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

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 BayHill Capital
Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert K. Bench, President and 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.





|July 20,2011 | /s/ ROBERT K. BENCHRobert K. Bench, Principal Executive Officer
|------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion issued August 30, 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals
For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 18
- 00143
- CR

——————————— RACHEL CAMARA MARYLA ND , Appella nt

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appell e e

On Appeal from the 177th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No s . 1519118

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Rachel Camara Maryland, has filed a motion to dismiss th is appeal in compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2 (a). See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a). The State has not opposed this motion. We have not issued a decision in th is appeal

.2

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot

. PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Brown and Caughey. Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS

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, his or her knowledge:

1.The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006, 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 6th day of November, 2006.



|                                     |  |  |  |                                                    
|------------------------------------ |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------
|/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.
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 Annual Report of Apollo Solar Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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.







/s/Jingong Pan


Jingong Pan


Chief Executive Officer and Chairman


April 8, 2011








/s/ Wilson Liu


Wilson Liu


Chief Financial Officer


April 8, 2011










A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Apollo Solar Energy Inc. and will be retained by Apollo Solar Energy, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 32 (Thursday, February 15, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 11831]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-03199]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-11742-01-R6]


Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petition for Objection to 
State Operating Permit for Commonwealth LNG, LLC, Cameron Parish, 
Louisiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final order on petition.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator signed 
an Order dated January 30, 2024, denying a Petition dated May 24, 2023 
(the Petition), from Healthy Gulf and Sierra Club (the Petitioners). 
The petition requested that the EPA object to a Clean Air Act (CAA) 
title V operating permit issued by the Louisiana Department of 
Environmental Quality (LDEQ) to Commonwealth LNG, LLC, for its natural 
gas liquefaction and export facility located in Cameron Parish, 
Louisiana.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Ehrhart, EPA Region 6 Office, 
Air Permits Section, (214) 665-2295, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#86e3eef4eee7f4f2a8ece9e8e7f2eee7e8c6e3f6e7a8e1e9f0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2a4f4258424b585e044045444b5e424b446a4f5a4b044d455c">[email protected]</span></a>. The 
final order and petition are available electronically at: https://www.epa.gov/title-v-operating-permits/title-v-petition-database.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EPA received a Petition from Healthy 
Gulf and Sierra Club dated May 24, 2023, requesting that the EPA object 
to the issuance of operating permit no. 0560-00997-V0, issued by LDEQ 
to Commonwealth LNG in Cameron Parish, Louisiana. On January 30, 2024, 
the EPA Administrator issued an Order denying the petition. The order 
itself explains the basis for the EPA's decision.
    Sections 307(b) and 505(b)(2) of the CAA provide that a petitioner 
may request judicial review of those portions of an order that deny 
issues in a petition. Any petition for review shall be filed in the 
United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit no later 
than April 15, 2024.

    Dated: February 9, 2024.
David Garcia,
Director, Air and Radiation Division, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2024-03199 Filed 2-14-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
|                 |
|-----------------|
|                 |  |
| Participant:    |   |
| Number of RSUs: |   |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | Vesting Schedule; Restricted Period.  The Restricted Period of an RSU shall begin on the Grant Date and end on its applicable Vesting Date.  Provided that the Participant has not undergone a termination of service with the Company and its Affiliates prior to the applicable Vesting Date, the RSUs shall vest and become Released Units as follows: |

|              |
|--------------|
|              |  |
| Vesting Date | Released Units |
|         |   |
|         |   |
|         |   |
|         |   |

|    |             |
|----|-------------|
| 2. | Settlement. |

----

----

|    |          |
|----|----------|
| 7. | General. |

----

----

|     |                                 |
|-----|---------------------------------|
| By: | _______________________________ |
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**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 Cognigen Networks, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB/A-2 for the period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gary L. Cook, Chief Financial 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 /s/ Gary L. Cook
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 21 - LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

1.   Prima International, a California corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary
     of ITEC.

2.   Laser Printer Accessories Corporation, a Delaware corporation and a
     wholly-owned subsidiary of ITEC (Inactive).

3.   Personal Computer Products, Inc., doing business as PCPI Technologies, a
     California corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of ITEC.

4.   Co-Processors, Inc., a California corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary
     of ITEC (Inactive).

5.   NewGen Imaging Systems, Inc., a California corporation and a wholly-owned
     subsidiary of ITEC.

6.   Color Solutions, Inc., a California corporation and a wholly-owned
     subsidiary of ITEC.

7.   McMican Corporation, a California corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary
     of ITEC.

8.   AMT Accel UK Ltd., located in ITEC House, Unit 9 Milbanke Court, Milbanke
     Way, Bracknell, Berkshire RG12 1RP.

9.   ITEC Europe Ltd., is located in ITEC House, Unit 9 Milbanke Court, Milbanke
     Way, Bracknell, Berkshire RG12 1RP.


                                         45
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

February 27, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131227 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver (17) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 131227 

 COA: 266403 
 Wayne CC: 00-008455-01

SHAMU DOMINGO MARTIN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's October 31, 

2006 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. 

l0220 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

February 27, 2007 

 Clerk
#### Joe Q. SULLIVAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 39212.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 9, 1966.

Vernis Fulmer, Marion G. Holt, Nacog-doches, for appellant.

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

WOODLEY, Judge.

The conviction from which this appeal is prosecuted was upon complaint and information alleging that appellant did “unlawfully kill a doe deer.” Appellant was found guilty as charged and the jury assessed his punishment at a fine of $200.

Art. 910 V.A.P.C. makes it unlawful “for any person to take, kill, wound, shoot at, hunt or possess, dead or alive, any *wild*female deer.”

In a prosecution under this statute it is necessary that the state allege and prove that the female or doe deer was wild, as distinguished from one in captivity or visibly in control of some person.

*“Wild*deer” are declared to be game animals. Art. 892 V.A.P.C.

All *wild*animals within the borders of the state are declared to be the property of the people of the state. Art. 871a V.A.P.C.

Art. 910 V.A.P.C. is one of the statutes enacted by the Legislature under its authority to make laws reasonably necessary for protection of public rights in *wild*game. Dobie v. State, 120 Tex.Cr.R. 72, 48 S.W.2d 289. A doe deer other than a wild or game animal is not protected by Art. 910 V.A.P.C.

The complaint and information, having omitted the necessary allegation that the female or doe deer killed was wild, charged no offense and appellant’s motion to quash should have been sustained. Stone v. State, 116 Tex.Cr.R. 110, 31 S.W.2d 1077.

Attorney General Price Daniel so ruled in 1947, Opinion No. V-S9.

Our prior order reversing the conviction and the opinion remanding the cause are withdrawn.

The complaint alleging no offense, the judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7165

SAMUEL TROY DUGAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versusCOMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; DAVID W. ROBINSON, Warden; NOTTOWAY CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-98-543) Submitted: February 25, 1999 Decided: March 8, 1999 Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Samuel Troy Dugan, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Samuel Troy Dugan seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we denya certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Dugan v. Virginia Dep’t of Corrections , No. CA-98-543 (E.D. Va. July 1, 1998). We deny Dugan’s motion for production of documents. 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
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Cynthia M. Butitta, certify that:



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



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material
fact 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 present
in 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 (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 the registrant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 the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely 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 financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably 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s internal control over financial reporting.



|                     |  |                                                                       
|-------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 5, 2004 |  | /s/ CYNTHIA M. BUTITTA                                                
|                     |  | Cynthia M. Butitta Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer
#### Thelma PEDIGO, Appellant, v. Leonard PEDIGO, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 29, 1959.

Cecil C. Wilson, Glasgow, for appellant.

Terry L. Hatchett, Richard L. Garnett, Glasgow, for appellee.

CULLEN, Commissioner.

Thelma Pedigo sought a divorce from her husband, Leonard, on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. He counterclaimed for a divorce on the same ground. The court concluded that neither party had established grounds for divorce, and entered judgment dismissing the action. Thelma has appealed.

Without detailing the evidence, we will say that it is convincing that after some 20 years of married life the parties (who are childless) developed a strained relationship and thereafter for several years conducted themselves toward each other in a way calculated to destroy any hope of marital happiness on the part of either one. See Coleman v. Coleman, Ky., 269 S.W.2d 730. Particularly, the conduct of the husband towards the wife was such as to indicate that he had no respect for her, no consideration for her wishes, and no regard for her feelings. See Grow v. Grow, 134 Ky. 816, 121 S.W. 654. He treated her with cold indifference, and there was no social relationship between them. It also appears that she was *821required to look to her own earnings for food and clothing.

It is true that the wife was to some extent also at fault, hut since the 1956 amendment to KRS 403.020 it is not required that the wife be not in like fault in order to obtain a divorce for cruel and inhuman treatment indicating a settled aversion of the husband to her or such as to-destroy permanently her peace or happiness. It is our opinion that the evidence was such as to establish grounds for granting a divorce to the wife under the provisions of KRS 403.020(3) (b), and that the circuit court erred in not granting her a divorce.

Upon remand of the case the circuit court will enter judgment granting the wife a divorce, and making a suitable allowance -of alimony, taking into consideration that she is not wholly without fault, but on the other hand she contributed substantially, through her labors, to the accumulation of the husband’s estate. The wife will also be entitled to a reasonable allowance for her attorney’s fees.

The judgment is reversed, with directions to enter judgment in accordance with this opinion.
#### Angel SANCHEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles S. WALTERS, III, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 02-7824.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 6, 2003.

Decided Feb. 13, 2003.

John Clark Fischer, Randolph & Fischer, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Angel Sanchez seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Sanchez has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. *See Sanchez v. Walters,*No. CA-02-257-1 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 24, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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.*
TS – 11KK4D, Physical and Chemical Properties Worksheet, DSC Trace

Reacted
<PAGE>   1
                            INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-24231 and No. 333-07367)
of our report dated July 11, 1996, with respect to the consolidated balance
sheet, statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows of
Mehl/Biophile International Corporation included in its Form 10-KSB for the
year ended May 31, 1996, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 




                                                /s/ Bond, Andiola & Co.

                                                BOND, ANDIOLA & CO.

Raritan, New Jersey
September 5, 1997
#### Hubert BRANTLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 30262.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 7, 1959.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Thomas D. White and Carol Vance, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s-Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

The offense is aggravated assault with a motor vehicle; the punishment, thirty days in jail and a fine of $250.

The record is in the same condition as Tex.Cr.App., 320 S.W.2d 825.

For the reasons therein stated, and upon-the authorities therein cited, the appeal is-dismissed.

DAVIDSON, Judge

(dissenting).

I dissent to the dismissal of the appeal in this case for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in Brinkley v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 320 S.W.2d 855.