alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

(as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection with this quarterly report of Nanophase Technologies Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Joseph E. Cross, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Jess A.
Jankowski, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to our 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 result of operations of
the Company.

Date: May 9, 2008



/s/ Joseph E. CrossJoseph E. CrossChief Executive Officer/s/ Jess A. JankowskiJess A. JankowskiChief Financial Officer
Exhibit






                                     Exhibit 10.29.13


AMENDMENT NUMBER TWELVE TO THE
METLIFE LEADERSHIP DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
(As amended and restated effective with respect to salary and Cash Incentive Compensation January 1, 2005 and with respect to Stock Compensation, April 15, 2005)


The MetLife Leadership Deferred Compensation Plan ("the Plan'') is hereby amended, effective as of the dates set forth below, as follows:


		
	1.
	The following shall be added as Section 7.3




Effective September 1, 2017, a Participant will have the option to have the existing Investment Tracking Funds in their Deferred Compensation Account and Matching Contribution automatically rebalanced. Any reallocation of Investment Tracking Funds that occurs pursuant to an automatic rebalance will not be considered a Reallocation Election for purposes of Section 7.1(b), and will not count toward the limit set forth in Section 7.2 of six Reallocation Elections per calendar year.


		
	2.
	Effective January 1, 2017, Section 4.l shall be revised as follows:




At such times as are determined by the Plan Administrator, each Eligible Associate may complete and submit to the Plan Administrator a Deferral Election applicable to the Eligible Associate's Compensation payable for services performed in such periods on and after January 1, 2005 and following the date of the Deferral Election (or other such periods consistent with Legal Deferral Requirements) determined by the Plan Administrator. Within thirty (30) days after attaining the status of Eligible Associate in his or her first calendar year as an Officer or 090 Employee, such Eligible Associate may complete and submit to the Plan Administrator a Deferral Election applicable to the Eligible Associate's Compensation payable for services in the current calendar year or other periods following the date of the Deferral Election (or other such periods consistent with Legal Deferral Requirements) determined by the Plan Administrator. An Eligible Associate may revoke a Deferral Election prior to the end of period established by Plan Administrator for making such Deferral Election, but only to the extent such revocation is consistent with Legal Deferral Requirements. The Plan Administrator shall prescribe the form(s) of Deferral Election.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment Number Twelve to the MetLife Leadership Deferred Compensation Plan is hereby adopted and approved.




By:  /s/ Andrew J. Bernstein                
PLAN ADMINISTRATOR


Date:  12/19/2017    











Witness /s/ Bonita Haskins
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 Marx Toys and Entertainment Corp. and
Subsidiaries (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Robert LoMonaco, Chief Executive 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 Report fully complies with he 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:  December 19, 2003

/s/ ROBERT LOMONACO
------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 99.2


C.M. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY


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 for the quarter ended June 30, 2002 (the Report) of C.M. Life Insurance Company (the Company), I, Brent C. Nelson, Senior Vice President and Controller 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 Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.





C.M. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY(Registrant)Date: August 13, 2002



By:

/s/    BRENT C.
NELSON Brent C. Nelson Senior Vice President and Controller




25
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-30792

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FREDDIE FRANCIS, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 99-CR-20028-9

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

April 12, 2001

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Freddie

Francis, Jr., has filed a motion for leave to withdraw and has

filed a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967). Because Francis’ motion for leave to file an untimely

notice of appeal was filed beyond the 40-day period prescribed in

Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4), the district court was without authority

to grant an extension of time to file a notice of appeal based on

excusable neglect or good cause. See United States v. Awalt, 

728 F.2d 704, 705 (5th Cir. 1984). Therefore, we lack
No. 00-30792 

-2-

jurisdiction to consider Francis’ appeal. See id. Accordingly,

the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused

from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED

for lack of jurisdiction. The order consolidating this appeal

with United States v. Vezia, No. 00-30328 and United States v.

Milburne, No. 00-30372 is RESCINDED.
II 

Calendar No. 353 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1508 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 21, 2021 

Received 

APRIL 27, 2022 

Read twice and placed on the calendar 

AN ACT 

To require a guidance clarity statement on certain agency 

guidance, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Guidance Clarity Act 

5 of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. GUIDANCE CLARITY STATEMENT REQUIRED. 

7 (a) REQUIREMENT.—Each agency, as defined in sec8 tion 551 of title 5, United States Code, shall include a 

9 guidance clarity statement as described in subsection (b) 

10 on any guidance issued by that agency under section 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 1508 PCS

1 553(b)(3)(A) of title 5, United States Code, on and after 

2 the date that is 30 days after the date on which the Direc3 tor of the Office of Management and Budget issues the 

4 guidance required under subsection (c). 

5 (b) GUIDANCE CLARITY STATEMENT.—A guidance 

6 clarity statement required under subsection (b) shall— 

7 (1) be displayed prominently on the first page 

8 of the document; and 

9 (2) include the following: ‘‘The contents of this 

10 document do not have the force and effect of law 

11 and do not, of themselves, bind the public or the 

12 agency. This document is intended only to provide 

13 clarity to the public regarding existing requirements 

14 under the law or agency policies.’’. 

15 (c) OMB GUIDANCE.—Not later than 90 days after 

16 the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of the Of17 fice of Management and Budget shall issue guidance to 

18 implement this Act. 

19 SEC. 3. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS. 

20 The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 

21 complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, 

22 shall be determined by reference to the latest statement 

23 titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation’’ for this 

24 Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional Record 

25 by the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, proVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:05 Apr 28, 2022 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1508.PCS H1508

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 1508 PCS

1 vided that such statement has been submitted prior to the 

2 vote on passage. 

Passed the House of Representatives October 20, 

2021. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 353 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1508 

AN ACT 

To require a guidance clarity statement on certain 

agency guidance, and for other purposes. 

APRIL 27, 2022 

Read twice and placed on the calendar 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
1

The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3564

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

David McElroy, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 11, 2005

Filed: April 18, 2005 

___________

Before MURPHY, BRIGHT, and MELLOY.

___________

PER CURIAM.

David McElroy pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e)(1). At sentencing McElroy objected

to the finding of the district court1

 that his prior convictions for incest and sodomy

were violent felonies within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), but he did not contest

the fact that he had been convicted of these crimes. He was sentenced to the

mandatory minimum of 180 months provided in § 924(e) because he had three

previous convictions for a violent felony or serious drug offense, and he does not
-2-

contest that his prior convictions for first degree attempted burglary and production

of a controlled substance qualified.

McElroy argues that the district court erred by finding that his prior state court

convictions for sodomy and incest were violent felonies instead of submitting the

question to a jury to be decided beyond a reasonable doubt, citing Blakely v.

Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). He contends that Blakely and Apprendi v. New

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), have undermined the validity of Almendarez-Torres v.

United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). The government responds that McElroy does not

contest the fact and validity of his state court convictions and that whether an offense

is a violent felony is a question of law and does not require a jury trial.

In Almendarez-Torres, the Supreme Court held that a prior felony conviction

is a sentencing factor for the court rather than a fact issue for the jury. That principle

has been reaffirmed most recently in United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 756

(2005). See also Blakely, 124 S. Ct. at 2536; Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490. The

Supreme Court has not reconsidered its decision in Almendarez-Torres, see Shepard

v. United States, 125 S. Ct. 1254, 1264 (2005) (Thomas, J., concurring), and it

remains binding on this court. We conclude that the district court did not err by

applying the mandatory minimum sentence based on McElroy's prior state

convictions for incest and sodomy.

We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________
**Exhibit 99**

 

 

** **

Consent of Independent Registered Public AccountingFirm

 

Oncologix Tech, Inc.

Grand Rapids, Michigan

We hereby consent to the incorporationby reference in the Form S-8 Registration Statement as filed on May 29, 2001, relating to the consolidated financial statementsand schedules of Oncologix Tech, Inc. appearing in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended August 31,2011.

We also consent to the reference tous under the caption “Experts” in the aforementioned Registration Statement.

 

 

/s/ SEALE AND BEERS, CPAs

Las Vegas, Nevada

November 30, 2011
#### Steven ROLLAKANTI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HOLY CROSS HOSPITAL, Defendant-Appellee, and William Federick; Andrene Towsen; Johny Niles, Defendants.

No. 17-1953

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 19, 2017

Decided: October 23, 2017

Steven Rollakanti, Appellant Pro Se. Robert R. Niccolini, OGLETREE DEA-KINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Steven Rollakanti appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for an extension of time in which to file an amended complaint after the court had dismissed the complaint in part without prejudice. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. *See*4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Rolla-kanti’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Rollakanti has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. *See Williams v. Giant Food Inc.,*370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the. appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
Michael SCHMOKER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Monica SCHMOKER, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0604

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 01, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
#### Dmitry PRONIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles WRIGHT, “Chuck”; Neal Urch; Ashley McCann; L. Blackwell, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-6613

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 19, 2017

Decided: October 24, 2017

Dmitry Pronin, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Franklin Turner, Jr,, WILLSON JONES CARTER & BAXLEY, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Dmitry Pronin seeks to appeal from the district court’s order denying class certification and denying appointment of class counsel in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) suit. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Pronin seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor *244an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. To the extent Pro-nin’s notice of appeal can be construed as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) petition for permission to appeal, permission is denied. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
Charles J. RHATIGAN and Cindy Rhatigan, Appellants, v. TD BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-845

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Fernando Jose NUNEZ, Appellant, v. Lisa Dana HARRIS a/k/a Lisa Dana Tong, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2842

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 17, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
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 Amendment No. 1
to the Annual Report of Blockchain Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended April 30, 2017
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Robert Kalkstein, Principal
Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: May 21, 2018 | By: | /s/ Robert Kalkstein                           
|------------------ | --- | -----------------------------------------------
|                   |     | Robert Kalkstein, (Principal Financial Officer)



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed
form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.
**Exhibit 99.10**

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

**Consent****of********Independent********Registered********Public********Accounting********Firm**

 

We consent to the use of our reports dated February19, 2015 relating to the consolidated financial statements of New Gold Inc. and subsidiaries (“New Gold Inc.”) andthe effectiveness of New Gold Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting appearing in this Amendment No. 1 to the AnnualReport on Form 40-F of New Gold Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2014.
<!--/* //NOSONAR */--><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<!--/* //NOSONAR */--><html  lang="en-US">
<head id="Head"><meta id="MetaDescription" name="DESCRIPTION" /><meta id="MetaKeywords" name="KEYWORDS" /><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width,initial-scale=1" /><title>
	SECNAV Del Toro Statement on the Passing of U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, of California 
</title><link id="css3605" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/module.css" /><link id="css4818" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/desktopmodules/ArticleCS/styles/Navy2/style.css" /></head>
<body>
    <main>
    <div>
    <div class="adetail print" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/NewsArticle">
    <img alt="U.S. Navy Logo" class="print-logo" src="/Portals/_default/Skins/NavyTheme2/Resources/img/OfficialNavyLogoInverted.svg">
    <div class="container">
        <div class="body-section">
            <h1>SECNAV Del Toro Statement on the Passing of U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, of California </h1>
             <h4>01 Oct 2023</h4>
            <div class="body-text">
                
                <p>I am saddened by the loss of U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, of California. She was a co-sponsor of USNS Harvey Milk and has been a fervent supporter of the Navy and other services. She was the honorary chair and founder of San Francisco Fleet Week when she was mayor in 1981. San Francisco Fleet Week kicks off this week, and we will honor her and her legacy of service.</p>

            </div>
            
        </div>
    </div>
</div>
<script>
    window.print();
</script>

    </div>
    </main>
</body>
</html>
<PAGE>   1



                               Exhibit 15








Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC  20549


Dear Sirs:


We are aware that Acme Metals Incorporated has included our report dated
October 18, 1996 (issued pursuant to the provisions of Statement on Auditing
Standards No. 71) in the Prospectuses constituting part of its Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-17235, 33-19437 and 33-30841) and in its
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-38747 and 33-59627).  We are also
aware of our responsibilities under the Securities Act of 1933.


Very truly yours,



/s/ Price Waterhouse LLP


PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP
November 11, 1996 
Chicago, Illinois
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1404 

To redesignate the Federal building located at 935 Pennsylvania Avenue 

Northwest in the District of Columbia as the ‘‘Federal Bureau of Investigation Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 26, 2021 

Mr. COHEN (for himself, Mr. CARSON, Ms. LEE of California, Mr. RUSH, Mr. 

DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. PAYNE, Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, Mr. 

JOHNSON of Georgia, Ms. BASS, Mr. HASTINGS, Ms. PRESSLEY, Mr. 

THOMPSON of Mississippi, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Mr. BEYER, Mr. 

EVANS, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Ms. NORTON, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. 

VEASEY, Mr. JONES, Ms. TLAIB, Ms. CLARKE of New York, and Mrs. 

WATSON COLEMAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To redesignate the Federal building located at 935 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest in the District of Columbia as 

the ‘‘Federal Bureau of Investigation Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION. 

4 The Federal building located at 935 Pennsylvania 

5 Avenue Northwest in the District of Columbia, commonly 

6 known as the J. Edgar Hoover Federal Building, shall be 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1404 IH

1 known and designated as the ‘‘Federal Bureau of Inves2 tigation Building’’. 

3 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

4 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

5 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal 

6 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be 

7 a reference to the ‘‘Federal Bureau of Investigation Build8 ing’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS