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

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ANDCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

I, Gerald J. Burnett, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Avistar CommunicationsCorporation on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2004 fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition andresults of operations of Avistar Communications Corporation.

 
|   | By:    | /s/ GERALD J. BURNETT    |   |
|--------|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | Name:  | Gerald J.  Burnett       |
|   | Title: | Chief  Executive Officer |

 

 

I, Robert J. Habig, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Avistar CommunicationsCorporation on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2004 fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition andresults of operations of Avistar Communications Corporation.

 
|   | By:    | /s/ ROBERT J. HABIG      |   |
|--------|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | Name:  | Robert J.  Habig         |
|   | Title: | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 10104 Summary Calendar

JAMES K. CHAMBERS

,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

L. SERRANO, Administrator,

Defendant

- Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:15

- CV

- 387

Before BARKSDALE, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Proceeding pro se , James K. Chambers challenge s the dismissal of his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action against Avalon Correction Services’ employee L oy

Serrano ; the dismissal was based on Chambers’ failure to comply with the

court’s order to file an amended complaint and, alternativel y, his failure to

state a claim

. On appeal, his brief does not address the court’s base s for

dismissing his claims

. When an appellant fails to identify any error in the

* Pursuant to 5 th Cir. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 th Cir.
R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 4, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-10104 Document: 00513623437 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/04/2016No. 16

- 10104

2 court’s analysis, it is as if he had not appealed that issue. Brinkmann v . Dallas

C t y

. Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Although pro se
briefs are afforded liberal construction, contentions must be briefed in order to

be preserved. Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224

– 25 (5th Cir. 1993). Because

Chambers fails to do so, his claims are abandoned

. AFFIRMED. Case: 16-10104 Document: 00513623437 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/04/2016
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 185 (Friday, September 22, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57307-57308]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-24433]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[FRL-6874-5]


Tennessee: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste 
Management Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Tennessee has applied to EPA for Final authorization of the 
changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation 
and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant final authorization to 
Tennessee. In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal 
Register, EPA is authorizing the changes by an immediate final rule. 
EPA did not make a proposal prior to the immediate final rule because 
we believe this action is not controversial and do not expect comments 
that oppose it. We have explained the reasons for this authorization in 
the preamble to the immediate final rule. Unless we get written 
comments which oppose this authorization during the comment period, the 
immediate final rule will become effective on the date it establishes, 
and we will not take further action on this proposal. If we get 
comments that oppose this action, we will withdraw the immediate final 
rule and it will not take effect. We will then respond to public 
comments in a later final rule based on this proposal. You may not have 
another opportunity for comment. If you want to comment on this action, 
you must do so at this time.

DATES: Send your written comments by October 23, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Narindar Kumar, Chief, RCRA 
Programs Branch, Waste Management Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, The Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth 
Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104. You can examine copies of the 
materials submitted by Tennessee during normal business hours at the 
following locations: EPA Region 4 Library, The Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal 
Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104, Phone 
number: (404)562-8190; or Tennessee Department of Environment and 
Conservation, Division of Solid Waste Management, 5th Floor, L & C 
Tower, 401 Church Street, Nashville, Tennessee 37243-1535, Phone 
number: (615) 532-0850.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Narindar Kumar, Chief, RCRA Programs

[[Page 57308]]

Branch, Waste Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
at the above address and phone number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, please see the 
immediate final rule published in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section 
of this Federal Register.

    Dated: September 12, 2000.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 00-24433 Filed 9-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2087 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2087

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 21, 2012

    Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To remove restrictions from a parcel of land situated in the Atlantic 
                  District, Accomack County, Virginia.

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

SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF RESTRICTIONS.

    (a) Removal.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall execute such 
instruments as may be necessary to remove all deed restrictions 
described in subsection (b) relating to the parcel of land described in 
subsection (c).
    (b) Deed Restrictions.--The deed restrictions referred to in 
subsection (a) are those restrictions, including easements, exceptions, 
reservations, terms, conditions, and covenants described in Quitclaim 
Deed No. 17808A from the United States to Accomack County, Virginia, 
executed on December 20, 1976, and recorded among the real estate 
records of Accomack County, Virginia, by the Clerk of the Circuit 
Court, on pages 292 through 296 of Deed Book 381.
    (c) Description of Land.--The parcel of land referred to in 
subsection (a) consists of approximately 31.6 acres situated in the 
Atlantic District, Accomack County, Virginia, more particularly 
described in the metes and 

              

bounds description recorded on page 292 of the quitclaim deed described 
in subsection (b).

            Passed the House of Representatives March 20, 2012.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
|                                                                          
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                          
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                            
|View History: Annual                                                      
|View History: Annual                                                      
|View History:                                                             
|                                                                          
|Louisiana Offshore Natural Gas Processed in Louisiana (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                          
|                                                                          
|Louisiana Offshore Natural Gas Processed in Louisiana (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                          

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1  | Year-2  | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------- | ------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | -------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |         | 151,301 | 99,910 | 94,790 | 89,406 | 54,770 | 82,240 | 75,322 | 108,426
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 96,133 | 102,502 | 113,428 |        |        |        |        |        |        |        
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
Exhibit
      32.2




CERTIFICATION
      OF CEO 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 Victoria Industries, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed
      with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Albert
      Abdoulline, as a Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:





(1) The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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.


By:
                  /S/ Albert AbdoullineAlbert
                  AbdoullineCFODate:
                   December 19, 2007
#### ELLIS v. STATE.

No. 26810.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 3, 1954.

J7B. Sallas, Crockett, for appellant.

. , Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

The conviction is for driving while intoxicated;' the punishment, a fine of $100.

The prosecution was. for an' offense committed prior to the effective date of the amendment of Art. 802 P.C. by the 53rd Legislature, p. 480, Ch. 167, § 1, which provides for a mandatory jail term and a fine. -Art. 802-Vernon’s Ann.P.C. ,-:-

The judgment was rendered September 9, 1953, and on the same day appellant gave notice of appeal and was released upon recognizance to abide the decision of this Court.

Under the provisions of Art. 759a, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. the time for filing státement of facts expired 90 days áftér September 9, 1953, the date of giving notice of appeal. The statement of facts-found in *114the record was not approved or agreed to within the 90 days allowed and cannot be considered. Hayton v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 256 S.W.2d 853; Couch v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 255 S.W.2d 223.

Nor can we consider the evidence heard pn the motion for new trial for the additional reason that Art. 759a, ' § 6, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., requires that the facts adduced in connection with any motion shall be filed with the clerk separatély from the facts adduced bearing on the guilt or innocence of the defendant.

The motion for new trial was not filed in the trial court until September 11, 1953, which was after the appeal had been perfected. It is therefore not before us for consideration. .

We must therefore determine from the bill of exception alone whether an abuse of discretion is shown in the overruling'of the motion for continuance.

The bill shows that, a motion for continuance was filed alleging that counsel who had been retained by appellant was unable because of illness to represent him at the trial. The motion was sworn to by appellant and was supported by affidavit of a Temple physician who had not seen counsel since August 15th. His affidavit was to the effect that said counsel was “unable to participate in his professional duties until a re-evaluation of his physical condition on September 11th, 1953', because it would be detrimental to his health at this time to do so.”

The bill certifies that appellant was given an opportunity .to secure other counsel but declined to do so “because defendant did not in fact desire other counsel.” Also that the court refused to grant the application for continuance because he believed counsel was physically able to try the case.

In the absence of any complaint regarding the -conduct of the trial of appellant without counsel, we are unable to agree that an abuse of discretion is shown which calls for reversal.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 10.2

PHILLIPS-VAN HEUSEN CORPORATION

2006 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

NONQUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AWARD AGREEMENT

(Employee)
CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

     IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACCOMPANYING QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB OF
SEGWAY III CORP. FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2003, RICHARD I. ANSLOW,
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF SEGWAY III CORP.
HEREBY CERTIFY PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND
BELIEF, THAT:

     1.   Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30,
          2003, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
          the period ended June 30, 2003, fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Segway
          III Corp.

Dated:  August 11, 2003

Segway III Corp.


By: /s/ Richard I. Anslow
-------------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. CP24-27-000]

                    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) staff (Protestor) hereby protests the prior notice request filed under the provisions of the Commission's regulations at part 157, subpart F, by Kern River Gas Transmission Company (Kern River) on December 15, 2023, in the above-referenced docket. Pursuant to its Part 157, subpart F, blanket certificate authority, Kern River proposes to construct and operate the Lanes Crossing Meter Station (Project), within Kern River's existing Victorville Meter Station at the High Desert Power Plant, San Bernardino County, California. Protestor seeks to have this prior notice request processed as a case-specific application filed under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157, subpart A, of the Commission's regulations.[1] 

                    Protestor notes that Kern River did not provide a copy of a finding by the California State Historic Preservation                           ( print page 15567)                        Office of “no historic properties” or “no historic properties effected.” This documentation is necessary to demonstrate the Project's compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act, as required under the Commission's regulations at section 157.208(c)(9) and Appendix II of subpart F. Without this documentation, the environmental concerns cannot be adequately addressed before the protest period expires on February 26, 2024.                

Dated: February 26, 2024.

Debbie-Anne A. Reese,

Acting Secretary.

# Footnotes

1.                             Section 157.205(f) provides that a protested prior notice filing shall be treated as though it had filed a case-specific application under NGA section 7, unless, pursuant to section 157.205(g), the protestor withdraws its protest within 30 days after protests were due.                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2024-04416 Filed 3-1-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### B. F. GOOD v. Bobby Gene FORD et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 25, 1954.

L. C. Farley, Pikeville, for appellant.

Herman Dotson, Pikeville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This case, involves an accounting between the appellant and appellees growing out o£ the lease of real estate. The net amount involved is less than $2,500 and, since we find no material error, the motion for an appeal is overruled and the judgment is affirmed. KRS 21.080.
IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS

HANDDOWN LIST OF SEPTEMBER 15, 2015

WESTERN DISTRICT

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM

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

WD77523 Tomell M. Thomas vs. State of Missouri

WD78237 Kartel Capital, LLC, et al vs. KC Life Insurance CO.

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 30.25(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM

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

WD77628 State of Missouri vs. Antonio C. Jackson
----

 Rule 13a – 14(a)/15(d) – 14(a) 

I, Mitch White, certify that: 

                1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of CYOP Systems International  Inc.; 

                2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report; 

                3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information  included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report; 

                4.  The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing  and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act  Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

                a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared; 

                b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures  as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report  (the "Evaluation Date"); and 

                c)  presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of  the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation  Date; 

                5.  The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our  most recent evaluation, 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 in the design or operation of internal controls  which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize  and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors  any material weaknesses in internal controls; and 

                b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees  who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

                6.  The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly  report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or  in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent  to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions  with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.