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 AlumiFuel Power Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"). I, Henry Fong, President, Chief Executive Officer 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, as of, and for the periods presented in the Report.








/s/ Henry FongHenry FongPrincipal Executive Officer and

Principal Accounting OfficerNovember 10, 2010








A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO ALUMIFUEL POWER CORPORATION AND WILL BE RETAINED BY ALUMIFUEL POWER CORPORATION AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [B-66-2021]

      ( print page 2413)    
On September 10, 2021, Mitsubishi Logisnext Americas (Houston) Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within FTZ 84, in Houston, Texas.

                    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     inviting public comment (86 FR 53945, September 29, 2021). On January 10, 2022, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including Section 400.14.                

Dated: January 10, 2022.

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2022-00632 Filed 1-13-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         182,100
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,619
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     46,650
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               238,369
<PP&E>                                       6,188,068
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,292,922
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          623,696
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        22,800
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,646,426
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,292,922
<SALES>                                        448,651
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               448,651
<CGS>                                          475,004
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,680,005
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             452,176
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,192,731)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,192,731)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,192,731)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7508

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TIMOTHY JAY BLACKWELL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-90-319)

Submitted: May 18, 1999 Decided: June 7, 1999

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven A. Bernholz, BERNHOLZ LAW FIRM, Chapel Hill, North Carolina,

for Appellant. J. Rene Josey, United States Attorney, Beth Drake,

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Jay Blackwell appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to correct an alleged clerical mistake in his judgment. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Blackwell, No.

CR-90-319 (D.S.C. Oct. 2, 1998). 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.

AFFIRMED
**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 on Form 10-Q of Acorn Energy, Inc. (the
      “Company”) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John A.
      Moore, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 **/** John
      A. Moore


John
      A.
      Moore


Chief
      Executive Officer


August
      14, 2008
MEMORANDUM

DATE: August 4, 2011

SUBJECT: Conversation with Valspar Regarding Formaldehyde Replacement

Chemicals in Wood Furniture Coatings

FROM: Nicholas Swanson, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/NRG

TO: Docket No.: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2010

- 0786

A telephone conversation wit h Ms. Sherry Stookey of Valspar transpired on August 4, 2011 to discuss replacement chemicals used in place of formaldehyde in coatings for the wood furniture industry , specifically kitchen cabinets . Ms. Stookey stated that the formaldehyde found
in conve rsion varnishes is part of the resin and to replace the formaldehyde, an entire replacement for the resin would be needed. This replacement resin used by Valspar and other unnamed coating manufacturers is a product purchased from an independent supplier . D ue to confidential business information, the supplier and the composition of the resin was not divulged. Ms. Stookey assured me that the replacement resin did not contain an y h azardous a ir

p ollutants (HAPs) and that the replacement resin was significantly more health protective than formaldehyde.

The replacement resin is not a drop

- in replacement for resins containing formaldehyde.
This means that to use this new resin, a complete reformulation of the coating is necessary for
the chemicals to create the de sired varnish. Ms. Stookey also reiterated that this resin has a significant cost increase of at least 50 percent for c u st o mers compared to the traditionally higher formaldehyde con taining resins. The cost of the resin itself is 4 to 5 times more expensive than traditional formaldehyde containing resin. These new resins are a developing technology that should continue to drive formaldehyde concentrations in wood furniture coatings down. However, these coatings are still continuing to be developed. Because e ach wood furniture manufacturer has their own unique coatings, manufacturing processes, product performance requirements and target markets, implementation of thes e resins across the industry may not be feasible. After reformulation with the new resin, sig nificant testing and verification is required prior to being used in the production of wood furniture. This may affect the industry’s ability to implement some of these coatings in the very near future.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1688 

JEMMY FERSN SEKEON; STEVEN HENNRY SEKEON,

Petitioners,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A97-192-592; A97-624-168)

Submitted: December 16, 2005 Decided: January 19, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alex Chanthunya, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioners. Peter

D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright,

Assistant Director, Carol Federighi, Senior Litigation Counsel,

Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*The Sekeons do not challenge the Board’s denial of the asylum

claim as untimely or the denial of protection under the Convention

Against Torture. 

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jemmy Fersn Sekeon and Steven Hennry Sekeon, brothers,

are natives and citizens of Indonesia. The Sekeons petition for

review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)

affirming the immigration judge’s order denying their request for

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention

Against Torture.*

 They claim that the Board erred in affirming the

immigration judge’s denial of their applications for withholding of

removal. “To qualify for withholding of removal, a petitioner must

show that he faces a clear probability of persecution because of

his race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social

group, or political opinion.” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 324 n.13

(4th Cir. 2002) (citing INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 430 (1984)).

Based on our review of the record, we find that substantial

evidence supports the Board’s decision that the Sekeons have failed

to meet this standard. Accordingly, we deny the petition for

review. 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. 

PETITION DENIED
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. DEA-392]
 ACTION: Notice of application.
 DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a) on or before May 22, 2015. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 on or before May 22, 2015.
 ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA 
                        **Federal Register**
                         Representative/ODXL, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. Request for hearings should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion Control (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R. In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on November 19, 2014, Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc., 4955 Orange Drive, Davie, Florida 33314 applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
                    ( print page 22555) Controlled substance
ScheduleAmphetamine (1100)
IIMethylphenidate (1724)
IIOxycodone (9143)
IIHydromorphone (9150)
IIHydrocodone (9193)
IIFentanyl (9801)
II
 The company plans to import the listed controlled substances for clinical trials, research and analytical purposes. Dated: April 14, 2015. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2015-09339 Filed 4-21-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6173

ANDRE EDMONDS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DONALD R. CUMMINGS; JAMES KEELING; PAGE TRUE; RUFUS FLEMINGS, Warden, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-625-3) Submitted: March 14, 2002 Decided: March 26, 2002 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andre Edmonds, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Andre Edmonds, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Edmonds v. Cummings , No. CA-01-625-3 (E.D. Va. Jan. 4, 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
Table of Contents


Exhibit
23.01




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC
ACCOUNTING FIRM






We
consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement on Form
S-3
 (Nos.
333-62724, 333-67424 and 333-105497) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-88543, 333-95713,
333-35738, 333-44768, 333-61218, 333-63900, 333-67730, 333-86324, 333-102771,
333-105498, 333-113856,
 333-123377,
333-132490, 333-141370 and 333-151188) of our reports dated February 13,
2009, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Silicon Image, Inc.
(which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory
paragraph regarding the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
No. 157, Fair Value
Measurements, the adoption of Financial Accounting Standards Board
Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for Uncertainty in Income
Taxes — an interpretation of FASB No. 109 and the adoption of
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (revised 2004), Share-Based Payment), and the
effectiveness of Silicon Image Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting,
appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Silicon Image, Inc. for the year
ended December 31, 2008.


/s/
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP






Sunnyvale,
California


February
13, 2009
Exhibit 31.2

MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE & EQUITY, LLCCERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a)AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002Certification of Chief Financial Officer



I, Lisa Roberts, certify that:



|1. |  | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Municipal Mortgage & Equity, LLC;                                                                                                                                                                                                                      
|-- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   | 
|2. |  | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
|   | 
|3. |  | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 presented in this report;                   
|   | 

Date: March 25, 2014

| |                         |  |  | 
| | ----------------------- |  |  | 
| | /s/Lisa M. Roberts      | 
| | Lisa M. Roberts         | 
| | Chief Financial Officer |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,
vs. Case No. 3:17cr36
DELAMAR THOMAS, JUDGE WALTER H. RICE
Defendant.

DECISION AND ENTRY REVOKING DEFENDANT’S BOND AND
REMANDING HIM TO CUSTODY: RIGHT OF APPEAL EXPLAINED AND
UNDERSTOOD; DECISION AND ENTRY OVERRULING DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO REVOKE DETENTION ORDER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
§3145(b)

On March 16, 2018, at the conclusion of an oral and evidentiary hearing in open Court,
the Defendant’s bond, set on February 24, 2017, and met on February 27, 2017, was revoked and
he was remanded to the custody of the United States Marshals to be held pending his sentencing
set for May 9, 2018. His right of appeal was explained to and understood by him.

On April 6, 2018, the Defendant filed a Motion to Revoke the above mentioned
Detention Order (Doc. #53). Said motion is OVERRULED. Not only did Defendant relate a
story to the Pretrial Services Officer, Patrick Kennedy, explaining how his location monitoring
transmitter was cut, a story refuted by common sense, but also by one’s looking at the strap in
question which clearly showed that same had been cut, rather than snagged on a chair and torn in
that manner. In addition, his mother took the witness stand and told a very similar story that was

likewise false.


The fact that Defendant has now admitted, in a letter transmitted to the Court, that he cut
his ankle monitor does not belie the fact that he lied to the Pretrial Services Officer and that his
mother, with whom he is to live if released, also was far less than truthful on the witness stand.

Accordingly, the Defendant’s Motion to Revoke his Detention Order (Doc. #53) and

release him, pending sentencing, to live with his mother, is OVERRULED.

ae

April 18, 2018 WALTER H. RICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Counsel of record
U.S. Marshal
Patrick Kennedy, USPO
MICHIGAN AIR NATIONAL GUARD 

HEADQUARTERS ALPENA COMBAT READINESS TRAINING CENTER 

5884 A. STREET 

ALPENA, Ml 49707~8125 

MEMORANDUM FOR City of Alpena 

FROM: Alpena CRTC/CC 

SUBJECT: Airline Service 

1. The Alpena CRTC supports the decision by the City of Alpena to pursue airline service 

that would be most advantageous to the Alpena community and surrounding area. 

2. In order to meet mission requirements, the Alpena CRTC requires reliable and efficient 

airline service that meets the demands of assigned pers01mel and deployed units. In order 

to meet required demand, the Alpena CRTC desires service by aircraft with a minimum 

capacity of 30 passengers. 

3. Please contact Col Bryan Teff at (989) 354-6205 if you have further questions. 

~-9--------, BRYAN J. 'IEFF, Col, Mt:t;;? 

Commander 

Serving the Community, State & Nation 

0; ['') lJ I , ' 

-··---~--.. -----·- -- ·----··-------·-------·------·------""'" ____ , ______________________________________________ _
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-2409

In Re: JOHN A. ANDREWS,

Debtor.

_________________________

JOHN A. ANDREWS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

JOHN A. ANDREWS, II,

Plaintiff,

versus

NATIONSBANK, N.A.; RIGGS NATIONAL BANK,

Defendants,

and

RICHARD G. HALL,

Trustee - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (CA-97-1092-A, BK-92-14879-AT)
2

Submitted: July 30, 1998 Decided: August 12, 1998

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wayne Gormly Travell, TUCKER, FLYER & LEWIS, Washington, D.C., for

Appellant. Richard G. Hall, Appellee Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order dismissing as

moot his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order approving settlement of a lawsuit that was pending in the Superior Court of the

District of Columbia. We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Andrews v. Hall, Nos.

CA-97-1092-A; BK-92-14879-AT (E.D. Va. Sept. 30, 1997). 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.

AFFIRMED