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

CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT & CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. s 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ( the ‘Company’) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

|  |           |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|--|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (i)  | the accompanying report on Form10-K of the Company for the year ended December  31,  2006 (the ‘Report’) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |

|  |            |                                                                                                                                                      |
|--|------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (ii)  | the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

|                            |                                                                                                 |
|----------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date: March 16, 2007  | /s/ Spiro Rombotis    Spiro RombotisPresident & Chief Executive Officer |

----
Page 1 of 1 

Occupational Safety And Health Review Commission

Commissioners’ Monthly Docket Report at Close of Business on July 31, 2021

 DOCKET 

NUMBER

RESPONDENT'S 

NAME

DOCKETED TYPE* BRIEFING

NOTICE 

DATE

BRIEFING 

STATUS 

COMMISSIONER 

NOT 

PARTICIPATING

1 14-1268 Dover High 

Performance Plastics 07/19/16 DFR 11/01/16 Closed

2 16-1167 Aerospace Testing 

Alliance 08/22/17 DFR 11/20/17 Closed

3 15-1069 Healy Tibbitts Builders, 

Inc. 10/27/17 DFR 11/13/17 Closed

4 17-0190 Shelly & Sands, Inc. 05/02/18 DFR 05/10/18 Closed

5 15-1574

MasTec North America 

dba MasTec Advanced 

Technologies, Inc.

06/20/18 DFR 07/10/18 Closed

6 17-0949 Walmart, Inc. 07/12/18 DFR 08/09/18 Closed

7 17-1214 Mansfield Industrial, Inc. 11/23/18 DFR 01/03/19 Closed

8 17-0483 Ceco Concrete 

Construction, LLC 11/28/18 DFR 12/19/18 Closed

9 16-1628 Schaad Detective 

Agency, Inc. 12/18/18 DFR 01/07/19 Closed

10 17-1174 Wayne Farms, LLC 03/01/19 DFR 03/21/19 Closed

11 17-2144 Tampa Electric Co. 04/09/19 DFR 04/23/19 Closed

12 18-0034

Armstrong Utilities, 

Inc. d/b/a Armstrong 

Cable Services

10/15/19 DFR 10/24/19 Closed

13 17-0138 Home Rubber 

Company, LP 10/22/19 DFR 11/04/19 Closed

14 18-0970 FreightCar America, 

Inc. 10/28/19 DFR 11/04/19 Closed

15 18-0758 RoadSafe Traffic 

Systems, Inc. 10/30/19 DFR 11/01/19 Closed

16 17-1894 Maxim Crane Works 02/06/20 DFR 02/14/20 Closed

17 17-0737

UHS of Westwood 

Pembroke, Inc.

UHS of Delaware, Inc.

03/19/20 DFR 03/25/20 Closed

18 19-0593 StormForce of 

Jacksonville, LLC 06/04/20 DFR 07/28/20 Open

19 18-1091

Keenan, Hopkins, 

Suder and Stowell 

Constractors, Inc. dba 

KHS&S Contractors

07/10/20 DFR 07/23/20 Open

*DFR – Direction For Review

 REM – Appellate Remand

 INT REV – Interlocutory Review
Appeal Notice of Assignment 

CAUSE NO. 74039 

THE STATE OF TEXAS 412th District Court 

vs of 

LAWRENCE FLOYD MILLER, III Brazoria County, Texas 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT ON APPEAL 

 ON THE 18TH day of March, 2014, the defendant in the above styled and numbered 

cause excepted to the order of the Court in said cause and gave Notice of Appeal to the Court of 

Appeals, First Judicial District. 

Date of Judgment or Other Order Appealed From: 2/25/15 

Date of Sentencing: 2/25/15 

Name of Trial Court Judge: W. Edwin Denman 

Name of Court Reporter: Jill Friedrichs 

Name and Address of Defense Attorney on Appeal: 

 Cary M. Faden 

 77 Sugar Creek Center Blvd. Suite 230 

 Sugar Land, Texas 77478 

 

Name and Address of Attorney for the State on Appeal: 

 Jeri Yenne, District Attorney 

 Brazoria County Courthouse 

 111 East Locust, Suite 408-A 

 Angleton, TX 77515 

Defendant Incarcerated? Yes 

Motion for New Trial Filed? No 

Appeal Bond: No Date N/A 

Offense and Punishment: DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED 3RD OR MORE 

 RHONDA BARCHAK, District Clerk 

 By /S/ Kathleen McDougald, Deputy

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 3/23/2015 2:06:59 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
No. 90-447.

#### Salsbury Industries *v.*United States.

C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 24.4





                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

                         KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS

     WHEREAS, ALCAN INC., a Canadian corporation (the "Company"), proposes
shortly to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, under the
provisions of the Securities Act of 1934 as amended (the "Act"), the Annual
Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 13 or 15 (d) of the Act.

     WHEREAS, the undersigned is an Officer and/or a Director of the Company as
indicated below;


     NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints Serge
Fecteau, D. McAusland and R. Millington and each of them, as attorneys for the
undersigned and in the undersigned's name, place and stead, and in each of the
undersigned's offices and capacities as an Officer and/or a Director of the
Company, to execute and file such Annual Report on Form 10-K, hereby giving and
granting to said attorneys full power and authority to do and perform all and
every act and thing whatsoever requisite and necessary to be done in and about
the premises as fully, to all intents and purposes, as the undersigned might or
could do if personally present at the doing thereof, hereby ratifying and
confirming all that said attorneys may or shall lawfully do, or cause to be
done, by virtue hereof.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 22nd day of March
2001.

                                 /s/  J.R. Evans
                              ---------------------------
                             Name:   J.R. Evans
                             Title:  Director
#### Bernadette Nuzzo, Respondent, v L.M. Feinman, Appellant.

[631 NYS2d 399]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries based on podiatric malpractice, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, on the ground of excessiveness, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lane, J.), dated May 17, 1993, as, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $750,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff, who was 47 years old at the time of the surgeries, sought medical treatment from the defendant to correct a deformity of her right great toe and hammertoes on both her right and left feet. Because of the defendant’s misdiagnosis and *625resultant inappropriate surgeries to both of the plaintiffs feet, there was an increase in deformity in the plaintiffs right and left great toes in addition to dislocation, subluxation, and narrowing of the metatarsal and phalangeal joints of the plaintiffs lesser right and left toes, which essentially rendered the forepart of the plaintiffs feet nonfunctional.

The plaintiff testified that she could not stand for long periods of time, could not walk long distances, could only walk by shuffling her feet, and could no longer perform simple tasks without experiencing excruciating pain.

The parties’ respective medical experts disagreed as to whether further surgical procedures would restore her ability to use her feet in a more normal fashion. Therefore, there was ample evidence from which the jury could conclude that further surgery would be painful and fruitless. Therefore, its implicit finding that the plaintiff’s condition could not be corrected was not against the weight of the evidence. Furthermore, under the circumstances, the verdict was not excessive *(see,*CPLR 5501 [c]; *see also, Murphy v A. Louis Shure, P. C.,*156 AD2d 85). Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1139 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

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 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.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Preserving State Commission 
Oversight Act of 2017'' or the ``PSC Oversight Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. LIFELINE BROADBAND PROVIDERS.

    (a) No Force or Effect.--On and after the date of enactment of this 
Act, paragraph (j) of section 54.201 of title 47, Code of Federal 
Regulations, shall have no force or effect.
    (b) Removal From Rules.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission shall 
amend section 54.201 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, by 
striking paragraph (j).
    (c) State Duty To Designate Eligible Telecommunications Carriers.--
Section 214(e) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 214(e)) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(7) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this Act or in the 
        Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-104; 110 Stat. 
        56) may be construed as modifying or effectively limiting the 
        jurisdiction of any State commission to designate an eligible 
        telecommunications carrier under this subsection.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000928420
<NAME> 0
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                                          18,591
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,036,229
<ALLOWANCES>                                    78,711
<INVENTORY>                                  3,128,328
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,839,523
<PP&E>                                       1,081,945
<DEPRECIATION>                                 454,730
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,926,078
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,940,880
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,688,343
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,450,360
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,926,078
<SALES>                                      2,603,617
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,603,617
<CGS>                                        1,455,341
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,671,346
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (20,977)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 6,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              30,470
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                169,706
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            169,706
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   169,706
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.06
        

</TABLE>
# Presidential Determination Pursuant to Section 1245(d)(4)(B) and (C) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012

# Memorandum for the Secretary of State[,] the Secretary of the Treasury[, and] the Secretary of Energy

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, after carefully considering the reports submitted to the Congress by the Energy Information Administration, including the report submitted in October 2024, and other relevant factors, including global economic conditions, the level of spare capacity, and the availability of strategic reserves, I determine, pursuant to section 1245(d)(4)(B) and (C) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, Public Law 112-81, and consistent with prior determinations, that there is a sufficient supply of petroleum and petroleum products from countries other than Iran to permit a significant reduction in the volume of petroleum and petroleum products purchased from Iran by or through foreign financial institutions.

I will continue to monitor this situation closely.

                    The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to publish this determination in the                     *Federal Register*.                

[FR Doc. 2024-27440

Billing code 4710-10-P
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-50952 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE EDUARDO MORENO-GUTIERREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. DR-03-CR-190-1-AML

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jose Eduardo Moreno-Gutierrez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Moreno-Gutierrez contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment. Moreno-Gutierrez maintains that United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## F I L E D June 23, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 03-50952 -2- he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Moreno-Gutierrez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
Exhibit 10.29
 First Amendment to the
FOSTER WHEELER LTD.
Annual Executive Short-Term Incentive Plan
(As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2006)
  1.
    
    The following new sentences are added to the end of Section 4.02 of the Plan:Awards will be paid in a lump sum as soon as practical following the
Committees approval, but not earlier than January 1 and not later than
March 15 of the year following the calendar year to which they relate (the
Applicable Period). To the extent that an award is not paid within the
Applicable Period but is paid by December 31 of the calendar year which
includes the Applicable Period, then it is intended that such payment shall
be treated as made at a specified time for purposes of complying with
Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code).2.
    
    The following new Section 6.09 is added to the Plan:If a Participant constitutes a specified employee as of his separation
from service (as both terms are defined and applied in Section 409A of the
Code), to the extent payment under this Plan constitutes deferred
compensation (after taking into account any applicable exemptions from
Section 409A of the Code), and to the extent required by Section 409A of the
Code, payment may not be made to the Participant until the earlier of: (i)
the first day following the sixth-month anniversary of the Participants
separation from service, or (ii) the Participants date of death.3.
    
    The Amendment shall take effect on the date approved by the Board of Directors.
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
 FOSTER WHEELER LTD.By:
    
    /s/ Raymond J. MilchovichName:
    
    Raymond J. MilchovichTitle:
    
    Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors 

Alaska Airlines, Inc.: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statement (No. 333-64998) on Forms S-3 of Alaska Airlines, Inc. of our reports dated March 2, 2007, with respect to the balance sheets of Alaska Airlines, Inc. as of December 31, 2006 and 2005, and the related statements ofoperations, shareholder’s equity and cash flows, for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2006, and the related financial statement schedule, which reports appear in the December 31, 2006, annual report onForm 10-K of Alaska Airlines, Inc. 

As discussed in Note 1 to the financial statements, the Company adopted the provisions of Statement of FinancialAccounting Standards (SFAS) No. 123 (R), *Share Based Payment*, for its stock compensation awards. As discussed in Note 10 to the financial statements, the Company adopted the provisions of SFAS No. 158, *Employers’ Accounting forDefined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans – an amendment of FASB Statements No. 87,88,106, and 132(R)*. As discussed in Note 15 to the financial statements, the Company adopted the provisions of SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin No.108, *Considering the Effects of Prior Year Misstatements when Quantifying Misstatements in Current Year Financial Statements*, which resulted in a change in the manner in which the Company assesses the impact of financial statement errors.

KPMG LLP 

Seattle, Washington 

March 2, 2007
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-1557

_____________________________

CLAYTON AUSTIN,

Appellant,

v.

CYNTHIA M. AUSTIN n/k/a

CYNTHIA M. WARDLAW,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County.

John F. Simon, Jr., Judge.

March 1, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WETHERELL, ROWE, and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Clayton Austin, pro se, Appellant.

Cynthia M. Wardlaw, pro se, Appellee.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 C IR

. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60008 Summary Calendar

LIRIDON BEKTESHI Petitioner

v. MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A79 475 791
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Liridon Bekteshi petitions thiscourt for reviewofthedecision ofthe Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge's (IJ) order denying hisapplications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December 20, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-60008

2 When, as here, the BIA summarily affirms without opinion and essentially adopts the IJ’s decision, we review the IJ’s decision. See Mikhael v. INS , 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997). Bekteshi argues that the IJ’s determination that his expert witness’s testimony was not credible is in error because the inconsistencies relied on by the IJ did not exist and, therefore, cannot provide the basis for an adverse credibility determination. Bekteshi has not demonstrated that the record compels a conclusion contrary to that of the IJ and therefore has not provided a basis for this court to replace the IJ’s determinations concerning credibility or ultimate factual findings based on credi bility determinations with its own determinations. Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 905 (5th Cir. 2002). Review of the record reveals that the IJ’s determination that Bekteshi failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to asylum is supported by substantial evidence. The burden of proof for withholding of removal is a higher standard than asylum. Failure to satisfy the less demanding asylum standard is, a fortiori, a failure to demonstrate eligibility for withholding of removal. I d. at 906. The Convention Against Torture does not require persecution; it requires that an applicant prove that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured ifremoved. I d. at 906-07. Bekteshi has not demonstrated that he is entitled to relief on these alternative grounds. The petition for review is therefore DENIED.