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 Annual Report of Star Gas Partners, L.P. (the
Partnership) and Star Gas Finance Company on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph P. Cavanaugh, Chief Executive
Officer of the Partnership and Star Gas Finance Company, certify to my knowledge pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, following due inquiry, I believe 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 Partnership and Star Gas Finance Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Star Gas Partners, L.P. and
will be retained by Star Gas Partners, L.P. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|                 |  |  |  |                                                                                          |  |                            |  |                         
|---------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------- |  | ------------------------
|                 |  |  |  | STAR GAS PARTNERS, L.P. STAR GAS FINANCE
COMPANY By: KESTREL HEAT, LLC (General Partner)
|                 |  |  | 
|January 16, 2007 |  |  |  | By:                                                                                      |  | /s/    JOSEPH P.
CAVANAUGH
|                 |  |  |  |                                                                                          |  |                            |  | Joseph P. Cavanaugh     
|                 |  |  |  |                                                                                          |  |                            |  | Chief Executive Officer 
|                 |  |  |  |                                                                                          |  |                            |  | Star Gas Partners, L.P. 
|                 |  |  |  |                                                                                          |  |                            |  | Star Gas Finance Company
0232

#### Charles B. BRYAN, Jr., Respondent, v. Mary Bush M. BRYAN, Appellant.

(319 S. E. (2d) 360)

Court of Appeals

*JanL. Warner*and *C. Dixon Lee, III, Sumter, for appellant.*

*507
      *Susan King Dunn*of *Shimel, Ackerman, Theos & Spar,*Charleston, *for respondent.*

Heard June 26, 1984.

Decided Aug. 17, 1984.

Sanders, Chief Judge:

This is an appeal by the mother of minor children from a family court order reducing the amount of monthly child support payments required of their father. We reverse.

By amended divorce decree dated October 16, 1979, the father was ordered to pay $500 monthly child support, to be adjusted each year by the Consumer Price Index. He was granted “reasonable rights of visitation” with the parties’ children provided he gave certain advance notice. The record indicates the parties returned to court on one or more occasions concerning problems with visitation. Then in July 1981, the father petitioned the Family Court to “establish a set pattern of visitation.” The mother answered and made various counterclaims. Concerning the monthly child support payments, she alleged the father had issued bad checks for child support, had not paid the support on time, and had not increased the support in line with the Consumer Price Index. She requested the court enforce “the timeliness and amounts” of child support.

The family court judge awarded the mother certain relief. As to the monthly child support payments, he specified the method of making adjustments based on the Consumer Price Index and provided how and when payments should be made. He also set specific visitation for the father during school months and granted the father two 3-week periods of summer visitation. The father testified he would send the children to camp one week during the summer. The judge then reduced the June and July child support payments by one-half because of the extent of summer visitation and the father’s paying for camp.

In our opinion, the family court judge erred, as a matter of law, in reducing the child support required of the father because this issue was not raised by the pleadings of the parties.

*508Due process requires that litigants be placed on notice of the issues which a court is to consider. *Bass v. Bass,*272 S. C. 177, 249 S. E. (2d) 905 (1978). While it is true that pleadings in the Family Court are liberally construed, this rule cannot be applied to permit the award of relief not contemplated by the pleadings. *Bass; see also Crocker v. Crocker,*314 S. E. (2d) 343, S. C. App. (1984), *citing Glass v. Glass,*276 S. C. 625, 281 S. E. (2d) 221 (1981) (judgment or decree, in law or equity, must conform to both pleadings and proof and be in accord with theory on which pleadings are framed and case is tried).

For this reason, the portion of the family court order reducing the child support obligation of the father is

Reversed.

Gardner and Goolsby, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 77 (Wednesday, April 22, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22510-22511]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09223]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AC15-78-000]


AEP Generation Resources Inc.; Notice of Request for Waiver

    Take notice that on April 10, 2015, AEP Generation Resources Inc. 
submitted a request for a waiver of the reporting requirements for 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Form 1 and Form 3-Q for 
calendar year 2015.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 or 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as

[[Page 22511]]

appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or 
before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not 
necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other 
than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b0f6f5e2f3ffdedcd9ded5e3c5c0c0dfc2c4f0d6d5c2d39ed7dfc6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="86c0c3d4c5c9e8eaefe8e3d5f3f6f6e9f4f2c6e0e3f4e5a8e1e9f0">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 1, 2015.

    Dated: April 15, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-09223 Filed 4-21-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3998 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3998

To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the service treatable 
  as service engaged in combat with the enemy for utilization of non-
 official evidence for proof of service-connection in a combat-related 
                           disease or injury.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 3, 2009

Mr. Braley of Iowa introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                   the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the service treatable 
  as service engaged in combat with the enemy for utilization of non-
 official evidence for proof of service-connection in a combat-related 
                           disease or injury.

    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 ``Compensation for Combat Veterans 
Act''.

SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF SERVICE TREATABLE AS SERVICE ENGAGED IN COMBAT 
              WITH THE ENEMY FOR UTILIZATION OF NON-OFFICIAL EVIDENCE 
              FOR PROOF OF SERVICE-CONNECTION IN COMBAT-RELATED 
              DISEASES OR INJURIES.

    Section 1154(b) of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(b)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(2) A veteran who during active service described in paragraph 
(1) served in a combat zone for purposes of section 112 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986, or a predecessor provision of law, shall be 
treated as having engaged in combat with the enemy in active service 
for purposes of that paragraph during such service in that combat 
zone.''.
                                 <all>
```
Kevin Brickner 

Vice President, Tech Ops Integration 

September 3, 2015 

Les Smith 

Manager, Air Transportation Division, AFS-200 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

American Airlines" 

Re: Petition to Amend Exemption No. 11200- Demonstration of Emergency 

Evacuation Procedures 

Dear Mr. Smith: 

On March 10, 2015, the FAA issued Exemption No. 11200 granting American Airlines a 

temporary exemption from Federal Aviation Regulation {FAR) section 121.291{b)(1) -14 

C.F.R. Part 121. This exemption, which currently expires on January 4, 2016, applies to 

ERJ-190-100, 757-200 and A330-243 aircraft that were previously operated by US Airways. 

After discussions with our Certificate Management Office on scheduling efficiencies and 

updated timing of post-SOC integration efforts, American Airlines respectfully requests to 

extend the timeframe for completion ofthe required demonstrations to January 4, 2017. 

Support for this request is based on the initial petition for exemption and recognition that 

the significant event in the integration of new aircraft into the American Airlines fleet is 

the onset of cross-utilization of crews. Integration of the computer systems that will 

enable the cross-utilization of crews is planned to occur in several phases between late 

summer of 2016 and spring 2017. Restrictions within the existing Crew Management 

Systems will continue to act as controls to keep the workgroups separated until all of the 

integration plan requirements have been met. Therefore, extending the current 

P. 0 . Box 619616, MD 5614 

DFW Airport, TX 75261-9616 
American Airlines"-

exemption would not erode the current high level of safety reflected by the sequestered 

legacy operations. 

Request for Non-Publication 

American Airlines requests that this petition not be subject to public notice and comment 

proceedings. As recognized by the FAA in the initial petition, publication would not set a 

precedent and would cause unnecessary delay to resolve the administrative matters in 

this petition. 

Thank you for your consideration and assistance. 

Sincerely, 

Kevin Brickner 

Vice President- Tech Ops Integration 

cc: C.J. Dicesare, CMO Office Manager 

2 

Thomas Durrant, Assistant Field Office Manager 

Calvin Lott, Principle Operations Inspector 

Richard Bell, Principle Avionics Inspector 

Charles Gregory, Principle Maintenance Inspector 

Travis Blower, Cabin Safety Inspector
EXHIBIT 32



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



         In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Roebling  Financial  Corp,
Inc.  (the  "Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the quarter  ended June 30, 2004 (the
"Report")  as filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date
hereof, we, Frank J. Travea,  III,  President and Chief Executive  Officer,  and
Janice A. Summers,  Senior Vice  President,  Chief  Operating  Officer and Chief
Financial Officer,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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) 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.


A signed  original 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.


/s/Frank J. Travea, III                         /s/Janice A. Summers
-------------------------------------           ----------------------
Frank J. Travea, III                            Janice A. Summers
President and Chief Executive Officer           Senior Vice President,
                                                Chief Operating Officer and
                                                Chief Financial Officer




July  30, 2004
No. 2955.

#### Fincken *v.*King.

April Term, 1892.

This was a consent order of May 23, 1892, declaring an appeal abandoned for failure to file the case with the clerk of the Circuit Court ' within ten days after settlement.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack,

 Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

Order 

August 7, 2020

161241-2(19)

PEGASUS WIND, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 161241

v COA: 351532

Tuscola CC: 19-030703-AA

TOWNSHIP OF JUNIATA, JUNIATA TOWNSHIP 

BOARD OF TRUSTEES, and JUNIATA 

TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION,

Defendants-Appellants.

__________________________________________

GREG ACKERMAN, CHERYL ACKERMAN, 

ROGER ADAMS, DIAN ADAMS, TIMOTHY

BARBER, KRISTI BARBER, BRADLEY BARNES,

GINGER BARNES, CAISTER FARMS, INC., 

STELLA CLINESMITH, CUMMINGSMONVILLE FARMS, LLC, ZELEM ESTERLINE,

BARBARA ESTERLINE, FARM MANAGEMENT 

GROUP, LLC, STAN FESSLER, III, RITA 

FESSLER, JOSEPH FESSLER, DEBRA FESSLER, 

STEVEN FINDLAY, GARNER LAND CO., LLC, 

RONALD GOEBEL, INGRID GOEBEL, 

GOODCHILD FAMILY FARMS, LLC, JANSON 

LAND COMPANY, LARACHA INVESTMENTS, 

LLC, CORI MILLER, SUE LYNN NEARING, 

VIRGIL NEARING, BRANDON PALM, HEIKI 

PALM, PARAMOUNT ENTERPRISES LAND, 

PAUL DOST FARMS, LLC, ROBERT PIKE, 

DAVID PRATT, KAREN PRATT, LARRY 

RUCKLE, RUSSELL FAMILY LAND CO., LLC, 

STARKEY FARMS, INC., ELAINE STOICK, 

GORDON TEDFORD, DONNA TEDFORD, KELLY 

WRIGHT, FRED HESS, ALBERTA HESS, JAN 

HESS, BARB HESS, TOM HESS, and HARLEY 

MIKKELSON, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees,
I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 

August 7, 2020

2

Clerk

SC: 161242

v COA: 351644

Tuscola CC: 19-030723-AA

TOWNSHIP OF JUNIATA, JUNIATA TOWNSHIP 

BOARD OF TRUSTEES, and JUNIATA 

TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION,

Defendants-Appellants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to extend the time for filing a reply to the 

answer of plaintiff-appellee Pegasus Wind, LLC, is GRANTED. The reply submitted on 

August 4, 2020, is accepted as timely filed.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3924 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3924

    To prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from further 
                        regulating the Internet.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 26, 2009

Mrs. Blackburn introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from further 
                        regulating the Internet.

    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 ``Real Stimulus Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY OF THE FCC.

    (a) In General.--The Federal Communications Commission shall not 
propose, promulgate, or issue any regulations regarding the Internet or 
IP-enabled services.
    (b) Exception.--The limitation set forth in this section shall not 
apply to any regulations that the Commission determines necessary--
            (1) to prevent damage to the national security of the 
        United States;
            (2) to ensure the public safety; or
            (3) to assist or facilitate any actions taken by a Federal 
        or State law enforcement agency.
    (c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
construed to supersede, repeal, or negate any regulations regarding the 
Internet or IP-enabled services that were in effect on the day before 
the date of enactment of this Act, including any regulations 
established pursuant to the Communications Assistance for Law 
Enforcement Act (47 U.S.C. 1001 note).
    (d) General Principles.--Congress finds that--
            (1) the Internet and all IP-enabled services are services 
        affecting interstate commerce; and
            (2) such services are not be subject to the jurisdiction of 
        any State or municipal locality.
                                 <all>
```
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF AIR RESOURCES

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATION NO. 17

ODORS

Effective 22 February 1977

Last Amended 19 July 2007

AUTHORITY: These regulations are authorized pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-17.1-2(s) and 23-23,

as amended, and have been promulgated pursuant to the procedures set forth in the R.I. Administrative 

Procedures Act, R.I. Gen. Laws Chapter 42-35.
Page 1 of 2

RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF AIR RESOURCES

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATION NO. 17

ODORS

17.1 Definitions

Unless otherwise expressly defined in this section, the terms used in this regulation shall be 

defined by reference to the Rhode Island Air Pollution Control General Definitions 

Regulation.

17.2 Prohibitions

No person shall emit or cause to be emitted into the atmosphere any air contaminant or 

combination of air contaminants which creates an objectionable odor beyond the property

line of said person.

17.3 Odor Evaluations

A staff member of the Department shall determine by personal observation if an odor is 

objectionable, taking into account its nature, concentration, location, duration and source.

17.4 General Provisions

17.4.1 Purpose

The purpose of this regulation is to prohibit the release of an air contaminant which may

create an objectionable odor beyond the source’s property line.

17.4.2 Authority

These regulations are authorized pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-17.1-2(s) and 23-23, as 

amended, and have been promulgated pursuant to the procedures set forth in the R.I. 

Administrative Procedures Act, R.I. Gen. Laws Chapter 42-35
Page 2 of 2

17.4.3 Application

The terms and provisions of this regulation shall be liberally construed to permit the 

Department to effectuate the purposes of state law, goals and policies.

17.4.4 Severability

If any provision of this regulation or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, 

is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the validity of the remainder of the 

regulation shall not be affected thereby.

17.4.5 Effective Date

The foregoing regulation, "Odors”, as amended, after due notice, is hereby adopted and filed 

with the Secretary of State this ____29th_ day of __June_________, 2007_ to become 

effective twenty (20) days thereafter, in accordance with the provisions of Chapters 23-23, 

42-35, 42-17.1, 42-17.6, of the General Laws of Rhode Island of 1956, as amended.

W. Michael Sullivan, PhD., Director

Department of Environmental Management

Notice Given on: February 21, 2007

Public Hearing held: March 23, 2007

Filing Date: June 29, 2007

Effective Date: July 19, 2007
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-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certify, pursuant  to and solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my 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 Company.








Date: November 15, 2010





By: /s/ Jerome R Mahoney


Jerome R Mahoney


President, Chief Executive Officer and


Principal Financial Officer