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

                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
         (As adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003)

     For  the  Quarterly  Report of Zenex International, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004 (the "Report"), the undersigned
Chief  Executive  Officer  and  Chief  Financial  Officer  of the Company hereby
certify  that:

     (i)  the  Report  fully  complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d)  of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934,  and

     (ii) the  information  contained  in  the  Report  fairly  presents, in all
          material  respects,  the financial condition and results of operations
          of  the  Company  as  of  and  for  the periods covered in the Report.

Dated:  May  20,  2004

                                            /s/  Ron  Carte
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            President
                                            (Principal  Executive  Officer)


                                            /s/  Debra  G.  Morehead
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Chief  Financial  Officer
                                            (Principal  Financial  Officer)
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNews Releases1997

# Enforcement Conference Scheduled with Wisconsin Electric on Team Inspection Findings at Point Beach

----

----

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-97-26

March 7, 1997

ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE SCHEDULED WITH WISCONSIN ELECTRIC ON TEAM INSPECTION FINDINGS AT POINT BEACH

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet on April 9 with representatives of Wisconsin Electric Power Co. for a predecisional enforcement conference on apparent violations of NRC requirements found during a special team inspection at the Point Beach Nuclear Power Station.

The Operational Safety Team Inspection took place in December at the plant, located near Two Rivers, Wisconsin, and at the utility's corporate offices in Milwaukee. The team's preliminary findings were presented January 31 in a meeting with the utility, which was open to public observation.

The predecisional enforcement conference, which is open to public observation, will be at 10 a.m. in the Third Floor Conference Room, NRC Region III Offices, 801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, Illinois.

The enforcement conference will cover four apparent violations identified by the team:

1. The systematic failure of the utility's corrective action system to assure that problems are adequately resolved. The team found 17 examples of problems that had been known to the utility but which were not corrected in a timely manner.

2. A change in how the plant's shutdown cooling system was used during a refueling outage might affect the consequences of certain accident conditions, but the utility did not seek appropriate review and approval by the NRC, as required.

3. and 4. Two violations associated with inadequate testing of the plant's emergency diesel generators.

The decision to hold an enforcement conference does not mean the NRC has determined that a violation has occurred or that enforcement action will be taken. Rather, the purpose is to discuss apparent violations, their causes and safety significance; to provide the licensee an opportunity to point out any errors that may have been made in the NRC inspection report; and to enable the company to outline its proposed corrective actions.

No decisions on the apparent violations or any contemplated enforcement action, such as a fine, will be made at this conference. Those decisions will be made by senior NRC officials at a later date.

The report of the Operational Safety Team Inspection is available on the NRC's internet web site. The transmittal letter and executive summary are available by fax from the NRC Office of Public Affairs in Region III.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 14 (Thursday, January 22, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 3252]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00948]



[[Page 3252]]

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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation Nos. 701-TA-451 and 731-TA-1126-1127 (Review)]


Lightweight Thermal Paper From China And Germany; Determination

    On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject five-year 
reviews, the United States International Trade Commission 
(``Commission'') determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), that revocation of the countervailing 
duty order and antidumping duty order on lightweight thermal paper from 
China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material 
injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably 
foreseeable time. The Commission further determines that revocation of 
the antidumping duty order on lightweight thermal paper from Germany 
would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material 
injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably 
foreseeable time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Commission instituted these reviews on October 1, 2013 (78 FR 
60313) and determined on January 23, 2014 that it would conduct full 
reviews (79 FR 6218, February 3, 2014). Notice of the scheduling of the 
Commission's review and of a public hearing to be held in connection 
therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of 
the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and 
by publishing the notice in the Federal Register on June 27, 2014 (79 
FR 36557). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on October 30, 2014, 
and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear 
in person or by counsel.
    The Commission completed and filed its determinations in these 
reviews on January 16, 2015. The views of the Commission are contained 
in USITC Publication 4511 (January 2015), entitled Lightweight Thermal 
Paper from China and Germany: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-451 and 731-TA-
1126-1127 (Review).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: January 15, 2015.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2015-00948 Filed 1-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
----

|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange of 1934, 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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  | February 14, 2011                                            |
|-------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|        |                                                         |
| By:         | /s/ Shant S. Hovnanian                                       |
| Name:       | Shant S. Hovnanian                                           |
| Title:      | Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer |

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           4,330
<SECURITIES>                                       105
<RECEIVABLES>                                  175,754
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,668
<INVENTORY>                                    137,988
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               292,051
<PP&E>                                          64,271
<DEPRECIATION>                                  25,937
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 404,257
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          325,361
<BONDS>                                        109,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     30,000
<COMMON>                                           739
<OTHER-SE>                                      46,747
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   404,257
<SALES>                                        212,751
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               212,751
<CGS>                                          126,763
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  126,763
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               114,875
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (790)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,815
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (63,637)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,723)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (59,914)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   (477)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (60,391)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.84)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.84)


</TABLE>
f8k010711ex10v_enterologic.htm


Exhibit 10.5


 


This letter Agreement is dated January 7, 2011 and is entered into between Enterologics, Inc., a Nevada corporation and Surge Partners, Ltd., a Delaware Corp.


 


WHEREAS


 


Enterologics, Inc seeks to borrow certain funds for operations and


 


WHEREAS


 


Surge Partners, Ltd is willing to provide a series of loans, the total not to exceed fifty Thousand dollars ($50,000.00) and


 


WHEREAS


 


 The parties have agreed to certain terms of the loan(s) as more fully described in the Promissory Loan Agreement of even date


 


THEREFORE


 


For  good and valuable consideration, the parties hereby agree as follows:


 



	
1.  

	
Surge Partners will loan Enterologics, Inc, a total of $50,000 on an as need basis;








	
2.  

	
The first loan is in the amount of $20,000 and is hereby acknowledged;








	
3.  

	
Interest and other terms are outlined in the Promissory Note;








	
4.  

	
Each successive loan will be documented by a new Promissory Note;








	
5.  

	
The overall consideration for this first loan and for any successive loans is 500,000 shares of the Company’s common stock;








	
6.  

	
The total of the compensation is being given concurrent with the first loan;








	
7.  

	
It is understood and agreed to that the stock portion of the consideration will not increase or decrease based on future loans and that the consideration is for the current loan and for a commitment to fund additional loans when and if necessary;








	
8.  

	
Should additional loans be required, Enterologics, Inc will give Surge at least seven business days (7) notice and Surge Partners, Ltd will fund as soon as practicable;








	
9.  

	
Future loans will carry a six month term and will payable earlier under certain conditions as will be more described in each Promissory Note.







 









	Agreed:	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/Robert Hoerr	 	 	/s/Irving Bader	 
	
Robert Hoerr, CEO

	 	 	Irving Bader, President
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6155

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus EMMANUEL UZUEGBUNAM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (3:96-cr-00043-REP; 3:06-cv-00015-REP) Submitted: April 27, 2006 Decided: May 8, 2006 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Emmanuel Uzuegbunam, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Gerald McBride, WILEY, REIN & FIELDING, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Emmanuel Uzuegbunam seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing as a motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), his motion to recall the district court’s order previously dismissing his petition for a writ of error coram nobis, and then dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction as an unauthorized successive motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2255 motion solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Uzuegbunam has not made the requisite showing. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). Finally, in accordance with United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), we construe Uzuegbunam’s notice of appeal and informal brief as a motion for authorization under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000), to file a successive habeas corpus motion.- 3 - To obtain permission to bring a second or successive § 2255 motion, a movant must show that his claim: (1) “relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable” or (2) relies on newly discovered facts that tend to establish the movant’s innocence. 28 U.S.C. § 2244. We conclude that Uzuegbunam has not satisfied either standard. Accordingly, we deny Uzuegbunam’s implicit application for leave to file a successive § 2255 motion, deny his motion for a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. 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
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# U.S., Timor-Leste Begin Annual Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training Exercise 

By LT. Mary SmithCTF 75 Public Affairs

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News
May 20, 2015 

 

Evan Hammac 

6335 Peachtree Dunwoody Road Northeast 

APT 132 

Atlanta, GA 30328 

Dear Mr. Evan Hammac: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your March 25th, 2015 exemption request on behalf into the public docket 

(No. FAA-2015-0761), but we are unable to process your request any further. The 

information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For 

us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure
No. 82-5700.

#### Rutherford *v.*Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-rari denied.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

TEREX UTILITIES, INC. d/b/a TEREX 

SERVICES, INC.,

 Appellant,

v.

ROBERT FONDREN, JR. ET UX, 

TERESA FONDREN, and DWAYNE 

PROETEL,

 Appellees.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-23-00131-CV

Appeal from the

166th Judicial District Court 

of Bexar County, Texas 

(TC# 2019-CI-12737) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before this Court is Appellant’s agreed motion to dismiss, which it filed pursuant to Texas 

Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1). The motion states that the parties have entered into a 

settlement agreement settling the dispute underlying this appeal. Pursuant to that agreement, the 

parties agreed to file a motion to dismiss the appeal. Additionally, the parties agreed that each side 

would bear their respective attorney’s fees and costs incurred.

Rule 42.1 provides the actions a court may take to dispose of an appeal on the motion of 

appellant or by agreement. On appellant’s motion, this Court may dismiss the appeal. Tex. R. App. 

P. 42.1(a)(1). On the other hand, when parties file an agreement signed by all parties or their 
2

attorneys, the court may: “(A) render judgment effectuating the parties’ agreement; (B) set aside 

the trial court’s judgement without regard to the merits and remand the case to the trial court for 

rendition of judgment in accordance with the agreement; or (C) abate the appeal and permit 

proceedings in the trial court to effectuate the agreement.” Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A)–(C). 

Appellant’s agreed motion to dismiss expressly states it is based on Rule 42.1 (a)(1). No 

agreement signed by the parties, or their attorneys, has been filed with the clerk as contemplated 

by Rule 42.1 (a)(2). We construe the agreed motion as appellant’s motion to dismiss. The motion 

is granted. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1) (allowing appellate courts to dismiss an appeal on the 

motion of appellant). Costs of the appeal are taxed such that each party bears its own costs. Tex. R. 

App. P. 42.1(d). 

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

August 16, 2024

Before Alley, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNews Releases1998

# NRC Chairman Shirley Ann Jackson to Hold News Briefing Following Visit to QuadCities Nuclear Power Station

----

----

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-98-56

 December 4, 1998

**NRC CHAIRMAN SHIRLEY ANN JACKSON TO HOLD NEWS BRIEFING FOLLOWING VISIT TO QUAD CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATION**

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Shirley Ann Jackson will visit the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station on Wednesday (December 9). She will hold a media news briefing at the close of her plant visit.

The plant, in Cordova, Illinois, is operated by Commonwealth Edison Company.

The briefing will be at 4 p.m. in the Training Building (Room 107) at the plant site, 22712 206th Avenue North, Cordova, Illinois.

Dr. Jackson was sworn in as a Commissioner in May 1995 and became Chairman on July 1 of that year. She has toured a number of nuclear power plants and NRC-licensed materials facilities in the U.S., as well as a number of foreign nuclear facilities.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
No. 90-6131.

#### Walker *v.*Rardin et al.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.