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



                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of ASPI, Inc. for
the year  ended  June 30,  2010,  I, Yuen Ling Look,  Chief  Executive  Officer,
President  and Chief  Financial  Officer  (Principal  Executive  and  Accounting
Officer) of ASPI, Inc.,  hereby certify  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as
adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002,  to my
knowledge, that:

     a)   such Annual Report on Form 10-K of ASPI,  Inc. for the year ended June
          30, 2010,  fully  complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     b)   the information  contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K of ASPI,
          Inc.  for the  year  ended  June 30,  2010,  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of ASPI, Inc.


Date:  October 11, 2010



                                  /s/ Yuen Ling Look
                                  ----------------------------------------------
                                  Yuen Ling Look, Chief Executive Officer,
                                  President and Chief Financial Officer
                                   (Principal Executive and Accounting Officer)



This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2952 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2952

      To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to allow 
manufacturers and sponsors of a drug to use alternative testing methods 
  to animal testing to investigate the safety and effectiveness of a 
                     drug, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 7, 2021

  Mr. Paul (for himself, Mr. Booker, Mr. Braun, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. 
Lujan) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 
       to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to allow 
manufacturers and sponsors of a drug to use alternative testing methods 
  to animal testing to investigate the safety and effectiveness of a 
                     drug, 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 ``FDA Modernization Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. NEW APPROACH METHODOLOGIES.

    Section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
355) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b)(5)(B)(i)(II), by striking ``animal'' 
        and inserting ``nonclinical tests or studies'';
            (2) in subsection (i)--
                    (A) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``preclinical 
                tests (including tests on animals)'' and inserting 
                ``nonclinical tests''; and
                    (B) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``animal'' and 
                inserting ``nonclinical tests or studies''; and
            (3) after subsection (y), by inserting the following:
    ``(z) Nonclinical Test or Study Defined.--For purposes of this 
section, the term `nonclinical test or study' means a test or study 
conducted in vitro, in silico, in chemico, or in vivo that occurs 
before or during the clinical trial phase of the investigation of the 
safety and effectiveness of a drug, and may include the following:
            ``(1) Cell-based assays.
            ``(2) Organ chips and microphysiological systems.
            ``(3) Computer models.
            ``(4) Other non-animal or human biology-based test methods.
            ``(5) Animal tests.''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement
No. 333-27973 of Weider Nutrition International, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report
dated August 18, 2000, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Weider
Nutrition International, Inc. for the year ended May 31, 2000.

         Our audits of the consolidated financial statements referred to in our
aforementioned report also included the financial statement schedule of Weider
Nutrition International, Inc., listed in Item 14. This financial statement
schedule is the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility
is to express an opinion based on our audits. In our opinion, such financial
statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic financial
statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the
information set forth therein.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Salt Lake City, Utah
September 26, 2000
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 201 4 - 012 1 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 3 -NM - 1 51 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: 

### 2013 - 0158 **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, list latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
#### Peters *against*Parsons.

Tho act *cn-*iSirffo/?6 J'o/ Peace*5 which94 gives the party aggrieved, where the judgment Jars, an *appeal*Commonrieas, caseíinw^ich given,gmeaiter andnot jucNment °^ou demurrer, or an issue *at law.*

IN ERROR, on *certiorari*to a Justice’s Court. It appeared that plaintiff below had declared on a promissory note, f°r and cents, and the defendant below pleaded t'Pec'a^y *n Ear of the action, his discharge under the insolvent act of *April,*1813, from all his debts, and averring: . *‘*„ 0 that both plaintiff and defendant were citizens of this State. To this plea there was a general demurrer and joinder; and after argument of the demurrer, the justice gave judgment f°r the plaintiff, for $29 and 53 cents, with costs,

The Justice had made a return to the *certiorari,*and the assignment of errors therein had been served on the de‘n error, who obtained an order to stay proceedings until this term : A motion was now made in behalf of the .... , , . „ , , defendant in error, to quash the writ of error, on the ground that the judgment in the cause being for above the sum of twenty-five dollars, the remedy for the person aggrieved, by the late *act to extend the jurisdiction of Justices of the Peace,*(sess, 41. c. 94. s. 17.) was by *appeal*to the Court of Common Pleas of the county, and not by *certiorari.*

*For the plaintiff in error,*

it was contended, that the act, in regard to judgments above 25 dollars, referred only to cases in which an issue *in fact*was joined in the suit before the justice. All the provisions of the act in regard to ap*141peals, apply to issues in fact only. In this case thgré was a demurrer, or an *issue at law.*

*Sperry,*for the defendant in error.

*Switland,*for the plaintiff in error.

*Per Curiam.*

.The act of *April*10, 1818, which extends the jurisdiction of Justices of the Peace to fifty dollars, and gives the party against whom a judgment is rendered for above 2s dollars, an *appeal*to the Court of Common Pleas, refers only to judgments rendered on a verdict, or without a jury trial, upon an issue in fact; not to cases where the justice gives judgment on a demurrer, or issue at law. This is evident from the provisions contained'in the 18th and 19th sections, as to the proceedings on the appeal. The motion must therefore be denied.

Motidn denied.
Exhibit 31.2I, Diana Garvis Purcel, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Famous Dave’s of America, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this annual report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this annual report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15e and15d-14) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) for the registrant and we have: a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designated under our system to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annualreport is being prepared; and  b. designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparationof financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles; and  c. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annualreport based on such evaluation; and  d. disclosed in this annual report changes in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s fourth quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function): a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other Associateswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.        Dated: March 16, 2007 By:  /s/ Diana Garvis Purcel    Diana Garvis Purcel    Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

CAROLYN S. FAIR,

Petitioner

v.

REGENCY FINANCE COMPANY,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 203 WAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 7th day of December, 2021

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, Chief Judge, United States 1 District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. ___________ No. 96-1424

___________ Reginald Ivy, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. United States of America, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: November 7, 1996 Filed: November 25, 1996

___________ Before BEAM, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Reginald Ivy appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 1 2255 motion. We affirm.
In March 1994, Ivy pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); he was sentenced to thirt y mon ths imprisonment, to be served consecutively to a state sentence fo r first-degree assault. Ivy did not appeal. Ivy filed this section 2255 motion, asserting as grounds for relief (1) his prosecution was unlawful; (2) defense counse l supplied false information; and (3) the sentence imposed exceeded-2-

the maximum sentence authorized. The district court granted th e gove rnment's motion to dismiss and denied relief without a n evidentiary hearing, reasoning that Ivy's claims were procedurally barred and could not be raised in a section 2255 motion absent a showing of cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage o f justice. Ivy appeals. This court affirms the summary denial of a section 2255 moti on without an evidentiary hearing only if, upon a de novo review o f the record, the court is persuaded that the motion, files, an d records of the case conclusively show that the movant is no t entitled to relief. See Hollo way v. United States , 960 F.2d 1348, 1351 (8th Cir. 1992).
We agree Ivy is barred from raising his sentencing an d statu toryclaims in a section 2255 motion. See Ramey v. Unite d States , 8 F.3d 1313, 1314 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (sectio n 2255 not available to correct errors which could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal, absent showing of cause and actua l prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice); see also United States v. Ward , 55 F.3d 412, 413 (8th Cir. 1995) (all arguments-- including constitutional and j urisdictional ones--should be raised at trial or on direct appeal to the fullest extent possible ; sentencing issue not constitutional or jurisdictional); Ande rson v. United States , 25 F.3d 704, 706 (8th Cir. 1994) (claim tha t st atutoryelements of crime not met, not constitutional o r jurisdictional).
Wh ile a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel i s cognizable in a section 2255 motion, see United States v. Ma gee , 19 F. 3d 417, 420 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 343 (1994) , Ivy's claim--which fails to al lege how counsel was ineffective--is too v ague and conclusory to merit relief. See United States v .-3-

Robinson , 64 F.3d 403, 405 (8th Cir. 1995) (movant's allegations of attorney coercion too vague and conclusory to warrant-4-

evidentiary hearing). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6774

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CHIP ALLAN BELLACONIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.

(CR-99-363, CA-01-2744-2-18)

Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: August 2, 2002

Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chip Allan Bellaconis, Appellant Pro Se. Miller Williams Shealy,

Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Chip Allan Bellaconis seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2002). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the

district court. United States v. Bellaconis, Nos. CR-99-363; CA01-2744-2-18 (D.S.C. Apr. 19, 2002). 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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

WILLIAM RINICK,

Petitioner

v.

COMMON PLEAS COURT OF 

PHILADELPHIA COUNTY CLERK OF 

THE COURT, (CRIMINAL DIVISION),

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 171 EM 2016

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 30th day of November, 2016, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Application for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED.
**Exhibit 24.4**

 

**POWER OF ATTORNEY**

 

KNOW ALL MEN BYTHESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints Robert E.Sulentic, Derek R. McClain, Arlin E. Gaffner and J. Christopher Kirk and eachof them, his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact, with full power of substitutionand resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, to sign on hisbehalf, as a director or officer, or both, as the case may be, of Trammell CrowCompany, a Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”), the Corporation’s AnnualReport on Form10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005, and to sign any or allamendments to such Form 10-K, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto,and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and ExchangeCommission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact, and each of them with orwithout the others, full power and authority to do and perform each and everyact and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, asfully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, herebyratifying and confirming all that each of said attorneys-in-fact or theirsubstitute or substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

 

 
|   | /s/  MICHAEL A. MOSES |
|--------|-----------------------|
|   | Michael  A. Moses     |

 

----
99-924.

#### York v. Mayfield Neurological Inst., Inc.

Butler App. Nos. CA96-08-164 and CA97-03-057. Discretionary appeal allowed.

Moyer, C.J., Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.

Discretionary cross-appeal allowed.

Moyer, C.J., and Cook, J., dissent.
================================================================================


                                                                    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 Quarterly Report of Hudson's Grill International, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Periodic
Report"), I, David Roff, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.    the Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.


     Dated: October 21, 2009


     /s/ "David Roff"


     David Roff
     Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA# 2979EPA# 2979EPA# 2979EPA# 2979
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2938 

To designate the United States Courthouse and Federal Building located 

at 111 North Adams Street in Tallahassee, Florida, as the ‘‘Joseph 

Woodrow Hatchett United States Courthouse and Federal Building’’, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 5, 2021 

Mr. RUBIO (for himself and Mr. SCOTT of Florida) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment 

and Public Works 

A BILL 

To designate the United States Courthouse and Federal 

Building located at 111 North Adams Street in Tallahassee, Florida, as the ‘‘Joseph Woodrow Hatchett United 

States Courthouse and Federal Building’’, and for other 

purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. JOSEPH WOODROW HATCHETT UNITED STATES 

4 COURTHOUSE AND FEDERAL BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The United States Courthouse 

6 and Federal Building located at 111 North Adams Street 

7 in Tallahassee, Florida, shall be known and designated as 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2938 IS

1 the ‘‘Joseph Woodrow Hatchett United States Courthouse 

2 and Federal Building’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the United States Courthouse and Federal 

6 Building referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to 

7 be a reference to the ‘‘Joseph Woodrow Hatchett United 

8 States Courthouse and Federal Building’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-15-00372-CV

EX PARTE MILTON LEE GARDNER

From the 77th District Court

Limestone County, Texas

Trial Court No. J-291-A-1

ORDER

Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing, filed on November 18, 2016, is denied.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motion denied

Order issued and filed December 7, 2016