alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Edgen Murray Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Daniel J. OLeary, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (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 Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|               |  |                        
|-------------- |  | -----------------------
|March 30, 2007
|               | 
|By:            |  | /s/ DANIEL J. OLEARY  
|               |  | Daniel J. OLeary      
|               |  | Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Worldwide Energy & Manufacturing USA Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gerald DeCiccio, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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.





Dated: November 22, 2010





By:
/s/ GERALD DECICCIOGerald DeCiccioChief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
|                                                                                           
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                           
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                             
|View History: Annual                                                                       
|View History: Annual                                                                       
|View History:                                                                              
|                                                                                           
|Texas - RRC District 6 Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Divestitures (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                           
|                                                                                           
|Texas - RRC District 6 Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Divestitures (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                           

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 3     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 5      | 28     | 18     | 13     | 94     | 3      | 14     | 3      | 3      | 16    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 1      | 1      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed August 27, 2014.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D13-2027

Lower Tribunal No. 13-8132

________________

Jason Robert Konoski,

Appellant,

vs.

Dariush Shekarkhar, etc.,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Maria Espinosa

Dennis, Judge.

Roberto D. Stanziale (Fort Lauderdale), for appellant.

Silvia Perez, for appellee.

Before LAGOA, SALTER and EMAS, JJ.

EMAS, J.
Jason Konoski appeals from the trial court’s entry of a final judgment of

injunction for protection against domestic violence. He contends that 1) the final

judgment is not supported by competent substantial evidence, and 2) the trial court

erred in excluding testimony Appellant attempted to elicit from Appellee during

cross-examination.

Our review of the record reveals competent substantial evidence to support

the trial court’s entry of the final judgment of injunction. As to the evidentiary

issue, we hold that Appellant failed to properly preserve the issue for appeal. See

Frances v. State, 970 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 2007); Greenwald v. Eisinger, Brown, Lewis

& Frankel, P.A., 118 So. 3d 867 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); A. McD. v. State, 422 So. 2d

336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). 

Finally, and although having no effect on our ultimate determination, we

note with substantial concern the actions of Appellee’s appellate counsel in filing

an appendix containing documents outside the record which were never presented

to, or considered by, the trial court. In fact, the documents contained in the

appendix were generated, and pertain to events occurring, after the filing of the

notice of appeal in this case. Appellee never sought leave before filing these extrarecord documents, and it appears there would have been be no proper basis for

granting leave had it been sought. It is axiomatic that appellate review must be

limited to the record made before the trial court and it is “entirely inappropriate

2
and subjects the movant to possible sanctions to inject matters in the appellate

proceedings which were not before the trial court.” Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 511

So. 2d 593, 595 n.3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). As our sister court has noted:

When a party includes in an appendix material or matters outside the

record, or refers to such material or matters in its brief, it is proper for

the court to strike the same. That an appellate court may not consider

matters outside the record is so elemental that there is no excuse for

any attorney to attempt to bring such matters before the court. 

Altchiler v. State, 442 So. 2d 349, 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (internal

citations omitted). 

We strike Appellee’s appendix to the answer brief and admonish counsel for

her conduct in filing it.

Affirmed.

3
Exhibit
32








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








Pursuant to Section
1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as President and Chief
Executive Officer and Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, respectively,
of NTK Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”), do hereby certify that to their
knowledge:





1.
            the Company’s
      Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007
      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 Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
      fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.














/s/Richard L.
Bready


Name: Richard L.
Bready


Title:    President
and Chief Executive Officer











/s/Almon C.
Hall


Name:Almon C. Hall


Title:VicePresident and ChiefFinancialOfficer
|     1. | Such      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 20,      2009, 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-Q for      the period ending June 30, 2009, fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      Segway IV Corp., Inc. |
|----------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:       July 23, 2009                                                                                                               |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                         |
| /s/      Donny Smith                     |
| Donny      SmithPresident,      Secretary andDirector                                                                                   |
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4498 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4498

 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on formulations containing 
                   Diuron and application adjuvants.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 24, 2012

Mr. Bishop of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on formulations containing 
                   Diuron and application adjuvants.

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

SECTION 1. FORMULATIONS CONTAINING DIURON AND APPLICATION ADJUVANTS.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.13.26 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to formulations of Diuron and 
application adjuvants) is amended by striking the date in the effective 
period column and inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.1

 

THE RMR GROUP INC.

 

Summary of Director Compensation

 

The following is a summary of the currently effective compensation of the Directors of The RMR Group Inc. (the “Company”) for services as Directors, which is subject to modification at any time by the Board of Directors (the “Board”) or the Compensation Committee of the Board, as applicable:

 

·                  Each Independent Director receives an annual fee of $85,000 for services as a Director. The annual fee for any new Independent Director is prorated for the initial year.

 

·                  Each Independent Director who serves as a committee chair of the Board’s Audit Committee, Compensation Committee or Nominating and Governance Committee receives an additional annual fee of $17,500, $12,500 and 12,500, respectively. The committee chair fee for any new Independent Director is prorated for the initial year.

 

·                  Each Director receives a grant of 2,500 of the Company’s shares of Class A common stock on the date of the first Board meeting following each annual meeting of shareholders (or, for Directors who are first elected or appointed at other times, on the day of the first Board meeting attended).

 

·                  All Directors are generally reimbursed for travel expenses incurred in connection with their duties as Directors and for out of pocket costs incurred in connection with their attending certain continuing education programs.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6358

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GEORGE EDWARD WILLIAMS, JR., Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-92-228, CA-97-631-2) Submitted: June 21, 2001 Decided: June 29, 2001 Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Edward Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Steven Hale Levin, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Williams’ claim that his sentence is not proper in light of the rule announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), is without merit. We recently held in United States v. Sanders , 247 F.3d 139 (4th Cir. 2001), that the new rule announced in Apprendi is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. We also decline to address the new ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised by Williams for the first time on appeal. Muth v. United States , 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that issues raised for first time on appeal generally will not be considered absent exceptional circumstances of plain error or fundamental miscarriage of justice). 2 PER CURIAM: George Edward Williams, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000), and denying his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record, the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny § 2255 relief, and the court’s order denying the Rule 59(e) motion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. * United States v. Williams , Nos. CR-92-228; CA-97-631-2 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 29, 1999 & Sept. 22, 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
Exhibit 13.1






CERTIFICATION
OF ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER &
 ACTING
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 In
connection with the annual report on Form 20-F of Poly-Pacific International
Inc. (the “Registrant”) for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 1.
              The
      annual 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 annual report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Registrant.
   Date:  June
29, 2009
  /s/ Randy
      HaywardRandy
      Hayward
                              President,
                              Acting
      Chief Executive Officer, and
                              Acting
      Chief Financial Officer
 This
certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form 20-F pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent
required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"). Such
certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the
extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by
reference.
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-1826

___________ Terry B. and John B., Minors, by * and through their natural parent, * Naomi Taylor, * Plaintiffs- * Appellees, *
v. * Arkansas Department of Human * Services; Tom Dalton, in his * Individual and Official Capacity * as Director; Beverly Jones, in * Appeal from the United States her Individual and Official * District Court for the Capacity, * Eastern District of Arkansas Defendants, * P.H. Gilkey, in his Individual * and Official Capacity; Cynthia * Mahomes, in her Individual and * Official Capacity, * Defendants- * Appellants, * Michael Smith, in his Individual * Capacity; Joyce Smith, in her * Individual Capacity, * Defendants. *

*
*

*
* (UNPUBLISHED)

*

*

## TheHonorable Henry Woods, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1 

## District of Arkansas. -2- ___________ Submitted: November 19, 1997 Filed: December 5, 1997

___________ Before BOWMAN, BRIGHT, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. This § 1983 action was brought on behalf of Terry B. and John B . again st the Arkansas Department of Human Services and a number o f indivi duals, including P.H. Gilkey and Cynthia Mahomes. The distric t court denied the motion of Gilkey and Mahomes for summary judgment o n

1 theirqualified immunity defense, finding there remained material issues of fact. Gilkey and Mahomes appeal this ruling, as well as the district court’s denial of the ir motion for summary judgment on the merits. Based on our review of the record we conclude that the district court should be affirmed on its qualified immunity ruling and that the attempted appeal of its ruling on the mer its should be dismissed. See Johnson v. Jones , 515 U.S. 304, 313 (1995). So ordered. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
|                                                                                         
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                         
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                           
|View History: Annual                                                                     
|View History: Annual                                                                     
|View History:                                                                            
|                                                                                         
|Texas - RRC District 1 Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Extensions (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                         
|                                                                                         
|Texas - RRC District 1 Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Extensions (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                         

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 8     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 137    | 593    | 1,194  | 484    | 591    | 234    | --     | --     | --     | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --     | --     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023