alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
the undersigned officer of ArthroCare Corporation (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i) | The accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three and six months ended June 30, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                      |  |                                      
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Dated: August 4, 2006 |  | /s/ Michael A. Baker                 
|                      |  | Michael A. Baker                     
|                      |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (Section 906), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of the written statement required by Section 906, has been provided
to ArthroCare Corporation and will be retained by ArthroCare Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON DC 

United Airlines, 

Complainant, 

v. 

Port Authority of New York and 

New Jersey (PANYNJ) 

Respondent. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER 

FAA Docket No. 16-14-13 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the above 

referenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted 

Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 16. 

As the parties are aware, the Director concluded there appears to be a reasonable basis for 

further investigation and engaged two outside contractors to provide support services for the 

investigation. The investigation is progressing, but additional time is needed. 

Accordingly, an extension of time is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete 

consideration of this case. Pmsuant to 14 CFR Part 16, subpart B, the date by which the 

Director's Determination will be issued in this matter is hereby extended to August 26, 2016. 

Robin K. Hunt 

Director, Office of Airport (Acting) 

Compliance and Management Analysis 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 27, 2016, I caused to be placed in the United States mail 

(first class, postage paid) and to be emailed at the addresses below or personally delivered a 

true copy of the foregoing Order addressed to: 

For Complainant 

Robert S. Span 

Steinbrecher & Span LLP 

1155 F. Street, NW, Suite 1050 

Washington, DC 20004 

rspan0Jsteinbrecherspan.com 

Marc L. Warren 

Crowell & Moring LLP 

1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

mwarren@crowell.com 

For Respondent 

Carlene V. Mcintyre 

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 

225 park A venue South 

NewYork,NewYork, 10003 

c1Uci11tvT(i1!panyTni. gov 

Copy to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

FAA Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-100 

-==----~:=~ 

Miguel Vasconcelos 

Office of Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysis
#### Marvin Estuardo LOPEZ-MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-2457

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 19, 2017

Decided: July 21, 2017

Arnedo S. Valera, LAW OFFICES OF VALERA & ASSOCIATES, Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Kiley Kane, Senior Litigation Counsel, Ann M. Welhaf, Lindsay Donahue, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Marvin Estuardo Lopez-Mendoza, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s denial of Lopez-Mendoza’s requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Lopez-Mendoza’s merits *212hearing and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the agency’s factual findings, *see*8 U.S.G. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the agency’s decision, *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. *See In re Lopez-Mendoza*(B.I.A. Nov. 29, 2016), 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
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 Concierge Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report), I, David W. Neibert, 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; and



(2)

Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                         |     |                        
|------------------------ | --- | -----------------------
|Date:  February 13, 2009 |     |                        
|                         |     |                        
|                         | By: | /s/ DAVID W. NEIBERT   
|                         |     | David W. Neibert,      
|                         |     | Chief Executive Officer
|                         |     |                        





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Concierge Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Concierge Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
STATE OF VERMONT

VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT

In re Appeal of J.D. Associates Docket No: 36-2-00 Vtec

ENTRY ORDER

This is an appeal on the record, governed by V.R.C. P. 76(e)(3), which refers to V.R.C.P. 74(d) for the preparation of the record on appeal. That rule provides that the record
consists of

A all writings and exhibits in the agency proceeding; a transcript of any oral proceedings; and, where required by law, a statement of the questions which the appellant desires to have
determined. @ V.R.C.P. 74(d) adopts portions of the appellate r ules, but not V.R.A.P. 10. V.R.C.P. 74(d) also provides that A [a]ny party desiring a transcript of any portion of the proceedings to be included in the record on appeal shall notify all other parties thereof, [and] shall procure such portion at that party's own expe nse. . . . @ The Municipal Administrative Procedure Act, 24 V.S.A. ' 1201 et seq. , provides in ' 1209(f) that A [t]ranscriptions of the proceedings of contested hearings shall be made upo n the request and upon payment of the reasonable costs of transcription by any party. @ Reading V.R.C.P. 74(d) as a whole, together with 24 V.S.A. ' 1209(f), we conclude that it does not require the entire proceedings to be tr anscribed. Rather, the appeal may be on the record if the DRB has produced an A adequate record @ of the proceedings, which we have interpreted as any method that produces a record, s uch as an audio or video tape, capable of being transcribed. Only the party wishing a specif ic portion of the proceedings to be included in the record is responsible for the costs of havin g that portion transcribed. If more than one party wishes any specific portion to be included in the record, the Court will allocate the costs if the parties cannot agree. Accordingly, the Town = s motion is denied.

____________________________________ ______________ _ Merideth Wright Date Environmental Judge

Date _________copies sent to: Clerk = s Initials:______
# Euroopan unionin C 34/2014

| | ISSN 1977-1053
  doi:10.3000/19771053.C_2014.034.fin |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopan unionin
  virallinen lehti | C 34 |
| | |
| Suomenkielinen laitos | Tiedonantoja ja ilmoituksia | 57. vuosikerta5. helmikuu 2014 |

ISSN 1977-1053

doi:10.3000/19771053.C_2014.034.fin

Euroopan unionin

virallinen lehti

C 34

Suomenkielinen laitos

Tiedonantoja ja ilmoituksia

57. vuosikerta5. helmikuu 2014

---

| Ilmoitusnumero | Sisältö | Sivu |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Ilmoitukset |
| | HALLINNOLLISET MENETTELYT |
| | Euroopan parlamentti |
| 2014/C 034/01 | Päätös | 1 |

Ilmoitusnumero

Sisältö

Sivu

V   Ilmoitukset

HALLINNOLLISET MENETTELYT

Euroopan parlamentti

2014/C 034/01

Päätös

1

| FI | |
| --- | --- |

FI

---

V Ilmoitukset

HALLINNOLLISET MENETTELYT

Euroopan parlamentti

| 5.2.2014 | FI | Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti | C 34/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2014

FI

Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti

C 34/1

---

PÄÄTÖS

2014/C 34/01

EUROOPAN PARLAMENTIN PÄÄSIHTEERI, joka

OTTAA HUOMIOON neuvoston asetuksen (ETY, Euratom, EHTY) N:o 259/68 (1), sellaisena kuin se on muutettuna neuvoston asetuksella (EY, Euratom) N:o 723/2004 (2) ja viimeksi Euroopan yhteisöjen virkamiehiin sovellettavien henkilöstösääntöjen ja näiden yhteisöjen muuta henkilöstöä koskevien palvelussuhteen ehtojen muuttamisesta 24 päivänä marraskuuta 2010 annetulla Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston asetuksella (EU, Euratom) N:o 1080/2010 (3), ja erityisesti näiden henkilöstösääntöjen 30 artiklan,

OTTAA HUOMIOON puhemiehistön 3. toukokuuta 2004 tekemän päätöksen nimittävän viranomaisen ja työsopimusten tekemiseen toimivaltaisen viranomaisen toimivallan siirrosta, sellaisena kuin se on viimeksi muutettuna puhemiehistön 4. toukokuuta 2009 tekemällä päätöksellä,

OTTAA HUOMIOON, että seuraavien Euroopan parlamentin varallaololuetteloiden voimassaolo päättyi 31. joulukuuta 2013:

PE/99/S, PE/109/S, AD/4/08, AD/1/10, PE/103/S, PE/104/S, PE/106/S, PE/107/S, PE/117/S, PE/118/S, PE/124/S, AST/5/08, PE/119/S, PE/96/S, PE/110/S, PE/121/S,

ottaa huomioon, että pariteettikomiteaa on pyydetty antamaan lausunto 15 työpäivän kuluessa henkilöstösääntöjen 10 a artiklan mukaisesti,

ON PÄÄTTÄNYT SEURAAVAA:

1 artikla

Varallaololuetteloiden

AD/4/08, AD/1/10, PE/103/S, PE/104/S, PE/106/S, PE/107/S, PE/117/S, PE/118/S, PE/124/S, PE/96/S, PE/110/S ja PE/121/S

voimassaoloa jatketaan 31. joulukuuta 2014 asti.

2 artikla

Varallaololuetteloiden

PE/99/S, PE/109/S, AST/5/08 ja PE/119/S

voimassaoloa ei jatketa.

Tehty Luxemburgissa 20 päivänä joulukuuta 2013.

Klaus WELLE

Pääsihteeri

---

(1)  EYVL L 56, 4.3.1968, s. 1.

1

(2)  EUVL L 124, 27.4.2004, s. 1.

2

(3)  EUVL L 311, 26.11.2010, s. 1.

3

---
-86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 34

 36

 38

 40

 42

★

▲ ▲

▲

▲

★

▲

▲

▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

06/08

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 08 Jun 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.41 N 76.30 W Meters AGL
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Samuel Lyman, Deceased.

*Henry Woodward Sackett,*for app’lt, *Chas. E. Miller,*for resp’t.

Order affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Ruger, Ch. J., not voting, and Finch, J., absent.

Affirming 37 N. Y. State Rep., 928.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeremy STOUT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-5223

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Filed April 14, 2017

Terra L. Bay, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Chattanooga, TN, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Paul L. Nelson, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Michigan, Grand Rapids, MI, for Defendant-Appellant

Jeremy Stout, Pro Se

BEFORE: BOGGS, McKEAGUE, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Jeremy Stout appeals the district court’s restitution order.

Stout pleaded guilty to receiving child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). The district court sentenced him to 142 months in prison and ordered him to pay $2,000 in restitution to one of the victims.

On appeal, Stout argues that the restitution order is improper because, rather than determining the appropriate restitution amount based on the facts of his case, the district court relied on a grid that it had created in a previous case to promote uniformity when determining restitution awards in child pornography cases.1 We generally review for an abuse of discretion the specific amount of restitution awarded by a district court. *United States v. Har*
      *335
      *grove,*714 F.3d 371, 373 (6th Cir. 2013). But Stout has waived his right to challenge the restitution amount, given his counsel’s statements during the sentencing hearing that Stout would “be fine with” a $2,000 award and that such an award “is agreeable.” *See United States v. Priddy,*808 F.3d 676, 681-82 (6th Cir. 2015) (recognizing that, by agreeing in open court with a judge’s proposed course of conduct, a defendant waives the right to challenge that conduct on appeal); *United States v. Kennedy,*499 F.3d 547, 552-53 (6th Cir. 2007) (same).

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment of sentence.

. We note that *Stout's*first appointed counsel filed an *Anders*brief, asserting a different claim of error (i.e., a substantive unreasonableness challenge to the term of imprisonment) and moving for leave to withdraw as counsel. *See Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). The motion to withdraw was granted. Second appointed counsel then filed an appellate brief challenging only the restitution order, without even mentioning the substantive unreasonableness claim. Because Stout's current counsel of record appears to have abandoned the challenge to the term of imprisonment, and because we find it to be meritless anyway, this opinion focuses on Stout’s challenge to the restitution order.
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.                  

###### Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board

          - 36 CFR Part 1155
          - [Docket No. ATBCB-2022-0003]
          - RIN 3014-AA46

# AGENCY:

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.

# ACTION:

Direct final rule; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (“Access Board,” or “Board”) published a direct final rule in the                         **Federal Register**                         on Feb. 2, 2022, rescinding its regulation that details internal procedures for issuance, public availability, modification, and withdrawal of agency guidance documents. The document contained the incorrect docket number.                    

# DATES:

This final rule is effective February 28, 2022, and is applicable beginning February 2, 2022.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        General Counsel Christopher Kuczynski, (202) 272-0042,                         *generalcounsel@access-board.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Correction

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     on Feb. 2, 2022, 87 FR 5692, on page 5692, in the second column, correct the Docket No. caption to read: “Docket No. ATBCB-2022-0003”.                

Christopher Kuczynski,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 2022-04087 Filed 2-25-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8150-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6710 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6710

To amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to permit the District 
of Columbia to establish the rate of pay of the Chief Financial Officer 
                      of the District of Columbia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 11, 2023

  Ms. Norton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
               Committee on Oversight and Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to permit the District 
of Columbia to establish the rate of pay of the Chief Financial Officer 
                      of the District of Columbia.

    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 ``District of Columbia Chief Financial 
Officer Salary Home Rule Act''.

SEC. 2. PERMITTING DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO ESTABLISH RATE OF PAY OF 
              CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

    Section 424(b)(2)(E) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act 
(sec. 1-204.24b(b)(5), D.C. Official Code) is amended to read as 
follows:
                    ``(E) Pay.--The Chief Financial Officer shall be 
                paid at the greater of--
                            ``(i) a rate such that the total amount of 
                        compensation paid during any calendar year is 
                        equal to the limit on total pay which is 
                        applicable during such year under section 5307 
                        of title 5, United States Code, to an employee 
                        described in section 5307(d) of such title; or
                            ``(ii) a rate established in law by the 
                        District of Columbia, except that any rate 
                        established under this clause which is 
                        applicable to any individual serving as the 
                        Chief Financial Officer shall not be reduced 
                        during any period of such individual's service 
                        as the Chief Financial Officer.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Zadock Wright *et ux.*Executrix, &c. *versus*Warren Dunham.

If a claim against an estate represented insolvent is filed before commissioners of In. solvency and they allow part of it and reject the residue, and the creditor does not, pursuant to the statute, give notice of his dissatisfaction with their report, and afterward the e‘ scu^r brings an action against the credit upon a demand in favor of the estate, and which was not laid before the commissioners, the creditor is not precluded from filing in set-off that part of his claim which was rejected by the commissioners.

Assumpsit upon a promissory note made by the defendant to Ichabod Dunham, the testator. Trial in the Court of Common Pleas, before *Williams*J., upon the general issue.

The defendant filed in set-off an account for $ 14-50, and offered evidence to prove the same. The plaintiff objected to the allowance of this account; and upon this point it was admitted by the parties, that after the .death of the testator his estate was represented by the executrix to be insolvent ; that the defendant laid before the commissioners of insolvency the claim now in question, together with a further claim of $ 4-34 ; that the executrix did not produce to the commissioners the note now in suit, and the commissioners allowed to the defendant his claim of $ 4-34, and disallowed his other claim. The defendant gave no notice of his intention to prosecute his claim at common law, or of his dissatisfaction with the determination of the commissioners. Afterward the executrix demanded pay ment of the note now in suit. The defendant, thereupon, paid the sum of $ 13-95, and the executrix indorsed this sum and the sum of $ 4-34 upon the note, leaving a balance due thereon of $ 14-50. The defendant then claimed of the executrix the allowance of his account for $ 14-50, now filed in set-off, in ordei to balance the note in full, but the executrix refused to allow it, and this action was prosecuted to recover the balance of the note.

The counsel for the plaintiffs contended, that these facts and proceedings were a bar to the defendant’s claim, but the judge, being of a different opinion, overruled the objection to the admission of the account, and permitted the same, together with the defendant’s evidence in support of it, to go to the jury *39who thereupon returned a verdict for the defendant. To this opinion and direction the plaintiff filed exceptions. '

Eddy, in supp^t of the exceptions,

said the defendant was not obliged to lay his claim before the commissioners, but having done so and part of it having been allowed and the residuo disallowed, he had no right to contest the matter again ; it was *res judicata;*and this distinguished the case from *M'Donald*v. Webster, 2 Mass. R. 498. He cited *Bordman*v. Smith, 4 Pick. 215 ; 2 Dane’s Abr. 70.

Loud, *contra,*

relied on the case of *M'Donald*v. *Webster.*

The *Court*

held, that the decision of the commissioners was not conclusive as to the defendant’s right to file his claim in set-off, and the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas was affirmed.1

1

 See Revised Stat. *c.*96, § 12,13.