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

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Each of Andrew D. Ory and Peter J. Minihane hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as President and Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) and Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer (principal
financial officer), respectively of Acme Packet, Inc. (the "Company"), that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                     |  |     |  |                                                                              
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 13, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ ANDREW D. ORY Andrew D. Ory President and Chief Executive Officer        
|Date: March 13, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ PETER J. MINIHANE Peter J. Minihane Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

This
written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Report, and "accompanies" such Report 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 the Company 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 Report to which it relates), notwithstanding any general incorporation language contained in such filing. A signed original of this statement has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 9, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-61008

Summary Calendar

 

JINGHUA DI

Petitioner

v.

JOHN ASHCROFT, US ATTORNEY GENERAL

Respondent

* * * * * *

Consolidated with

* * * * * *

 

No. 02-61014

 

XING GANG LIU

Petitioner

v.

JOHN ASHCROFT, US ATTORNEY GENERAL

Respondent

- - - - - - - - - -

Petition for Review of an Order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A76-898-950

- - - - - - - - - -

Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and WIENER, Circuit

Judges.

PER CURIAM:*
No. 02-61008

c/w/ No. 02 61014

-2-

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

The petitioners, Jinghua Di (Di) and her husband Xing Gang

Liu (Liu) whose claims are dependent upon Di’s, are natives and

citizens of the Peoples’ Republic of China. They request review

of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which

affirmed the decision of the immigration judge (IJ) to deny their

application for asylum, withholding of deportation, and relief

under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Because the BIA

employed the streamlined review process of 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.1(a)(7), we review the IJ’s decision. See Soadjede v.

Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 832 (5th Cir. 2003). 

The IJ based his decision to deny relief on his explicit

findings that Di was not credible. We do not “review decisions

turning purely on the immigration judge’s assessment of the alien

petitioner’s credibility.” Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir.

1994) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In light

of the IJ’s explanation of the credibility determination, that

determination was “a reasonable interpretation of the record,”

and the evidence does not compel the conclusion urged by Di and

Liu. See id. at 78-79. 

The petition for review is DENIED. 

PETITION DENIED.
<PAGE>
CINGULAR WIRELESS LLC

EXHIBITS

                                                                    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 Cingular Wireless LLC (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Stanley T. Sigman,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

     (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 results of operations
          of the Company.


                                       By: /s/ Stanley T. Sigman
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Stanley T. Sigman
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
Date: February 24, 2006
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 29, 2020

No. 04

- 19

- 00836

- CV

Al SUAREZ, as Mayor of the City of Converse; Jeff Beehler, as Place 5 M ember, City Counsel of the City of Converse; Kathy Richel as place 1 Member, City Counsel of the City of Converse; Shawn Russell, as Place 3 Member, City Counsel of the City of Converse; Marc Gilbert, as Place 6 Member, City Counsel of the City of Converse ; Le Ann Piatt, as City Manager of the City of Converse; Holly Nagy, as Secretary of the City of Converse and City of Converse

, Appellant s

v.

Katherine SILVAS, Appellee s

From the 438th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019C I22419 Honorable Mary Lou Alvarez, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On January 27, 2020, appellee filed an unopposed motion for a fourteen

- day extension of time to file appellee’s brief. The unopposed motion is GRANTED. It is ORDERED that appellee’s br ief is due no later than February 12, 2020.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 29th day of January, 2020

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1139 

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to protect low-income Lifeline 

subscribers by mandating a continuing role for States in designating 

eligible telecommunications carriers for participation in the Universal 

Service program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 16, 2017 

Mr. CRAMER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to protect lowincome Lifeline subscribers by mandating a continuing 

role for States in designating eligible telecommunications 

carriers for participation in the Universal Service program, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Preserving State Com5 mission Oversight Act of 2017’’ or the ‘‘PSC Oversight 

6 Act of 2017’’. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1139 IH

1 SEC. 2. LIFELINE BROADBAND PROVIDERS. 

2 (a) NO FORCE OR EFFECT.—On and after the date 

3 of enactment of this Act, paragraph (j) of section 54.201 

4 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, shall have no 

5 force or effect. 

6 (b) REMOVAL FROM RULES.—Not later than 1 year 

7 after the date of enactment of this Act, the Federal Com8 munications Commission shall amend section 54.201 of 

9 title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, by striking para10 graph (j). 

11 (c) STATE DUTY TO DESIGNATE ELIGIBLE TELE12 COMMUNICATIONS CARRIERS.—Section 214(e) of the 

13 Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 214(e)) is 

14 amended by adding at the end the following: 

15 ‘‘(7) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in 

16 this Act or in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 

17 (Public Law 104–104; 110 Stat. 56) may be con18 strued as modifying or effectively limiting the juris19 diction of any State commission to designate an eli20 gible telecommunications carrier under this sub21 section.’’. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
[ DO NOT PUBLI SH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 18

- 14859 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. D o cket No. 2:18

- cr - 00135

- AKK

- JE O

- 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,
versus MICHAEL MONTOYA

- AUSTRIA , Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama

________________________ ( November 13, 2019 ) B efore MARCUS, ROSENBAUM and HULL , Circuit Judges
. PER CURIAM :

Case: 18-14859 Date Filed: 11/13/2019 Page: 1 of 22 The Government ’ s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver in Appellant ’ s plea agreement is GRANTED. See United States v. Bushert , 997 F.2d 1343, 1350

- 51 (11th Cir. 1993) (sentence appeal waiver will be enforced if it was made knowingly and voluntarily )
.

Case: 18-14859 Date Filed: 11/13/2019 Page: 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          Jun-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             Jun-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               Mar-29-1997
<CASH>                                          11,527
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  148,211
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    102,112
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               276,552
<PP&E>                                         131,557
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 518,007
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          130,441
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0 
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     207,480
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   518,007
<SALES>                                      1,244,629 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,244,629
<CGS>                                        1,029,077
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  176,625
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,400
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,927
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,600
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,751
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,849
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,849
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.550
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.550
        


</TABLE>
MEMORANDUM

TO: EPA Doc ket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2015

- 0111

FROM: Paul Argyropoulos, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, US EPA

On Behalf of Christopher Grundler, Director EPA, OTAQ

DATE: October 2 1 , 2015

SUBJECT: Meeting with Bob Dineen, RF A

EPA Attendees: Christopher Grundler

Other Attendees: Bob Dineen, RF A

Meeting Summary:

Mr. Dineen met with Director Grundler to discuss his and his association’s positions and

comments on the 2014

- 16 Proposed RFS Volume Standard Rule and other renewable fuel related

issues.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 4 (Friday, January 9, 2009)]
[House]
[Page H94]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                  RECOGNIZING SOUTH CAROLINA JAG CORPS

  (Mr. WILSON of South Carolina asked and was given permission to 
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise today to 
recognize the South Carolina National Guard. In 2008 they achieved the 
highest number of judge advocate generals serving in the Nation, 
according to Scott Bell, National Guard historian. This significant 
milestone is a tribute to the South Carolina Bar and to the 
professional leadership of Colonel Barry Bernstein, state judge 
advocate for the South Carolina National Guard. Twenty-four of the 
State's 27 JAGs have been awarded Global War on Terrorism campaign 
medals.
  As a former staff judge advocate, I understand and appreciate and 
know firsthand the work that our JAG Corps has done to provide legal 
counsel to our military leadership and to our brave men and women in 
uniform. Theirs is an important part of the defense of American 
families by defeating terrorists overseas. I saw this when I visited 
the 218th Brigade JAG during quarterly visits in the last year at Camp 
Phoenix in Afghanistan.
  I commend Colonel Bernstein and Adjutant General Stan Spears for 
their leadership and all the members of the South Carolina JAG Corps on 
this achievement.
  In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never forget 
September 11th.

                          ____________________
```
### Pesticide permit comments Edward Gertler to: Jack Faulk 01/19/2010 08:41 AM

Jack, The following are some questions or comments for your consideration before, during, or after the Dallas meetings. Thanks. Section 1.1.1: Should we include application done for research projects? Section 1.1.2.1: Why limit this to pesticide impaired waters? The 303(d) list identifies some waters as biologically impaired. Seems as if that status could be regarded as a wild card for pesticides. After all, whatever the cause of the impairment, adding pesticides would make things worse. Also, in Maryland, we regulate discharges to *waters of the State* which includes wetlands, even 100-yr floodplains of nontidal waterways. How wide ranging is the EPA permit authority? 1.2.2: I am still not clear. Does this regulate individuals treating a farm pond, their phragmites infestation, etc.? 1.2.4: Second sentence, which says *If you were authorized *.earliest of:* can cause a real headache, as we have found out the hard way, if you do not renew the permit in a timely manner. I recommend deleting this so that the permit is available until the day it is replaced. 2.1: Shouldn*t a prohibition on dumping excess pesticide or wastewater from washing of containers and equipment be included? 3.0: (I think a similar statement as what follows came up in the webcast on Jan 14, but I wasn*t satisfied with the answer). So my comment is that by nature this permit authorization violates this condition. That is why Maryland has a toxic materials permit, i.e. a recognition that at times we want to deliberately pollute our waters to cause an adverse impact. With that in mind, I would qualify this condition to say that the permittee shall not violate WQS outside the area authorized by this permit. Appendix A: I would define *monitoring.* In the NPDES world, this has traditionally had to do with effluents, and involved either sampling and testing or visual checks. This permit takes the term to a new and foreign level. In fact, it almost seems that the permit is using the term just to sound like it is a discharge permit. 5.1.2.d: What is an *action threshold*? Ed Gertler Maryland Department of the Environment

----------------------------------------------------- The information contained in this communication may be confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original message and any copy of itfrom your computer syste m . Thank you

.

----------------------------------------------------- <<<<GWIASIG 0.07>>>>
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1170 

To require each Federal agency to review rules made after the enactment 

of the Congressional Review Act to ensure that all such rules were 

made in compliance with the Act, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 16, 2017 

Ms. MCSALLY (for herself, Mr. ARRINGTON, Mr. YOHO, Mr. WALKER, and 

Mr. PALMER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To require each Federal agency to review rules made after 

the enactment of the Congressional Review Act to ensure 

that all such rules were made in compliance with the 

Act, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Require CRA Compli5 ance Act of 2017’’. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1170 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPORT ON NONCOMPLIANT RULES. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than the relevant date 

3 specified under subsection (b), each Federal agency shall, 

4 for each category of rules specified in subsection (b)— 

5 (1) make a determination in the case of each 

6 rule included in such category as to whether the 

7 agency complied with the requirements of section 

8 801(a)(1)(A) of title 5, United States Code, by sub9 mitting the report on such rule required under such 

10 section to the House of Representatives, the Senate, 

11 and the Comptroller General of the United States; 

12 (2) compile a list of each such rule with regard 

13 to which the agency did not so comply; and 

14 (3) submit such list to— 

15 (A) the Committee on Oversight and Gov16 ernment Reform of the House of Representa17 tives; 

18 (B) the Committee on Appropriations of 

19 the House of Representatives; 

20 (C) the Committee on Homeland Security 

21 and Governmental Affairs of the Senate; and 

22 (D) the Committee on Appropriations of 

23 the Senate. 

24 (b) TIMEFRAMES.—The relevant date specified under 

25 this section is as follows: 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1170 IH

1 (1) For the category of rules composed of each 

2 major rule (as such term is defined in section 804 

3 of title 5, United States Code) finalized after Janu4 ary 20, 2009, the date that is 30 days after the date 

5 of enactment of this Act. 

6 (2) For the category of rules composed of each 

7 rule finalized after January 20, 2009, other than a 

8 rule included in paragraph (1), the date that is 60 

9 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

10 (3) For the category of rules composed of each 

11 rule finalized after March 29, 1996, and on or be12 fore January 20, 2009, the date that is 120 days 

13 after the date of enactment of this Act. 

14 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

15 Terms used in this Act have the meanings given such 

16 terms in section 804 of title 5, United States Code. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 14 (Wednesday, January 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 3658]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01164]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8602]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Lost Kingdoms of Early Southeast Asia: Hindu-Buddhist 
Sculpture, 5th to 8th Century''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000, I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition, ``Lost Kingdoms of Early Southeast Asia: 
Hindu-Buddhist Sculpture, 5th to 8th Century,'' imported from abroad 
for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural 
significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with 
the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition 
or display of the exhibit objects at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, 
New York, New York, from on or about April 14, 2014, until on or about 
July 27, 2014, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to 
be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public 
Notice of these Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6469). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: January 10, 2014.
Evan Ryan,
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-01164 Filed 1-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```