alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of WhiteHorse Finance, Inc. and Subsidiaries (the Company) for the annual period ended December 31, 2018 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stuart Aronson, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge that: (1)

          The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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/ Stuart Aronson Name: Stuart Aronson Title:  Chief Executive Officer Date: March 14, 2019
Attachment 1

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE OPTION B/C SECTIONS OF THE SF 2818

 “CONTINUATION OF LIFE INSURANCE COVERAGE AS AN ANNUITANT OR 

COMPENSATIONER”

The SF 2818, “Continuation of Life Insurance Coverage as an Annuitant or Compensationer”, is 

currently being revised based on new regulations which took effect October 1, 2010. The new regulations 

eliminate the “second opportunity” election as described in Page 2 “Optional Insurance” for those who 

are eligible and elect to continue Option B and/or Option C into retirement. Until the new form is ready, 

please use the current form. 

Make your Basic and Option A elections per the instructions on the form. For Options B & C, disregard 

the current information on page 2 of the form regarding a second opportunity. You must make your 

final Option B and/or Option C election now, as retiring employees already do for Basic and 

Option A. There is no second opportunity to change your election, and you will not receive a “second 

election opportunity” letter. You can always change your Option B and/or Option C reduction election to 

“Full Reduction” at any time (if you have not assigned your coverage). 

Option B – Additional Optional Insurance 

11. How many multiples of Option B do you want to have in retirement/compensation? (You can elect up 

to the number of multiples you currently have and are eligible to continue into retirement). 

>In Box 11 for Option B, you should indicate the total number of multiples you want in retirement or 

compensation. You can elect up to 5 multiples. 

12. What level of coverage do you want for Option B?

>In Box 12 for Option B, you should put a number in each box to indicate how many multiples for Full 

Reduction and how many multiples for No Reduction you want. If the number is zero, a “0” should be 

written in the box. NOTE: Both boxes should have a number even though the directions state you should 

check only one box. The sum of the numbers in the two boxes of Block 12 should be equal to the total 

number of multiples you elected in Block 11. 

 

Option C – Family Optional Insurance 

14. How many multiples of Option C do you want to have in retirement/compensation? (you can elect up 

to the number of multiples you currently have and are eligible to continue into retirement). 

>In Box 14 for Option C, you should indicate the total number of multiples you want in retirement or 

compensation. You can elect up to 5 multiples. 

15. What coverage level do you want for Option C?

>In Box 15 for Option C, you should put a number in each box to indicate how many multiples for Full 

Reduction and how many multiples for No Reduction you want. If the number is zero, a “0” should be 

written in the box. NOTE: Both boxes should have a number even though the directions state that you 

should check only one box. The sum of the numbers in the two boxes of Box 15 should be equal to the 

total number of multiples you elected in Box 14.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 192 (Thursday, October 3, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 80452]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-22827]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-30-2024]


Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 68; Authorization of Production 
Activity; SNRA Commodities, Inc.; (Pecans); Fabens, Texas

    On May 31, 2024, SNRA Commodities, Inc. submitted a notification of 
proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within 
FTZ 68, in Fabens, Texas.
    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations 
of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal 
Register inviting public comment (89 FR 48551, June 7, 2024). On 
September 30, 2024, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's 
decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this 
time. The production activity described in the notification was 
authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, 
including section 400.14.

    Dated: September 30, 2024.
Elizabeth Whiteman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-22827 Filed 10-2-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Exhibit 32.1.4

CERTIFICATION

I, James K. Sanders, principal financial officer of Hawker Beechcraft Notes Company (the
Company), hereby certify that, based on my knowledge:



|(1) | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 29, 2008 (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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                          
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ James K. Sanders                                                                      
|James K. Sanders, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)

August 5, 2008
Exhibit 31.1   Certification of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.  I, Lawrence Williams, Jr., certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of Gateway Certifications, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008.  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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The small business issuer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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer'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 small business issuer'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 14, 2008  /s/ Lawrence Williams, Jr. _____________________  Lawrence Williams, Jr. Principal Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
# C_2020313EN.01003102.xml

| 21.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/31

---

Action brought on 6 August 2020 — Eos Products v EUIPO (Shape of a spherical container)

(Case T-489/20)

(2020/C 313/45)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Eos Products Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Stolzenburg-Wiemer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for tridimensional EU mark (Shape of a spherical container) — Application for registration No 15 903 081

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 June 2020 in Case R 2017/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE:

JOE FEIJOO

,

Relator. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 9

- 00 314

- CR

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Joe Feijoo

, a pro se inmate , has filed a mandamus petition against the 205th District

Court

, alleging that the trial court had no jurisdiction to convict him of any criminal charges

because an assistant district attorney had de clined to prosecute him on another charge in 1991.

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

Generally, mandamus relief is appropriate only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or to

compel the performance of a ministerial duty, and where the relator has no adequate remedy by

appeal. In re Reece , 341 S.W.3d 360, 364 (Tex. 2011)(orig. proceeding). The burden is on relator

to show it is entitled to mandamus relief. See In re Ford Motor Company , 165 S.W.3d 315, 317

(Tex. 2005)(orig. proceeding)

. After reviewing the mandamus petition and record, we conclude

that Relator has failed to show that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the

petition for writ of mandamus.2

January 24, 2020

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.

(Do Not Pulish)
# Official Journal L 277/21 O

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 277 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 4821 October 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 277

English edition

Legislation

Volume 4821 October 2005

---

| Contents | | I   Acts whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | |
| | * | Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) | 1 |

Contents

I   Acts whose publication is obligatory

page

*

Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7173

RICARDO D. JONES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

ALTON BASKERVILLE, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior

District Judge. (CA-01-209)

Submitted: September 13, 2001 Decided: October 2, 2001

Before WILKINS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ricardo D. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Ricardo D. Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Jones v. Baskerville, No. CA-01-209

(E.D. Va. June 18, 2001). 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
1998 GENERAL MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING


Whereas, the Potomac Electric Power Company (the "Company") and
Local 1900 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
(the "Union") by mutual agreement conducted early negotiations to
extend the 1995 Collective Bargaining Agreement;

Whereas, the Company and the Union have agreed to a successor
Collective Bargaining Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the
"1998 Agreement'), whose terms are set forth below; and

Whereas, the Company and Union have agreed that the 1998 Agreement
shall be subject to ratification by the bargaining unit and shall
be effective upon ratification except as provided elsewhere in the
Agreement;

It is, therefore, further agreed and understood between the Company
and Union that:

     I.   The 1998 Agreement shall extend the 1995 Collective
          Bargaining Agreement for one (1) year (until 6/1/99).

     II.  Within thirty (30) days of ratification, each employee
          who is a member of the bargaining-unit on the date this
          1998 Agreement is ratified shall be paid a lump-sum,
          ratification incentive of 2.5% (less applicable taxes) of
          their annual base earnings for 1997.

     III. In addition to the days set forth in Section 11.01 of the
          1993 Collective Bargaining Agreement, December 24, 1998
          shall be observed as a uniform and fixed holiday during
          the 1998 Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, on this 8th day of January 1988, the parties
have caused their appropriate and duly authorized representatives
to sign this General Memorandum of Understanding, signifying
thereby their agreement hereon.

For the Union                         For the Company


/S/ JAMES L. HUNTER                   /S/ A. S. MACEROLLO
James L. Hunter                       Anthony S. Macerollo,
President/Financial Secretary/        Group Vice-President
Business Manager                      Corporate Services


                                      /S/ WILLIAM J. WOLVERTON
                                      Manager, Industrial Relations
                                      & Employee Benefits
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SEC. 1350

(SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)



In connection with the Annual Report of, MIP Solutions Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeff Lamberson, President, Principal Accounting Officer and Director, and I, Gary McDonald, Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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.



Dated: May 24, 2010



|                                                                    |                                                    
|------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------
|By:/s/Jeff Lamberson                                                | /s/Gary MacDonald                                  
|Jeff Lamberson
President, Principal Accounting Officer and Director | Gary MacDonald
Chief Executive Officer and Director
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Ray Wright, Appellant.

County Court, Otsego County,

June 20, 1958.

*Irving M. Basloe*for appellant.

*Richard J. Bookhout*and *Scott E. Greene*for respondent.

Frederick W. Loomis, J.

The defendant appeals from his conviction on a charge of driving while intoxicated in a Court of Special Sessions of the Town of Richfield on March 13, 1958.

The defendant, among other things, alleges that he was not properly advised of his rights at the time when he was first brought before the Magistrate.

The return of the Justice reads as follows: “ The defendant was arrested prior to the filing of the information and brought before me, at which time the information was filed charging Driving While Intoxicated in violation of Article 5 Section 70 Paragraph 5 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Defendant was deemed by me as being under the influence of intoxicants and not in full possession of his faculties, therefore was committed to Otsego County J ail pending his sobriety. On March 13,1958, *712the day following such commitment, defendant was brought before me, the information read to him, and he was informed of his rights to trial before me or by jury, also relative removal to Grand Jury, also that a plea of guilty was equivalent to a conviction after trial as set forth in Section 335A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Defendant was advised of the exact nature of the crime committed, also that upon conviction, his driving privilege must be revoked pursuant to statute. Defendant was also asked if he wished counsel at any stage of proceedings, which he refused.”

Section 699 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads in part as follows: ‘ ‘ when the defendant is brought before the magistrate the magistrate must immediately inform him of the charge against him and of his right to the aid of counsel in every stage of the proceedings, and before any further proceedings are had. ’ ’

From the return as above quoted, it appears that the Justice felt that the usual instructions would be useless because of the intoxication of the defendant and it does not appear that the defendant was informed of the charge against him and his right to the aid of counsel until the following day, after he had been committed to the Otsego County Jail overnight. Although it might seem that a justice should not accept a plea from a defendant who is intoxicated, and that instructions regarding such a plea and the effect thereof would be futile, nevertheless, the statute is quite explicit that when the defendant is brought before the Magistrate, he must “ immediately ” inform him of the charge and of his right to counsel. In the opinion of the court these rights are substantial and may not be legally omitted, regardless of the Magistrate’s opinion of the defendant’s condition or ability to comprehend the instructions. (See *Dailey*v. *State of New York,*75 N. Y. S. 2d 40.)

The judgment of conviction should be reversed, the fine remitted, and the information dismissed.

Submit order.