alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Seafarer Exploration Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September
30, 2019 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kyle Kennedy,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Dated: May 16, 2022 | By: | /s/
    Kyle Kennedy                                                                                                                                                            | 
|------------------- | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|                    |     | Kyle
    Kennedy                                                                                                                                                                | 
|                    |     | President,
    Chief     Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board     (Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and
    acting Principal Accounting Officer) |
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2



September 14, 1999



Eric R. Garen
Learning Tree International, Inc.

Dear Mr. Garen:

     This will confirm our agreement to extend until September 30, 2000 the term
of your Employment Agreement dated as of October 1, 1995.  All of the other
terms of the Employment Agreement will remain as they have been.

Very truly yours,

Learning Tree International, Inc.



By               /s/ Mary C. Adams
    ----------------------------------------------
     Mary C. Adams, Vice President, Administration


Accepted and Agreed:



By        /s/ Eric R. Garen
    ---------------------------
           Eric R. Garen

Dated      September 14, 1999
       -------------------------
Doug

had an interest in appellants sufficient to request the appointment of a receiver. The district court also found that a sufficient risk of loss, waste, or mismanagement existed to appoint a receiver.

Having considered the briefs and appendices in this appeal, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the district court's factual findings and that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it appointed a receiver. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order.

It is so ORDERED.

, J. Saitta

cc: Hon. Ronald J. Israel, District Judge Glenn C. Schepps Kolesar & Leatham, Chtd. Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A 2
8/27/2015 Request for Information ­ FAA­2015­1586

https://email.dot.gov/owa/9­AWA­AVS­333Exemptions@faa.gov/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAABFvqQJAFf5SI8crGhIsEIyBwD3qfMUO7BCQ74YBi9P12... 1/1

Request for Information ­ FAA­2015­1586

9­AWA­AVS­333Exemptions (FAA)

Sent:Thursday, August 27, 2015 3:53 PM

To: pguckian@qualcomm.com

Dear Mr. Guckian:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA

−2015−1586). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

Describe the aircraft makes, models, and types (i.e., fixed‐wing, rotorcraft, lighter‐than‐air) for the proposed

UAS operation. The descriptions should include the maximum weight (including payload). This information

can be located in the aircraft manuals.

Please submit the additional information (non‐proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any

proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want

us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 9/10/15. If we do not

receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267­4264.

Sincerely,

Dan Ngo

FAA Office of Rulemaking
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Schlotzsky's, Inc. (the "Company"), does hereby certify,
to such officer's knowledge, that:

      The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003
(the "Form 10-K") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the
information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as
of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-K.

Date: March 30, 2004


                                   /s/ JOHN C. WOOLEY
                                   --------------------------------------------
                                   Name:  John C. Wooley
                                   Title: Chairman of the Board
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer
                                          (Principal Executive Officer)

The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-K
pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63
of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of
the Form 10-K for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, as
amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company,
whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.
EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 Malacology, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2003 (the "Report"), I, Vivek R.
Rao, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of
                  operations of the Company.



/s/ Vivek R. Rao
-------------------------
Vivek R. Rao
Chief Executive Officer
May 10, 2003
NOVEMB. 1810.

case xvin.

#### Thomas Boone, *vs.*George Fraser, Maria his wife, and Susan Boone.

[Tried before Chancellor Gaillard, Circuit Court of Equity, Charleston, and decree pronounced

November, 1810.]

Testatordevi-S TMwls ed and div1(l-chiidrenf His eldest son to nave choice— the eldest son est value must imakflB- good tine JBference his sisters t0

JOHN BOONE, the father of the complainant, by his last will and testament duly executed in 1792, having disposed of his personal estate between his wife and children share and share alike, devised his real estate in flie following' words : *“*On my son arriving at the age ° ^ o o of twenty one years, I do hereby direct and empower executrix and executor, herein alter named, t,o have the value of my real estate fixed and ascertained in the best manner they can, and the same to be equally divicl-between all my children, share and share alike *•,*so that my plantation in Christ Church Parish be in one division or lot, and my other lands be equally divided in as many parts or lots as there be children, with the tract in Christ Church where I now live ; that he shall have his choice of any one tract or lot so divided. Item. — I give and bequeath the same tract or lot he makes choice of to my said son, unto Mm and his heirs and assigns forever.” The testator’s son has .arrived at the age of twenty one years, and has made choice of the plantation . in Christ Church, which is of considerably greater value than either of the other lots of land. The question made for the consideration of the Court is, whether the son ought to make good the difference in value between the planta*89tion in Christ Church, and the other lots assigned to his two sisters ? The Court is of opinion that the testator intended his estate to be equally divided between his children, having reference to the value of it. Why else did he direct the value of it to be fixed and ascertained ? The words to- be equally divided between my children, share and share* alike, arc strong and unequivocal. Then follow the words, so that my plantation in Christ Church Parish be in one dividend or lot, and my other lands be equally divided in as many parts or lots as there be children, with the tract in Christ Church where I now live *j*that he shall have the choice of any one tract or *lot*so divided. To construe the words so as to let the son have the plantation in Christ Church without making good the difference in value between it and the other lots of land, would be to control the obvious meaning and operation of the preceding part of the clause of the will. Such a construction ought to be put on them as will make the whole clause stand. Besides the testator would hardly have left to his son the choice of his lots of land, knowing his plantation in Christ Church to be worth a great deal more than either of his other lots of' land, if he had not intended him to make good the difference in value between it and them. It is therefore ordered and decreed that the complainant do make good the difference in value between the plantation in Christ Church, of which he has made choice, and the other lots of land assigned to his sisters.
Identification of Non Identification of Non

-Haza

Haza

Secondary Materials that a

Secondary Materials that a

Wastes

George Faison

U.S. Environmental Protection 

May 13, 2010 
WHY IS THIS RULE IMPORT

WHY IS THIS RULE IMPORT

• Units that burn non-hazardous secondary 

are SOLID WASTES would be subject to under CAA section 129

• Units that burn materials that are NOT A 

would be subject to requirements under C
INITIAL STEPS THE AGENCY T

INITIAL STEPS THE AGENCY T

DECIDE WHETHER MATERIALS A

DECIDE WHETHER MATERIALS A

WASTE

• EPA published Advanced Notice of Propo

Rulemaking (ANPRM) on January 2, 200

• Identifies 2 key factors for solid waste de

– Whether secondary material has been – If discarded, has it been sufficiently pr

produce a legitimate fuel 

• Discusses concept that secondary mater

legitimately used to be considered a non-
PROPOSED APPROAC

PROPOSED APPROAC

• Materials that would be a solid waste inc

tires, off-spec used oil, contaminated c&d 

• Non-hazardous secondary materials that 

waste when combusted:

– Traditional fuels

• e.g. fuel oil, clean biomass, coal

– Materials which remain in the control o

and meet legitimacy criteria

– Materials used as an ingredient in a co

and that meet legitimacy criteria
PROPOSED APPROAC

PROPOSED APPROAC

• Non-hazardous secondary materials that 

waste when combusted (continued):

– Materials and ingredients that have be

but are subsequently processed into a product fuel

• e.g. tire derived fuel with metal rem

– Materials for which non-waste petition 

ALTERNATIVE APPROAC

ALTERNATIVE APPROAC

• All non-hazardous secondary materials a

combusted off-site are a solid waste

• Materials combusted within control of the 

traditional fuels are a non-waste

• Major difference

– Discarded materials and ingredients p

new product are still considered solid 

• Major impact – used oil, TDF, coal refuse

wood residuals
ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED F

ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED F

RULE 

• Impact the rule will have on states’ ability 

their own solid waste management progr

• Whether the rule could preferentially prom

combustion of secondary materials over trecycling activities

• Whether the rule will impact communities 

environmental justice concerns
TIMING AND NEXT STEP

TIMING AND NEXT STEP

• Public comment period ends 45 days aft• Sign final rule by December 16, 2010• For more information 

http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/definition

– Website includes Fact Sheets, Qs and As, Ma

Characterization Papers, ANPRM
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3215 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 3215

To amend the Act of August 10, 1956, to provide for the payment of pay 
and allowances for certain officers of the Army who are assigned to the 
                          Corps of Engineers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 16, 2021

  Mr. Rounds (for himself, Mr. Manchin, and Mr. King) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                      Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Act of August 10, 1956, to provide for the payment of pay 
and allowances for certain officers of the Army who are assigned to the 
                          Corps of Engineers.

    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 ``USACE Military Personnel 
Augmentation Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. PAYMENT OF PAY AND ALLOWANCES OF CERTAIN OFFICERS FROM 
              APPROPRIATION FOR IMPROVEMENTS.

    Section 36 of the Act of August 10, 1956 (70A Stat. 634, chapter 
1041; 33 U.S.C. 583a), is amended--
            (1) by striking ``Regular officers of the Corps of 
        Engineers of the Army, and reserve officers of the Army who are 
        assigned to the Corps of Engineers,'' and inserting the 
        following:
    ``(a) In General.--The personnel described in subsection (b)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(b) Personnel Described.--The personnel referred to in subsection 
(a) are the following:
            ``(1) Regular officers of the Corps of Engineers of the 
        Army.
            ``(2) The following members of the Army who are assigned to 
        the Corps of Engineers:
                    ``(A) Reserve component officers.
                    ``(B) Warrant officers (whether regular or reserve 
                component).
                    ``(C) Enlisted members (whether regular or reserve 
                component).''.
                                 <all>
```
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 14

- 2103

___________

IN RE: MEL M. MARIN,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(Related to M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 1

- 14

- cv

- 00669)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

May 13, 2014

Before: AMBRO, FISHER and GARTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: May 14, 2014)

_________________

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

_________________

The opinion entered May 14, 2014 is hereby amended to include the submit date

of May 13, 2014

.

For the Court,

s/Marcia M. Waldron

Clerk

Dated: May 27, 2014
**AD Economic Evaluation**



### Docket No . FAA - 20 13 - 0379 Directorate ID : 20 09 - SW - 26 - AD Helicopter Model: Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. Model 204B and certain serial - numbered Model 205A - 1 Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. O perators): 13 Model 204B and 52 Model 205A - 1 Helicopters in the US Registry . Reason : The actions of this AD are intended to prevent failure of the chain, loss of tail rotor blade pitch control, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. Costs : Part s per Helicopter $ 4,922 to replace a chain $14,925 to replace a damper kit on a Model 204B $152,214 to install a tail rotor push -pull control system on an affected Model 205A - 1 Labor per Helicopter at 

### $ 8 5 /work - hour (.25, 60 per year, to inspect the li nk segments in a chain; .5 work hour to replace a chain on a Model 20 4B ; 3 work hour s to install a damper kit on a Model 204B; and 225 work hours to install a tail rotor push -pull control system on a Model 205A - 1 ) $ 1,275 for the inspection $9,930 to repla ce a chain (assuming 2 would be replaced) $15,180 to install a damper kit on a Model 204B (assuming 2 would be installed) $171,339 to install a tail rotor push -pull control system on an affected Model 205A - 1

Other (Explain) Total Cost per Helicopter $ 1 92,159 Total US Fleet Cost $ 227,204 Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory Fle xibility Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : Mike Kohner
The State of New Hampshire 

## Department of Environmental Services

Rob Maxfield Director, OEME US EPA Region 1 11 Techno lo gy Drive North Chelm sford , MA 01863 Dear Mr. Maxfield : 

### Thomas S. Burack, Commissioner September 2 , 20 14

The New Hampshire Department of Environmenta l Serv ices (DES) is pleased to submit the 20 1 4/20 1 5 Ambient Air Monitoring Program Annual Network Review Plan in accordance with Code of Federal Regulations Title 40, PART 58.1 0. DES made this plan avai lab le for public · comment and EPA review, via webs ite, for 30 days starting in June 2014. After receiving no pub li c comment and a few EPA suggestions, DES made changes where appropriate and has posted the latest plan to the following FTP site for your approval : ftp :// nhftp.admin . state .nh . us DES wou ld like to thank the United States Environmental Protection Agenc y (EPA) for their continued support toward improving and maintaining New Hampshire's A ir Monitoring Network .

Sincere ly,

# ~ Director , Air Re s ources Division
Cc: Bob Judge (EPA) Alan VanArsdale (EPA)

www.des.nh .g ov 29 H aze n Drive • PO Bo x 95 • C on co r d, NH 0 33 0 2 - 00 95 ( 6 0 3) 271 - 35 0 3 • T DD A cce ss: Rel ay NH 1 - 8 00 - 735-2964
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 iVoice, Inc. ("the Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Jerome R Mahoney,
President, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting 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, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, 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.


                                       Date: November 16, 2006

                                       By /s/ Jerome R Mahoney
                                       --------------------------------------
                                       Jerome R Mahoney
                                       President, Chief Executive Officer and
                                       Principal Accounting Officer
2023 AFSAM

The Xyston

CA3

SHOOTER SCORE Time ROST # STATE/COUNTRY 

1 LCPL BURGESS, MARCUS 129 UK 1:40:14 200

2 SGT MULLER, SHAUN P 102 VA 1:52:68 178

3 SSG FULMER, MICAH N 116 CO 1:56:76 172

4 SGT GOLDADE, TYLER R 110 ND 2:05:30 160

5 SGT DEVILLE, JIMMY 121 UK 2:11:34 152

6 MAJ URICK, GRANT M 132 HI 2:12:70 151

7 SGT NORCROSS, AUSTIN D 119 CO 2:14:28 149

8 MSGT WATTERS, NATHAN A 108 AR 2:14:42 149

9 CPT BROTHERSTON, CURTIS G 133 CO 2:19:84 143

10 MAJ CAMPBELL, JESSE D 134 ID 2:19:92 143

11 MAJ FREEMAN, SAMUEL K 109 SC 2:25:78 137

12 SFC SAGER, DEVIN S 700 CO 2:29:97 134

13 SGT SMITH, ANDREW 140 NETHERLANDS 2:30:67 133

14 MAJ CONNERS, THOMAS J 142 2:30:86 133

15 GYSGT RANTON, CHAD W 101 VA 2:32:12 132

16 MAJOR ROSIE, LANCE 123 UK 2:34:57 130

17 1SG BOELLAARD, MAX 113 NETHERLANDS 2:39:33 126

18 SFC WILLIS, RICHARD 135 KY 2:40:84 125

19 SSG ARCHAMBAULT, MAXIMIL D 117 Vermont 2:41:35 124

20 SFC KEENOM, DAVID D 141 TN 2:46:46 120

21 SGT FLEITAS, NICKOLAS 103 2:48:28 119

22 1SG CAPPS, JOSEPH A 111 AR 2:48:39 119

23 SGT COLGAN, JOHNATHON 139 UK 2:55:15 114

24 LCPL FERGUSON, ANDREW 128 UK 3:03:20 109

25 SSG STEWART, JUDE O 100 VA 3:04:38 109

26 SSG GORDON, COLIN 136 UK 3:04:46 109

27 CPL BUSSTRA, MARTIJN 114 NETHERLANDS 3:05:88 108

28 CPT PANTOJA, LUIS 126 KS 3:06:81 107

29 SSG CATT, KEVIN 122 UK 3:07:69 107

30 SFC PHELPS, STEFAN S 106 VA 3:09:50 106

31 CPL ROWAN, BRIAN 137 UK 3:10:35 105

32 MAJ WILKEN, ERIK 115 NETHERLANDS 3:17:00 102

33 MAJ PEASLEY, MARK 138 UK 3:24:62 98

34 SFC GODEL, JASON W 125 TX 3:25:82 97

35 SPC GADZIK, TIMOTHY J 127 IL 3:33:33 94

36 SFC STAATS, JOHN A 118 AR 3:55:82 85

37 SFC BOLANOS, STEVEN L 104 CA 3:58:97 84

* Has previously been awarded the Distinguished Badge in this discipline. Page 1 of 2

Time printed: 4/28/2023 2:10:20 PM
SHOOTER SCORE Time ROST # STATE/COUNTRY 

38 WO1 DOUGLAS, JAMES 120 UK 3:59:31 84

39 CPL FILGATE, MICHAEL 130 UK 4:01:03 83

40 E-5 LUSH, TRAVIS C 105 VA 4:02:76 83

41 PVT DOPPERT, SANTINO 112 NETHERLANDS 4:15:29 78

42 CFN PICKLES, JOSHUA 131 UK 4:19:46 77

43 E5 DUERR, DAVID C 107 CA 4:32:28 74

44 CW4 KNOTE, ANDY T 124 KY 4:50:99 69

45 SGT MARLAR, SAMUEL A 143 MA 4:53:85 68

* Has previously been awarded the Distinguished Badge in this discipline. Page 2 of 2

Time printed: 4/28/2023 2:10:20 PM