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





Certification of CEO and CFO

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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Consolidated Capital Institutional Properties, LP (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Martha L. Long, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies, 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 his knowledge:



(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 Partnership.



| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/Martha L. Long      
| | Name: Martha L. Long   
| | Date: May 14, 2008     
| |                        
| | /s/Stephen B. Waters   
| | Name: Stephen B. Waters
| | Date: May 14, 2008     





This certification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
July 30, 2015

Mr. Edward Regan

806 W. Curtiss Street

Bozeman, MT 59715

Dear Mr. Regan:

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

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). 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 May 13, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-1643), 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 reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 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/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
# C_2014465EN.01000602.xml

| 24.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 465/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 465/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7448 — Telenor/Schibsted/Naspers Business)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2014/C 465/08)

On 18 December 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7448. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7448. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2016017EN.01000102.xml

| 19.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 17/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 17/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7819 — Freudenberg/Toray Industries/Japan Vilene Company JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 17/02)

On 13 January 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7819. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7819. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
Exhibit 99.34

News
Release

Trading Symbols:TRBD (EASDAQ)

TST WITHDRAWS ITS APPLICATION FOR A  PREJUDGMENT WRIT OF ATTACHMENT AGAINST TURBODYNE

Carpinteria, CaliforniaOctober 27, 2000Turbodyne Technologies, Inc.
(EASDAQ: TRBD) announces the following:

TST
served a Notice of Withdrawal of Application for Right to Attach Order and Writ of Attachment and Temporary Protective Order re Turbodyne Technologies, Inc. on the Company
on October 19, 2000. The withdrawal of the application is applicable to Defendant Turbodyne Technologies, Inc. only and is without prejudice. However, TST's lawsuit against the Company
and other defendants is still pending.

TST's
original claim was made against Pacific Baja Light Metals in its bankruptcy proceedings. Subsequently, TST, Inc. filed suit against Turbodyne Technologies and other
defendants on March 13, 2000 for approximately $1.8 million plus interest, costs and attorney's fees for materials sold to Pacific Baja and guaranteed by Turbodyne.

On
August 23, 2000, the Company was served with a motion for prejudgment writ of attachment. Prior to TST's withdrawal of the motion, it was scheduled to be heard on
September 19, 2000, and was subsequently rescheduled for October 23, 2000, in the Superior Court of the County of San Bernardino.

TST
is a light metals supplier and does business under the following fictitious business names: TIMCO, Standard Metals Recycling, Tandem, TIMCO Division of TST, Inc., Tandem
Division of TST, Inc., Standard Metals Recycling Division of TST, Inc., Tandem Industries Divison of TST, Inc., Standard Division of TST, Inc.

Turbodyne
Technologies, Inc. a California based high technology company, specializes in the development of charging technology for internal combustion engines and the
development and manufacturing of high-tech assemblies for electrically assisted turbochargers and superchargers. Turbodyne Technologies' headquarters is located in Carpinteria, California,
and its European office is located in Frankfurt, Germany.

Contacts:

Kenneth
FitzpatrickInvestor Relations at California Headquarters: (800) 566-1130
Markus KumbrinkInvestor Relations at Frankfurt office: +49-69-69-76-73-13

This
release contains forward-looking statements as defined in Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including statements about future business operations,
financial performance and market conditions. Such forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties inherent in business forecasts.

---

QuickLinks
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 27, 2011.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

____________

NO. 14-10-00878-CR

NO. 14-10-00879-CR

NO. 14-10-00880-CR

____________

ORVEL WAYNE SPECK, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 122nd District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 09CR1461, 09CR1462, & 09CR1463

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to three counts of intoxication manslaughter. On 

August 5, 2010, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for 20 years for each 

count with the sentences to run consecutively. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is 

wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of 
2

the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See 

High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the 

right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 

S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more than forty-five days has 

passed and no pro se response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the appeal is 

wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. 

We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response 

when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State, 

178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Anderson and Christopher.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
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 on Form 10-K of SatCon Technology Corporation (the "Company") for the year
ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned officer of the Company hereby certifies, to his knowledge,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



This
certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
and shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This certification will not be deemed to be incorporated
by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing, except to the extent that the Company
specifically incorporates this certification by reference.

Date: March 12, 2009

/s/ CHARLES S. RHOADES Charles S. Rhoades President, Chief Executive Officer, and
Interim Principal Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, 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
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-04-246-CV

RAY N. JACKSON	APPELLANT

	V.

TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION 	APPELLLEES

AND DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

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

	FROM THE 348TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	In a single issue, Appellant Ray Jackson claims that the trial court erred by granting the plea to the jurisdiction filed by the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC).  We will reverse and remand.

	TWC’s plea to the jurisdiction claimed that Jackson was required to file suit in district court by December 23, 2003 but that he did not file suit until December 26, 2003, three days late.  See Tex. Labor Code Ann. § 212.201(a) (Vernon 1996) (providing that party aggrieved by final decision of commission may obtain judicial review of the decision by bringing an action within fourteen days after the commission’s decision is final).  Jackson’s alleged failure to timely file suit formed the sole basis for TWC’s plea to the jurisdiction. 

	Jackson agrees that his petition was required to be filed by December 23, 2003 but argues that he did timely file his petition by putting it in an envelope properly addressed and stamped and depositing it in the mail on December 23, 2003.  See Tex. R. Civ. P. 5.  He claims that although the district clerk received it on December 26, 2003 and file-stamped it with that date, his petition was nonetheless timely under the “mailbox rule.” Id.

	A supplemental clerk’s record filed with this court contains the original envelope Jackson utilized to mail his petition.  That envelope bears a postmark of December 23, 2003.  Additionally, the clerk’s record contains a cover letter dated December 23, 2003 that was mailed with Jackson’s petition.  A review of a 2003 calendar establishes that December 23, 2003 was a Tuesday, that December 25, 2003 was a Thursday and was Christmas Day, and that December 26, 2003 was a Friday.  See Tex. R. Evid.  201(b), (c).  The Tarrant County Courthouse was closed December 23, 2003 and December 24, 2003. See id.

	Thus, the record before us, which includes the mailing envelope, establishes that Jackson’s petition was mailed and that the date that it was mailed was December 23, 2003 based on the date on Jackson’s cover letter, the date of the postmark on the envelope, and the fact that it was received on December 26, 2003.  We hold that Jackson’s petition was timely filed under the mailbox rule.2  Accord Nat’l Liab. & Fire Ins. Co. v. Allen, 15 S.W.3d 525, 526 (Tex. 2000) (holding that labor code section 410.253's simultaneous-filing requirement is mandatory but not jurisdictional and that the mailbox rule applies to section 410.253 filings).  We sustain Jackson’s issue, reverse the trial court’s judgment, and remand this case to the trial court.

							SUE WALKER

							JUSTICE

PANEL B:	DAUPHINOT, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DELIVERED: February 3, 2005
# C_2014143EN.01000601.xml

| 13.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/6

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

12 May 2014

2014/C 143/05

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3765 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 140,31 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4642 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,81515 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,0155 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2211 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1395 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,396 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 303,71 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1818 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4303 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,8634 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4684 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4976 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,6702 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5955 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7215 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 410,66 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,2285 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,5851 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5803 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 858,49 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,4582 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 60,144 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 48,3860 |
| THB | Thai baht | 44,899 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,0485 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,8126 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 82,6588 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3765

JPY

Japanese yen

140,31

DKK

Danish krone

7,4642

GBP

Pound sterling

0,81515

SEK

Swedish krona

9,0155

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2211

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1395

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,396

HUF

Hungarian forint

303,71

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1818

RON

Romanian leu

4,4303

TRY

Turkish lira

2,8634

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4684

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4976

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,6702

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5955

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7215

KRW

South Korean won

1 410,66

ZAR

South African rand

14,2285

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,5851

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5803

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 858,49

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,4582

PHP

Philippine peso

60,144

RUB

Russian rouble

48,3860

THB

Thai baht

44,899

BRL

Brazilian real

3,0485

MXN

Mexican peso

17,8126

INR

Indian rupee

82,6588

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
##### 



EXHIBIT 32 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 Home City Financial Corporation, (the Company) on Form
10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, J. William Stapleton, President, Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Operating Officer, and Charles A. Mihal, Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial
Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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. /s/ J. William Stapleton
    
    
    
    /s/ Charles A. MihalJ. William Stapleton
    
    
    
    Charles A. MihalPresident, Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Operating Officer
    
    
    
    Secretary, Treasurer and
Chief Financial OfficerMarch 21, 2005
    
    
    
    March 21, 2005Date:
    
    
    
    Date:
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Home
City Financial Corporation and will be retained by Home City Financial Corporation and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 74
# C_2015389EN.01000101.xml

| 23.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 389/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 389/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

(2015/C 389/01)

Last publication

Last publication

OJ C 381, 16.11.2015

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 371, 9.11.2015

OJ C 363, 3.11.2015

OJ C 354, 26.10.2015

OJ C 346, 19.10.2015

OJ C 337, 12.10.2015

OJ C 328, 5.10.2015

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
-f ’(X[oA.tloodso.I gI00-0L0 H pug ’0100-0L0 }I ’600-0L0 "el ’800-0L0 kI ’L00-0L0 H) soaanos po:tols.~go.t o.m s~oI!O q oq& "(,s~oI.mq,,) g q~noatI1 ~ "soN[ aot!o~f solgaodo pug sm,ao xoz~c[ ’fa~I.tog2. otg W E -[ :gu.r,,aol[o.~ otll spug aouo.tss!mmo D oql ’.~ozgd jo luomooNg oql ql.t~ put lsonbo~ oqt 1V "V "(,jozg&,) "ot~ I ~ozg d pug uoBaoIo~d [muomuo~.~AUH pu~ £~ou~ ! jo ~ouo~ss.~mmoD oql uoo~sloq !~I ~8 "ON ~opJo luosuoD Jo ~ol!~l~ Otll tq ~[ ~8 ’°N aoP~O auosu°D 

## (

( ( ( ( ( ( NOIID]IOSd 1V/N]]WNO~IIAN~I:smoI[oJ s~ ~azFcI s~opso Lqa.mq ’LLI ’soN xaI!O It{el ptm ’~OS ’~ON slumnIl[od 70 tlo~a ~o7 Lda 0gi~ ugR1 ssaI m g "oN aaI.~Ol~ tuo~.l suo~.ss!tua ~oz~cI ’ I g la~cI H~ID 017 ol lu~ns.md pa~p~suoo oq ol ~ou ~p~o u -[ "0[ 6 "8 "L 9 "oN xaP-~O luasu°:D"0I
’6 -g "t7 R~noxql [ "soN[ aot.Ioa ut. pomnq si.Io Dn7 i[~ 70 luaauoa xnTlns "ON aoI~O~[ mo%l suo.~ss.*mo 0I-INd pti~ ’~Og ’xONTO spaoaoa £Iq:~uo!N ’q

; "oN ~oI.~Oa ol lndn~ l~oq,,to sp~oaoa Kvno H "~ :sp~oao~ ’L

9s.~ql O1 lmms~nd p911~mqns uog~m~oTu.~ £m~ u.~ lu~m~l~ls ~s[1~ 7 £uV "slraamal~ls

 ̄ sagiguad pu= uogoun[m ’ ug ol ~azg,I ~ao~qns L~m aap~o luosuoo s.~R1 tI~*.~ R[dtuoa ol omW~ I "alq~ao~o~ua ~Ia~,pamtm. pu~ aiqg[~acIdguou s~ pu~ ’uD~atI passaapp~ s~a~gm o:~ loadsax R!~m aauo.~ss~.ttrmoD aq170 xap.~o [gu~ ~ s.~ ~ap~o luosuoo s.~tLL "oou~IdmoouoN

"oN aoPaO

### uop~o luasuoo s.Nl ol s~.~gd lou ~ag 1gql s~!l![gd!o.mnm ~o suosx~d 7o s:tq~.u

’6I 8[
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2438 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2438

  To modify the boundary of the Cane River Creole National Historical 
        Park in the State of Louisiana, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 22, 2021

  Mr. Cassidy introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To modify the boundary of the Cane River Creole National Historical 
        Park in the State of Louisiana, 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 ``Cane River Creole National 
Historical Park Boundary Modification Act''.

SEC. 2. CANE RIVER CREOLE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK BOUNDARY 
              MODIFICATION.

    Section 303(b) of the Cane River Creole National Historical Park 
and National Heritage Area Act (16 U.S.C. 410ccc-1(b)) is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
            ``(5) The approximately 46.1 acres of land depicted as 
        tracts 1, 2, and 3 on the map entitled `A Map of Lands in 
        Sections 111, 112 & 113, T7N-R6W' and dated May 20, 2021 
        (referred to in this paragraph as the `Map'), subject to the 
        requirement that, as soon as practicable after the date of 
        enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall prepare a map 
        of the tracts consistent with National Park Service standards 
        to replace the Map.''.
                                 <all>
```