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

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2001.

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

In connection with the Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on Form 10-KSB of AmeriChip International Inc.
(the "Company") for the period ended November 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc
Walther, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001,
that:

      (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 result of operations of the
Company.

Dated: January 24, 2006

                                        /s/ Marc Walther
                                        ----------------
                                        Marc Walther, Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-Q FOR THE  QUARTERLY  PERIOD  ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANICAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>



<S>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-1999
<CASH>                                         12,501,256
<SECURITIES>                                   28,409,590
<RECEIVABLES>                                  19,355,165 <F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                    32,560,408 <F2>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                3,075,876
<PP&E>                                                  0
<DEPRECIATION>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 95,902,295
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          22,534,046
<BONDS>                                        41,528,914 <F3>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                           43,891
<OTHER-SE>                                     31,795,444
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   95,902,295
<SALES>                                           111,001
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                7,260,031
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                3,795,212
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              2,207,147
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 1,257,672
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             1,257,672
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                    1,257,672
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (0.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.34)


<FN>
<F1> INCLUDES MATURED POLICIES RECEIVABLE AND LOANS RECEIVABLE.
<F2> INCLUDES PURCHASED LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES.
<F3> REPRESENTS LONG TERM BORROWINGS OF THE COMPANY.
</FN>



</TABLE>
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsMemoranda of Understanding

# Memoranda of Understanding - 2006

*This page includes links to files in non-HTML format. See Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools for more information.*

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, March 16, 2020

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - 2023
          - 2022
          - 2021
          - 2020
          - 2019
          - 2018
          - 2017
          - 2016
          - 2015
          - 2013
          - 2011
          - 2009
          - 2008
          - 2007
          - 2006
          - 2005
          - 2004
          - 2003
          - 2002
          - 2001
          - 2000
          - 1999
          - 1998
          - 1997
          - 1996
          - 1995
          - 1994
          - 1993
          - 1992
          - 1991
          - 1990
          - 1989
          - 1988
          - 1987
          - 1986
          - 1985
          - 1984

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, March 16, 2020
No. 90-6272.

#### Du’Hart *v.*Arizona.

Sup. Ct. Ariz. Certio-rari denied.
MDI'k- -

January 6, 2016 

Montana Department of Transportation 

2701 Prr r: 1 Avenue 

PO Box 201001 

Helena MT 59620- 1001 

Byron K. Huffman, Acting Director 

Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington DC 20591 

Subject: Use of Airport Revenue 

Dear Mr. Huffman: 

Michael T. Tooley, Dlfector 

Steve Bullock. Governor 

Your letter regarding the FAA's policy on airport revenues and aviation fuel taxes has been 

forwarded to me by Governor Steve Bullock for response. 

Per 67-1-301, Montana Code Annotated, all costs and expenses associated with the Montana 

Department of Transportation (MDT)'s Aeronautics Division must be paid out of the tax 

imposed on aviation fuel in the state. 

MOT's Aeronautics Division Administrator, Debbie Alke, has talked with Jim Brown of your 

staff to further explain Montana's process. After discussing, they have agreed that Montana 

is in compliance with the recently adopted FAA policy and no Action Plan is required. 

lfyou have any questions, please contact Debbie at (406) 444-9569 or dalke@mt.~ov. 

~:ze Mike Tooley 

•~ Director 

Copies: The Honorable Governor Steve Bullock 

Debbie Alke, MDT Aeronautics Division Administrator 

An Equal Opportunity Employer
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-11026 Conference Calendar

LEON MORGAN, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus DALLAS POLICE DEP’T, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:96-CV-1808-X

- - - - - - - - - - February 20, 1997 Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The motion of Leon Morgan, Jr., Texas prisoner #655073, for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal is GRANTED. Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), we assess no initial partial filing fee against Morgan. However, Morgan henceforth shall make monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to his account. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). The agency having custody of Morgan is directed to forward payments from his prisoner account to the clerk of theNo. 96-11026 - 2 - district court each time the amount in his account exceeds $10 until the appellate filing fee of $105 is paid. Id. We have reviewed Morgan’s brief and the record and we hold for essentially the reasons stated by the magistrate judge and adopted by the district court that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Morgan’s complaint as frivolous. Morgan v. Dallas Police Dep’t , No. 3-96-CV-1808-X (N.D. Tex. Aug. 8 and 28, 1996). Morgan’s appeal is without arguable merit and is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Morgan’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. APPEAL DISMISSED. 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
# 4:Oz'I

-o 1ieeq oid fijiewgbIe Engtgc

- Search Help More Search OphorS 1.
I ytlIc IS1C uiiiii:cvi c absa,.ra. 

### Cotiiinstpcictj Refrigerohoil Fqupn1ei1t The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or Department) is required by the 1 eeC Or Peesnl.4.OO. Energy Policy and Connervation Act, as amended by section 136(c)(1) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, to establinh energy conservation standardn for the following commercial mfrigeration equipment manufactured on or after
20 It c'brctnre ha,

"" i FmwkDcamt)LqyhpmfthFm • 'I" Document is to describe the procedural and analytical approaches the

cc 1. S;c,cii.... DOE anticipates using to evaluate and establish energy conservation c-ni ' '. r: standards for the covered commercial refrigeration equipment, and to C'. - :v-.c re.. encourage and facilitate utakeholder input during the rUlemaking.

v . For information regaring the May 16, 20D6, public meeting, please visit the t.,flh ,i'SiaI P25.61 'Olctc Eiul.c'il-St PiJOilt 11cr lie. webpage. c. .' ii. ,ii,!nl •, ri ,r rI. 

### Contact thforrnatlou Project Maeager (202) 5g6-8654 e )'-iri',,iri. CC''

I - ''t', ': "C:'iJ I 511.' '''Jr .2'. -, ,Sccr'r in -r I Pt 'v,,

Li S Department of Ivergy Corrtevt lust Updated. 04/20/2006 

# Summary of Comments onhttp:II

www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ appliance_standards/commer Page: 1 Author: DOE Subject: Note Date: 7/3/2007 9:10:44 AM See comment number 01,1 Author: DOE Subject: Note Date: 7/3/2007 9:11:19 AM See comment number 01.3
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1512 

AN ACT 

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to provide 

for the reissuance of Social Security account numbers 

to young children in cases where confidentiality has been 

compromised. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 1512 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Social Security Child 

3 Protection Act of 2018’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REISSUANCE OF SOCIAL SECURITY ACCOUNT NUM5 BERS TO YOUNG CHILDREN IN CASES WHERE 

6 CONFIDENTIALITY HAS BEEN COMPROMISED. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 205(c)(2)(B) of the Social 

8 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405(c)(2)(B)) is amended— 

9 (1) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (iv); 

10 and 

11 (2) by inserting after clause (ii) the following 

12 new clause: 

13 ‘‘(iii) In any case in which a Social Security account 

14 number has been issued to a child who has not attained 

15 the age of 14 pursuant to subclause (IV) or (V) of clause 

16 (i) and it is demonstrated by evidence, as determined by 

17 the Commissioner of Social Security, and submitted under 

18 penalty of perjury to the Commissioner by a parent or 

19 guardian of the child that in the course of transmission 

20 of the social security card to the child, the confidentiality 

21 of such number has been compromised by reason of theft 

22 of such social security card, the Commissioner shall issue 

23 a new Social Security account number to such child and 

24 make note in the records maintained with respect to such 

25 child of the pertinent information received by the Commis26 sioner regarding the theft of the social security card.’’. 
3 

•HR 1512 EH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date that is 180 

3 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 17, 2018. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1512 

AN ACT 

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to profidentiality has been compromised. numbers to young children in cases where con- vide for the reissuance of Social Security account
Exhibit 23.1
  Consent
    of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
    (1)
    Registration Statement
    (Form S-8,
    No. 333-138541)
    pertaining to the Amended and Restated  2000 Equity Incentive
    Plan, the 2006 Equity Incentive Plan and the 2006 Director
    Option Plan of Acme Packet, Inc.,(2)
    Registration Statement
    (Form S-8,
    No. 333-151507)
    pertaining to the 2006 Equity Incentive Plan and the
    2006 Director Option Plan of Acme Packet, Inc.,(3)
    Registration Statement
    (Form S-8,
    No. 333-157944)
    pertaining to the 2006 Equity Incentive Plan and the
    2006 Director Option Plan of Acme Packet, Inc., and(4)
    Registration Statement
    (Form S-3,
    No. 333-159613)
    and related Prospectus of Acme Packet, Inc. for the registration
    of 2,874,383 shares of its common stock;  (Form 10-K)
  Boston, Massachusetts
    March 9, 2010

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
No: 21-005 January 28, 2021

CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200

NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to Hold Oral Argument 

on North Anna Subsequent License Renewal

A Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will conduct an oral 

argument via WebEx on Feb. 4, regarding a petition to hold an adjudicatory hearing. The hearing will 

concern Virginia Electric Power Company’s application to renew the operating licenses of North Anna 

Units 1 and 2, near Mineral, Va., for an additional 20 years. 

The oral argument will begin at 2 p.m., Eastern Time, and will address a rule waiver request 

from petitioners Beyond Nuclear, Sierra Club and Alliance for Progressive Virginia, as well as the 

admissibility of the groups’ proposed contention. The three administrative judges on the Board will 

hear argument from representatives for the petitioners, Virginia Electric Power and the NRC staff. 

The public will have listen-only access to the oral argument. Those interested in calling in can 

access the conference by dialing 888-469-1755 and entering the passcode 9150039, followed by the “#” 

sign. The Board is composed of three administrative judges from the NRC’s Atomic Safety and 

Licensing Board Panel. Boards conduct adjudicatory hearings on major licensing actions by the NRC, 

and they are independent of the NRC staff. A Board’s rulings may be appealed to the Commission, the 

five-member body that sets NRC policy.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1599 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1599

  To prohibit the provision of performance awards to employees of the 
              Internal Revenue Service who owe back taxes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 17, 2017

   Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit the provision of performance awards to employees of the 
              Internal Revenue Service who owe back taxes.

    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 ``No Bonuses for Tax Delinquent IRS 
Employees Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON PERFORMANCE AWARDS TO IRS EMPLOYEES WHO OWE BACK 
              TAXES.

    (a) In General.--The Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service 
shall not provide any performance award (including, but not limited to, 
bonuses, step increases, and time off) to an employee of the Internal 
Revenue Service who owes an outstanding Federal tax debt.
    (b) Outstanding Federal Tax Debt.--For purposes of this section, 
the term ``outstanding Federal tax debt'' means any outstanding debt 
under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 which has not been paid after 
an assessment of a tax, penalty, or interest and which is not subject 
to further appeal or a petition for redetermination under such Code. A 
debt shall not fail to be treated as an outstanding Federal tax debt 
merely because it is the subject of an installment agreement under 
section 6159 of such Code or an offer-in-compromise under section 7121 
of such Code.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE on the relation of JOHN N. WHITFORD, Adm’r. *de bonis non*of FRANCIS T. WILLIAMSON *v.*WILLIAM FOY.

(For Syllabus see the preceding case, page 247.)

The facts of this case, and the rulings of the Court below appealed from, and the decision of this Court, are identically the same as they are in the preceding case of *Whitford and wife*v. *Foy;*and to the opinion delivered therein, the Chief Justice refers.
* 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. 06-40420 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. EDWARD D. GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas No. 5:02-CR-693-ALL

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *

Edward Garcia appeals hissentence, arguing that it exceeds the statutory maximum because it incl udesa three-year term ofsupervised release in addition to a two-year term of imprisonment. The government concedes error. The parUnited States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 15, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 06-40420

2 ties request that thiscourt modify thejudgment by vacating the additional term of supervised release and otherwise affirm the sentence. A district court may revoke a term ofsupervised release and require a defendant to return to prison. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Where the offense that results in the term ofsupervised release is a class D felony, as was Garcia’s 2002 drug offense, the defendant may not be required to serve more than two years in prison. Id.; see 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(3); 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(D). Under the provision of § 3583(h), as that section provided at the time of Garcia’s drug offense in 2002, the district court was also permitted to impose a term ofsupervised release to be served after imprisonment, but only where the term ofimprisonmentwas lessthan the maximum term of imprisonment authorized under § 3583(e)(3). Although § 3583(h) has since been amended; the amendment will not be applied retroactively absent a plain statement that Congress so intended. See Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694, 702-03 (2000). The parties correctly argue that, because Garcia was sentenced to the maximum term of imprisonment under § 3583(e)(3), the district court was prohibited under the applicable version of § 3583(h) from imposing a subsequent term of supervised release. Accordingly, we MODIFY the judgment by VACATING the three-year term of supervised release, and we AFFIRM the judgment AS MODIFIED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         November 29, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 22, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 787 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-490, K2025-487.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-28004 Filed 11-27-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)








In connection with the accompanying
Annual Report of The KingThomason Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 (the “Report”), I, T.E. King III, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify that to my
knowledge:





(1)           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78o(d)); 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:
 April 16, 2008





/s/ Thomas E. King
III


T.E. King III


Chief Financial Officer








The above certification is furnished
solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
§1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate
disclosure document.