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________

No. 11-19-00039-CV

___________

IN THE MATTER OF J.H.N.

On Appeal from the 70th District Court

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. B-30,621

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant, J.H.N., has filed in this court a motion to dismiss his appeal. In the 

motion, Appellant states that he no longer wishes to pursue an appeal in this matter, 

and he asks this court to allow him to withdraw and dismiss his appeal. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). Appellant has certified that Appellee does not oppose the motion. 

The motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

March 29, 2019 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.1

Willson, J., not participating.

 1

Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, 

sitting by assignment.
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 

v. Reese, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-8471.] 

NOTICE 

This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 

advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to 

promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 

South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 

formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 

the opinion is published. 

SLIP OPINION NO. 2016-OHIO-8471

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. REESE, APPELLANT. 

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as State v. Reese, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-8471.] 

Court of appeals’ judgment reversed on the authority of State v. Gonzales, and 

cause remanded to trial court for further proceedings.

(No. 2016-0656—Submitted December 20, 2016—Decided December 30, 2016.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Muskingum County, 

No. CT2015-0046, 2016-Ohio-1591. 

_______________ 

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of 

State v. Gonzales, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2016-Ohio-8319, ___ N.E.3d ___, and this 

cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with our 

decision in Gonzales. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and 

O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 

O’DONNELL, J., dissents. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

_________________ 

D. Michael Haddox, Muskingum County Prosecuting Attorney, and Gerald 

V. Anderson II, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 

Barnhart Law Office, L.L.C., and Robert B. Barnhart, for appellant. 

_________________
#### Bobby HOLCOMBE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 36556.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 4, 1964.

No attorney of .record on appeal.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

*915MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is burglary with four prior convictions for felonies less than capital alleged for enhancement; the punishment, life. ■

“The record on appeal does not reflect that appellant has been sentenced in the trial court. Where no sentence has been pronounced in the trial court, this court is without jurisdiction to enter any order except to dismiss the appeal.” Aguirre v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 271 S.W.2d 819. See also Skaggs v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 88, 311 S.W.2d 410.

The appeal is dismissed.
**UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION** 

**Washington, D.C.** SPA RENTAL , LLC, D /B /A MSI AVIATION ,

Complainant , v. Docket No . : AGC - 16 - 13 - 02 S OMERSET - P ULASKI C OUNTY A IRPORT B OARD ,

Respondent . **M OTION**  **FOR A** **DDITIONAL T**  **IME TO R** **ESPOND TO A**  **PPEAL** The Somerset - Pulaski County Airport Board, by

counsel , requests an extension of time in which to respond to the complaint in this matter, to and including Decembe r 18, 2015 . This extension is requested due to previously schedule d vacations and other deadlines. Accordingl y, i n order to adequatel y and thoroughly respond to the appeal , the Airport Board needs additional time. No party will suffer an y harm due to this e xtension. When counsel for the Airport Board asked c ounsel for Complainant whether he would agree to the extension, his sole objection was that he would be required to work “on a repl y over the Christmas holiday.” But 14 C.F.R. 16.33 does not give Complainant the right to file a repl y. If, however, Complainant may

file a reply , the Airport Board would be agreeable to an extension to accommodate holiday

schedules.- 2 - By : /s/ Bethany A. Breetz Bethan y A. Breetz bbreetz@stites.com Rachel L. Owsley rowsley @stites.com S T ITES & H ARBISON , P LLC 400 West Market Street , Suite 1800 Louisville, KY 40202 - 3352 Telephone: (502) 587 - 3400 Attorney s for Respondent, Somerset - Pulaski County Airport Board- 3 - **CERTIFICATE OF SERVI CE**  I hereb y certify

that a copy

of the foregoing was sent by electronic mail this 6 th day of November, 2015 to : Konrad Kucz ak 130 West Second Street Suite 1010 Day ton, OH 45402 yo ur _lawyer@sbcglobal.net FAA Docket Clerk 9 - AWA - AGC - PART - 16@faa.gov

/s/ Bethany A. Breetz Bethan y A. Breetz

1056476:1:LOUISVILLE
#### L. D. HESTER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28105.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 29, 1956.

No appearance for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, 3 days in jail and a fine of $50.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular, and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
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.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Defense Acquisition Regulations System

          - 48 CFR Part 213
          - [Docket DARS-2024-0001]

# AGENCY:

Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

# ACTION:

Final rule; technical amendment.

# SUMMARY:

DoD is amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to make needed editorial changes.

# DATES:

Effective February 15, 2024.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Jennifer D. Johnson, Defense Acquisition Regulations System, telephone 703-717-8226.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This final rule amends the DFARS to make needed editorial changes to add a pointer to DFARS Procedures, Guidance, and Information.

      ( print page 11748)    

# List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 213

      - Government procurement

Jennifer D. Johnson,

Editor/Publisher, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

Therefore, 48 CFR part 213 is amended as follows:

# PART 213—SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION PROCEDURES

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 213 continues to read as follows:

Authority:41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.

2. Amend section 213.301 by adding paragraph (6) to read as follows: 

213.301 

* * * * *

                            (6) When the Governmentwide commercial purchase card is used as a method of payment for contracts or orders, follow the procedures at 232.7002(a)(5) and PGI 242.302(a)(13)(B)(                            *3*).                        

[FR Doc. 2024-02748 Filed 2-14-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6001-FR-P
Order entered April 2, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00902-CR

No. 05-20-00903-CR

DANTONIO SENTELL HOOD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F17-75151-I & F17-75066-I

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s March 30, 2021 second motion for an 

extension of time to file his brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief 

due on April 30, 2021.

/s/ DENNISE GARCIA

JUSTICE
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Parmele et al., Appellants. (Two cases.)

(Nos. 27432 and 27433

Decided February 23, 1939.)

*Mr. Thomas J. O’Connor,*prosecuting attorney, *Mr. Joel 8. Rhinefort*and Mr. *Harry Friberg,*for appellee.

*Mr. Benjamin B. Moses,*for William R. Parmele, appellant.

*Messrs. Peck, Shaffer, Williams & Gorman*and *Mr. Edwin S. Barger,*for Edward A. Schwab, appellant.

*Mr. 8am K. Beetham,*for John L. Rossel and William O. Reid, appellants.

It is ordered and adjudged that said appeals as of right he, and the same hereby are, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said causes.

*Appeals dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman, Williams, Myers, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.
Dismiss and Opinion Filed July 31, 2013 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00613-CV 

CARL LOCKRIDGE, Appellant 

V. 

SHARON LARKIN, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-00017a 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Lang-Miers and Lewis 

Opinion by Chief Justice Wright 

By notice dated May 1, 2013, the Court directed appellant to pay the $175 filing fee for 

the appeal within ten days. We warned appellant that failure to do so would result in dismissal of 

the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). To date, appellant has not paid the filing fee, provided 

documentation showing he is entitled to proceed without payment of the fee, or communicated 

with the Court regarding the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 

130613F.P05 

 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

CARL LOCKRIDGE, Appellant 

No. 05-13-00613-CV V. 

SHARON LARKIN, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-00017a. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright, 

Justices Lang-Miers and Lewis participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. We 

ORDER that appellee Sharon Larkin recover her costs of this appeal, if any, from appellant Carl 

Lockridge. 

Judgment entered July 31, 2013 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 522 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 522

   To provide for a limited exemption to the hydroelectric licensing 
provisions of part I of the Federal Power Act for certain transmission 
  facilities associated with the El Vado Hydroelectric Project in New 
                                Mexico.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                March 9 (legislative day, March 6), 1995

 Mr. Domenici (for himself and Mr. Bingaman) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide for a limited exemption to the hydroelectric licensing 
provisions of part I of the Federal Power Act for certain transmission 
  facilities associated with the El Vado Hydroelectric Project in New 
                                Mexico.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITED EXEMPTION.

    (a) Exemption.--Part I of the Federal Power Act, and the 
jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under such 
part I, shall not apply to the transmission line facilities associated 
with the El Vado Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 5226-002) 
which are described in subsection (b).
    (b) Facilities Covered by Exemption.--The facilities to which the 
exemption under subsection (a) applies are those transmission 
facilities located near the Rio Chama, a tributary of the Rio Grande, 
in Rio Arriba County, New Mexico, referred to as the El Vado 
transmission line, a three phase 12-mile long 69 kV power line 
installed within a 50-foot wide right-of-way in Rio Arriba County, New 
Mexico, originating at the El Vado Project's switchyard and connecting 
to the Spills 69 kV Switching Station operated by the Northern Arriba 
Electric Cooperative, Inc.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of Dalrada Financial Corporation, a New
Mexico corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB for the year ending June 30,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I,
Brian Bonar, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, do each
hereby certify, pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350), that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(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.



/s/   Brian Bonar
-----------------------
Brian Bonar
Chief Financial Officer
May 13, 2005
EXHIBIT 32.1

      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 New Millennium Media International,
Inc. (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB of the quarter ended March 31, 2004, I
hereby certify solely for the purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
my knowledge:

(1)  The quarterly 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 quarterly report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     Company

New Millennium Media International, Inc.


By: /s/ John"JT" Thatch                    Dated this 10th day of May 2004
    ---------------------------
    John "JT" Thatch
    CEO/President/Director