alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Nexity Financial Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that the Companys annual report on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2006 (the Report) 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 Report fairly represents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated March 12, 2008



By:

/s/ John J. MoranJohn J. Moran Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
# Úřední věstník C 182A/14.

| | ISSN 1977-0863 |
| --- | --- |
| Úřední věstník
  Evropské unie | C 182A |
| | |
| České vydání | Informace a oznámení | Svazek 5714. června 2014 |

ISSN 1977-0863

Úřední věstník

Evropské unie

C 182A

České vydání

Informace a oznámení

Svazek 5714. června 2014

---

| Oznámeníč. | Obsah | Strana |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Oznámení |
| | SPRÁVNÍ ŘÍZENÍ |
| | Evropský úřad pro výběr personálu (EPSO) |
| 2014/C 182A/01 | Oznámení o zrušení | 1 |

Oznámeníč.

Obsah

Strana

V   Oznámení

SPRÁVNÍ ŘÍZENÍ

Evropský úřad pro výběr personálu (EPSO)

2014/C 182A/01

Oznámení o zrušení

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 182A/02 | Přehled výběrových řízení zveřejněných v řadě C A úředního věstníku | 2 |

2014/C 182A/02

Přehled výběrových řízení zveřejněných v řadě C A úředního věstníku

2

| CS | |
| --- | --- |

CS

---

V Oznámení

SPRÁVNÍ ŘÍZENÍ

Evropský úřad pro výběr personálu (EPSO)

| 14.6.2014 | CS | Úřední věstník Evropské unie | CA 182/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2014

CS

Úřední věstník Evropské unie

CA 182/1

---

OZNÁMENÍ O ZRUŠENÍ

2014/C 182 A/01

Otevřená výběrová řízení:

| — | EPSO/AST/127/13 – korektoři (AST 3) řeckého jazyka (EL)

  a |
| --- | --- |

—

EPSO/AST/127/13 – korektoři (AST 3) řeckého jazyka (EL)

a

| — | EPSO/AST/128/13 – korektoři (AST 3) portugalského jazyka (PT), |
| --- | --- |

—

EPSO/AST/128/13 – korektoři (AST 3) portugalského jazyka (PT),

ohledně nichž byla oznámení zveřejněna v Úředním věstníku Evropské unie
   (1), byla zrušena.

---

(1)  Úř. věst. C 131 A,8.5.2013, s. 1.

---

14.6.2014

| 14.6.2014 | CS | Úřední věstník Evropské unie | CA 182/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

CS

Úřední věstník Evropské unie

CA 182/2

---

PŘEHLED VÝBĚROVÝCH ŘÍZENÍ ZVEŘEJNĚNÝCH V ŘADĚ C A ÚŘEDNÍHO VĚSTNÍKU

2014/C 182 A/02

Níže najdete seznam Úředních věstníků řady C A publikovaných v tomto roce.

Pokud není uvedeno jinak, jsou Úřední věstníky publikovány ve všech jazykových verzích.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |
| 21 | |
| 26 | |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (PL) |
| 35 | |
| 41 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 42 | |
| 43 | |
| 46 | |
| 47 | |
| 48 | |
| 55 | |
| 56 | |
| 60 | |
| 62 | |
| 65 | |
| 73 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 74 | |
| 81 | |
| 88 | |
| 92 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 97 | |
| 98 | |
| 99 | |
| 108 | |
| 109 | |
| 116 | |
| 119 | |
| 133 | |
| 134 | |
| 136 | |
| 137 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 140 | |
| 145 | |
| 152 | |
| 160 | |
| 163 | |
| 164 | |
| 176 | |
| 178 | |
| 180 | |
| 182 | |

5

6

11

19

21

26

27

30

(PL)

35

41

(DE/EN/FR)

42

43

46

47

48

55

56

60

62

65

73

(DE/EN/FR)

74

81

88

92

(DE/EN/FR)

97

98

99

108

109

116

119

133

134

136

137

(DE/EN/FR)

140

145

152

160

163

164

176

178

180

182

---
Biotech Algae Workshop Agenda


### Time Event Duration
7:00

- 8:00 am Registration 1 hr
8:00

- 8:15 am Welcome/ Keynote Speaker (Jeff Morris )

– 15 min 15 min

8:15

- 8: 35 am Presentation #1: Overview of the TSCA Biotech Program (Mark Segal or Gwen McClung ) 2 0 min

8: 35

- 8 : 45 am Comments/Discussion on Presentation #1 10 min

8 : 45

- 9: 00 am Presentation #2: Issues surrounding algae mass production and charge questions 1

- 3 (EPA staff) 15 min

9: 0 0

- 10: 0 0 am Solicitation of E xpert opinions and Speakers comment period/Discussion on Presentation #2 1 hour

10: 0 0

- 10: 15 am BREAK 15 min

10: 15

- 10: 30 am Presentation #3: Issues surrounding advanced genetic engineering and charge questions 4

- 6 (EPA staff) 15 min

10: 30

- 11: 20 am Solicitation of Expert opinions and Speakers comment period/Discussion on Presentation #3 5 0 min

11: 20

- 11:50 am Opportunity to comment on relevant topics not included in previous charge questions. Charge question 7 30 min

11:50

- 12:00 pm Closing Remarks 10 min 12:00 pm Adjournment
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 Yak Communications Inc. (the
Company) Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Charles Zwebner, 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, 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, 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.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |     |  |                        
|------------------ |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 31, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ Charles Zwebner    
|                   |  |     |  | Charles Zwebner        
|                   |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Julien K. DILKS, a/k/a Julien K. Modica, a/k/a Julian Modica, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7095

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 17, 2016

Decided: November 22, 2016

Julien K. Módica, Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Julien K. Dilks appeals the district court’s order construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as a petition for a writ of error coram nobis and dismissing the petition based upon a previously issued prefiling injunction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Dilks, Nos. 7:93-cr-00091-GEC-RSB-1; 7:16-cv-81163-GEC-RSB (W.D. Va. Aug. 1, 2016), We also deny Dilks’ motions to make a district court transcript available to this court, to unseal a psychiatric report, to amend/correct his informal brief, and to accelerate case processing. 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
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**Certification of Principal Executive Officer**

 

I, Seth Grae, certify that:

 

| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Lightbridge Corporation;                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
| 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. |

       

| Date: April 28, 2020 | By:    | */s/ Seth Grae*             |  |
|----------------------|--------|-----------------------------|--|
|                      |   | Seth Grae                   |  |
|                      |   | Principal Executive Officer |  |
#### SEALED APPELLEE, Plaintiff-Appellee v. SEALED APPELLANT, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-50408 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 10, 2017

Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The appellant challenges the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion, urging *73that the district court erred in determining that he was ineligible for a sentencing reduction. He asserts that his sentence was tied to a guidelines range as his plea agreement stipulated only a maximum term, arrived at after the applicable guidelines range was calculated. He further contends that the district court erred by failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors before denying his motion.

As the district court determined, appellant was not .eligible for a reduction because his sentence was not “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission,” § 3582(c)(2). Rather, the district court sentenced appellant to 120 months of imprisonment based on his binding agreement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C). *See Freeman v. United States,*564 U.S. 522, 534-40, 131 S.Ct. 2685, 180 L.Ed.2d 519 (2011) (Sotomayor, J., concurring); *United States v. Benitez,*822 F.3d 807, 809-12 (5th Cir. 2016).1 Therefore, we affirm the district court’s denial of a sentence reduction. *See Freeman,*564 U.S. at 534-40, 131 S.Ct. 2685 (Sotomayor, J., concurring); *Benitez,*822 F.3d at 809-12; *see also*28 U.S.C. § 2111; *United States v. Gonzalez-Balderas,*105 F.3d 981, 984 (5th Cir. 1997).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under *73the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

1

. Recognizing that his claim is foreclosed by *Benitez,*appellant nevertheless raises to preserve for possible further review the argument that a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction is available to a defendant who pleaded guilty pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement in any case where the guidelines range was a relevant part of the analytic framework used by the district court to determine the sentence.
LAND ROVER EMISSION DEFECT INFORMATION REPORT NO. L10042D0A 

Causal part name: DIAGNOSTIC MODULE – TANK LEAKAGE (DMTL) 

Causal part number: WTR500020 

Issued: 20 July 2010 

Page 1 of 2 

Code of Federal Regulations. Title 40. Part 85. Subpart T. 

§85.1903 - Emissions Defect Information Report 

(c)(1) The manufacturers corporate name. 

Land Rover. 

(c)(2) A description of the defect. 

DMTL replacements are made when dealer technicians investigate M.I.L. illumination and find evaporative leak codes 

stored. 

(c)(3) A description of each class or category of vehicles potentially affected by the defect including make, 

model, model year, and such other information as may be required to identify these vehicles. 

See table in section (c)(4)(i) below. 

(c)(4) For each class or category of vehicle or engine described in response to paragraph (c)(3) of this section, 

the following shall also be provided: 

(c)(4)(i) The number of vehicles or engines known or estimated to have the defect and an explanation of the 

means by which this number was determined. 

MODEL 

YEAR TEST GROUP MODEL SALES CLAIMS / DEFECTS 

2007 7LRXT04.2001 Range Rover Sport 2627 119 

2007 7LRXT04.4001 Range Rover Sport; LR3 13736 573 

2008 8LRXT03.2001 LR2 14669 129 

2008 8LRXT04.2001 Range Rover Sport 5833 141 

2008 8LRXT04.4001 Range Rover Sport; LR3 21136 529 

The above data was taken from Land Rover's warranty tracking report dated 2010Q1. 

(c)(4)(ii) The address of the plant at which the potentially defective vehicles or engines were produced. 

Land Rover Solihull Plant, Birmingham, England. 

Land Rover Halewood Plant, Liverpool, England. 
LAND ROVER EMISSION DEFECT INFORMATION REPORT NO. L10042D0A 

Causal part name: DIAGNOSTIC MODULE – TANK LEAKAGE (DMTL) 

Causal part number: WTR500020 

Issued: 20 July 2010 

Page 2 of 2 

(c)(5) An evaluation of the emissions impact of the defect and a description of any driveability problems which a 

defective vehicle might exhibit. 

A defective DMTL prevents successful completion of the leak check cycle; it cannot cause an evaporative leak. 

There is no adverse impact on driveability associated with this issue. 

This issue illuminates the M.I.L. 

(c)(6) Available emissions data which relate to the defect. 

There is no adverse impact on emissions caused by the DMTL. 

(c)(7) An indication of any anticipated manufacturer follow-up. 

This issue is regarded as self campaigning; M.I.L. illumination prompts drivers to return the vehicle to a Land 

Rover dealer for rectification.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The  following  Financial  Data  Schedule  contains  standard data for the three
months  ended  April  5,  1998
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JAN-05-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-06-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            APR-05-1998
<CASH>                                         932 
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                               124718 
<ALLOWANCES>                                   649 
<INVENTORY>                                  50897 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            177578 
<PP&E>                                       20255 
<DEPRECIATION>                                7611 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              217117 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       119325 
<BONDS>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       114 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                   93481 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                217117 
<SALES>                                     135198 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            135198 
<CGS>                                       117435 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               117435 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             423 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               6789 
<INCOME-TAX>                                  2512 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           4277 
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                  4277 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .38 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .37 
        

</TABLE>
Jorge FERNANDEZ and Lissette Fernandez, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. GEOVERA SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1681

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

OCTOBER 31, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Willie James JONES, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1693

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 27, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
#### Edward EAVES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF CHARLOTTE, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-2455

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 28, 2017

Decided: July 18, 2017

Edward Eaves, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel E. Peterson, CHARLOTTE CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Edward Eaves seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his employment discrimination complaint for failure to state a claim. The City of Charlotte has moved to dismiss Eaves’ appeal as untimely filed. Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on September 19, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed on December 27, 2016. Because Eaves failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we grant the City’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade*199quately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the. decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
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.                  

###### Tennessee Valley Authority

# TIME AND DATE: 

9:30 a.m. CT on February 10, 2022.

# PLACE: 

Knicely Conference Center, 2355 Nashville Road, Bowling Green, Kentucky.

# STATUS: 

Open.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

## Meeting No. 22-01

The TVA Board of Directors will hold a public meeting on February 10, 2022, at the Knicely Conference Center, 2355 Nashville Road, Bowling Green, Kentucky, on the campus of Western Kentucky University. The meeting will be called to order at 9:30 a.m. CT to consider the agenda items listed below. TVA management will answer questions from the news media following the Board meeting.

On February 9, at the Knicely Conference Center, the public may comment on any agenda item or subject at a board-hosted public listening session which begins at 2 p.m. CT and will last until 4 p.m. Preregistration is required to address the Board.

## Agenda

1. Approval of minutes of the November 10, 2021 Board Meeting

2. Report of the Audit, Finance, Risk, and Cybersecurity Committee

3. Report of the People and Governance Committee

A. Real Property Board Practice

B. Updating Capital Projects Approvals Board Practice

4. Report of the External Stakeholders and Regulation Committee

A. Federal Advisory Committees Charter Renewals

B. Authorization for Economic Development Contracts and Programs

5. Report of the Operations and Nuclear Oversight Committee

6. Information Items

A. Advanced Reactor Program

B. Board Less-Than-Quorum

C. Severe Weather Response

D. New Johnsonville Aeroderivative Project Amendment

7. Report from President and CEO

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

                        For more information: Please call Jim                               ( print page 7234)                            Hopson, TVA Media Relations at (865) 632-6000, Knoxville, Tennessee. Anyone who wishes to comment on any of the agenda in writing may send their comments to: TVA Board of Directors, Board Agenda Comments, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.                    

 Dated: February 3, 2022.

Edward C. Meade,

Agency Liaison.

[FR Doc. 2022-02712 Filed 2-4-22; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 8120-08-P
Annastashia MORAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D16-5364

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 13, 2018

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Glenna Joyce Reeves, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General; Thomas H. Duffy and Steven E. Woods, Assistant Attorneys General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Wetherell, Rowe, and Ray, JJ., concur.
#### Machuei T. ANGOON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HOMELAND SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1281

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Decided: July 31, 2017

*134Machuei T. Angoon, Appellant Pro Se.

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge..

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Machuei T. Angoon appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint for failure to comply with the court’s prior order and denying his motion for appointment of counsel as moot. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. *See*4th Cir. R. 34(b), Because Angoon’s informal brief does not challenge the district court’s conclusion that he failed to comply with.the court’s prior order directing him to file an amended complaint particularizing his claims, Angoon has forfeited appellate review of the court’s' dispositive procedural ruling. *See Williams v. Giant Food Inc.,*370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Although Angoon has challenged the court’s denial of his motion for appointment of counsel, we conclude that the court properly denied the motion as moot when it dismissed An-goon’s. complaint.

Accordingly, we deny Angoon’s pending motion for appointment of counsel and affirm the district court’s judgment. 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.

*AFFIRMED*