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 CytoGenix, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 1O-Q for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Malcolm
H. Skolnick, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to the best of my knowledge:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.   /s/ Malcolm H.
Skolnick Malcolm H.
Skolnick Chief Executive
Officer   April 4, 2008
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Our company is looking for a UAV commercial license exception in order to take drone video footage of golf courses for our client events.  The drone footage would not be taken from an altitude higher than 200 feet, and will always take place on private golf course property.  The drone will be used to act like someone hitting a golf ball, thus, the drone will never fly higher than 200 feet (or roughly the highest a human can hit a golf ball into the air).  Drone footage will primarily occur in the early morning hours, when limited (or no) golf course staff or golfers will be on the golf course, for purposes of safety.  

Our company has been in business since 1977 and operates a golf tour operator business, in which we coordinate golf travel to various destinations throughout the US and the world.  In recent years/months, clients have continually requested we take drone footage of the golf courses they are playing, in order to turn the footage into an online video/photography montage.  We have also been approached by various golf courses to take drone footage, which will then be utilized on their respective websites for marketing purposes.   

Since the requested drone footage will always take place on private property, with limited or no humans present, and never at high altitudes, we respectfully request an exceptional be allowed under the above outlined circumstances.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6840 

To prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury from engaging in transactions 

involving the exchange of Special Drawing Rights issued by the International Monetary Fund that are held by the Islamic Republic of Iran, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 15, 2023 

Mr. HILL (for himself and Mr. SHERMAN) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury from engaging 

in transactions involving the exchange of Special Drawing Rights issued by the International Monetary Fund 

that are held by the Islamic Republic of Iran, 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 ‘‘Iran SDR Exchange 

5 Prohibition Act of 2023’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6840 IH

1 SEC. 2. SPECIAL DRAWING RIGHTS EXCHANGE PROHIBI2 TION. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Treasury 

4 may not engage in any transaction involving the exchange 

5 of Special Drawing Rights issued by the International 

6 Monetary Fund and held by the Islamic Republic of Iran. 

7 (b) ADVOCACY.—The Secretary of the Treasury 

8 shall— 

9 (1) vigorously advocate that the government of 

10 each member country of the International Monetary 

11 Fund, to the extent that the member country issues 

12 a freely usable currency, prohibit transactions involv13 ing the exchange of Special Drawing Rights held by 

14 the Islamic Republic of Iran; and 

15 (2) direct the United States Executive Director 

16 of the International Monetary Fund to use the voice 

17 and vote of the United States to oppose any alloca18 tion of Special Drawing Rights to the Islamic Re19 public of Iran. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Exhibit 32.2



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/A of the Company for the three months ended June 30, 2004 (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: November 22, 2004 |  | /s/ Fernando Sanchez   
|                         |  | Fernando Sanchez       
|                         |  | Chief Financial 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 of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Edgar Hugo MUNOZ-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41200 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 12, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Edgar Hugo Munoz-Ramirez, Pro Se

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Edgar Hugo Munoz-Ramirez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (6th Cir. 2011). Munoz-Ramirez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
#### Aaron Erickson et al., Respondents, *v.*Mary A. Quinn, Appellant.

(Argued December 17, 1872;

decided December 24, 1872.)

This was a motion in the case next preceding to set aside and vacate the judgment of this court in the action (46 N. Y., 410), upon the ground that, during the pendency thereof, plaintiff had sold the property in controversy, and became the purchaser at sheriff’s sale, bidding the full amount of their judgment, and thus satisfying it. Held, that, whether plaintiff had in fact obtained satisfaction depended upon the validity of the title acquired under the sheriff’s deed, and that judgment in this action was necessary to establish that *title;*that by it the obstacle to their recovery and the cloud upon their title is removed; that the two proceedings were harmonious, and both necessary to give the plaintiffs the relief sought. Motion therefore denied.

*J. O. Cochrane*for the appellant.

*G. F. Danforth*for the respondents.

Allen, J.,

reads opinion for denial of motion.

All concur, except Church, Ch. J., not voting.

Motion denied.
#### Clayton WALKER Plaintiff-Appellant v. Joseph HARMON, individual capacity; Black Hills Fugitive Task Force Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-3928

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: May 25, 2017

Filed: June 2, 2017

Clayton Walker, Pro Se

Kevin Koliner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Camela Catherine Theeler, U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of South Dakota, Sioux Falls, SD, for Defendants-Appellees

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Clayton Walker appeals following the district court’s1 dismissal of his pro se civil complaint. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, we find no error warranting reversal. We therefore *464affirm the judgment entered in favor of defendants. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Jeffrey L. Viken, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of South Dakota.
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 106 (Tuesday, June 3, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 31848]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12762]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

10 CFR Part 1703

FOIA Fee Schedule Update

AGENCY: Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.

ACTION: Establishment of FOIA Fee Schedule.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board is publishing its 
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Fee Schedule Update pursuant to the 
Board's regulations.

DATES: Effective Date: June 1, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark T. Welch, General Manager, 
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 
700, Washington, DC 20004-2901, (202) 694-7060.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FOIA requires each Federal agency 
covered by the Act to specify a schedule of fees applicable to 
processing of requests for agency records. 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A)(i). On 
April 23, 2014 the Board published for comment in the Federal Register 
its Proposed FOIA Fee Schedule, 79 FR 22596. No comments were received 
in response to that notice, and the Board is now establishing the Fee 
Schedule.
    Pursuant to 10 CFR 1703.107(b)(6) of the Board's regulations, the 
Board's General Manager will update the FOIA Fee Schedule once every 12 
months. The previous Fee Schedule Update went into effect on July 23, 
2012. 77 FR 41258.

Board Action

    Accordingly, the Board issues the following schedule of updated 
fees for services performed in response to FOIA requests:

    Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Schedule of Fees for FOIA
                                Services
                  [Implementing 10 CFR 1703.107(b)(6)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Search or Review Charge................  $83.00 per hour.
Copy Charge (paper)....................  $.05 per page, if done in-
                                          house, or generally available
                                          commercial rate (approximately
                                          $.10 per page).
Electronic Media.......................  $5.00 per electronic media.
Copy Charge (audio and video cassette).  Actual commercial rates.
Duplication of DVD.....................  $25.00 for each individual DVD;
                                          $16.50 for each duplicate DVD.
Copy Charge for large documents (e.g.,   Actual commercial rates.
 maps, diagrams).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: May 28, 2014.
Mark T. Welch,
General Manager.
[FR Doc. 2014-12762 Filed 6-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3670-01-P
```
#### Yetta Schuss, Appellant, *v.*La Brug Holding Corporation, Respondent.

Argued December 2, 1943;

decided January 13, 1944.

*808
      *Myron Wisoff*and *Louis Bothbard*for appellant.

*H. H. Brown*and *E. G. Sherwood*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughban, Lewis, Desmond and Thacheb, JJ. Rippey and Conway, JJ., dissent on the ground that questions of fact were presented for the jury as to defendant’s negligence and plaintiff’s freedom from contributory negligence.
#### William Hodson, as Commissioner of Welfare of the City of New York, on the Complaint of Bertha Hoff, Respondent, against William Hoff, Appellant.

Argued June 14, 1943;

decided July 20, 1943.

*520
      *Noah Seedman*for appellant.

*Robert H. Schaffer, Acting Corporation Counsel (Paxton Blair*of counsel), for respondent.

Orders affirmed; no opinion. (See 291 N. Y. 672, 763.)

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ. Taking no part: Thacher, J.
EXHIBIT 99.10 VIA EDGAR  TO: United States Securities and Exchange Commission  Re: Asanko Gold Inc. (the "Company") Annual Report on Form 40-F Consent of Expert This consent is provided in connection with the Company's annual report on Form 40-F for the financial year ended December 31, 2014, and any amendments thereto (the Annual Report), as filed by the Company with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.  The Annual Report incorporates by reference, among other things, the Companys Annual Information Form for the financial year ended December 31, 2014 (the Annual Information Form). I, Glenn Bezuidenhout, DO HEREBY CONSENT, to:  · the use of my name and the disclosure of my involvement in the preparation of information that forms the basis for disclosure of a technical and scientific nature related to the Companys Asanko Gold Mine Project, contained in the Annual Information Form, and  · the inclusion and incorporation by reference of such information in the Annual Report.  Dated March 16, 2015  // Glenn BezuidenhoutGlenn Bezuidenhout
National Diploma (Extractive Metallurgy), FSIAMM
DRA Mineral Projects (Pty) Ltd
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. John J. Bennett, Jr., as Attorney-General of the State of New York, Appellant, *v.*Sterling Amherst Farms Dairy, Inc., Respondent.

Argued October 19, 1943;

decided December 2, 1943.

*742
      *Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney-General (Orrin G. Judd*and *Herbert A. Einhorn*of counsel), for appellant.

*Frank J. Ryan*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman,- Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thagher, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the financial
statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER> 1

       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                        580,366
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 1,010,674
<ALLOWANCES>                  10,000
<INVENTORY>                   1,224,247
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              2,954,713
<PP&E>                        60,254
<DEPRECIATION>                6,747
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                5,686,961
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         1,740,029
<BONDS>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   550
<COMMON>                      389
<OTHER-SE>                    3,945,993
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  5,686,961
<SALES>                       2,291,846
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              2,291,846
<CGS>                         1,053,463
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 1,053,463
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>               70,736
<INCOME-TAX>                  2,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           68,436
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  68,436
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                 0.01
        


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT      32.1 **

**Certification      of Principal Executive Officer**
**      and Principal Financial Officer **

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

**As      Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

| (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. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/                John C. Lipman John                C. LipmanPrincipal                Executive OfficerPrincipal                Financial OfficerNovember                12, 2007 |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
#### Beach v. Donovan *et al.*

Appeal: less than one hundred dollars : requisites of certificate of trial judoe. In a case involving less than one hundred dollars, it is not sufficient, to give this court jurisdiction, for the trial judge to certify certain questions upon which he says it is desirable to have the opinion of the court. It is necessary also to certify that the questions are involved in the determination of the case.

*Appeal from Eranldin District Court.*— Hon. John L. Stevens, Judge.

Filed, May 25, 1888.

Action at law for the recovery of the price of an organ. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

*J. H. Scales,*for appellants.

*Daniel Eiler,*for appellee.

Reed, J.

The amount in controversy is less than ’ one hundred dollars. The trial judge signed the following certificate: “I, J. L. Stevens, judge of the eleventh judicial district of Iowa, certify the following questions upon which it is desirable to have the opinion *544of the supreme court.” This is followed by four questions, but there is no averment that the cause involves the determination of either of -.them. The statute (Code, sec. 3173) provides that “no appeal shall be taken in any cause in which the ainount in controversy between the parties, as shown by the pleadings, does not exceed one hundred dollars, unless the trial judge shall certify that the cause involves the determination of a question of law upon which it is desirable to have the opinion of the supreme court.” To give this court jurisdiction in a case of this kind, it is essential that it be shown by the certificate that the cause involves the determination of the questions stated. It can readily be determined from the pleadings in the case that the questions certified might have arisen under them; but whether they did arise, and whether the cause involves their determination, can only be determined from an examination of the evidence. But jurisdiction is conferred by the certificate, and not by the pleadings or evidence. *Curran v. Excelsior Coal Co.,*63 Iowa, 94. We have sometimes held that we would go back of the certificate, and determine, from an inspection of the record, whether the cause did involve the determination of the questions stated. See *Swails v. Cissna,*61 Iowa, 693 ; *McLenon v. Kansas City, St. J. & C. B. Ry. Co.,*69 Iowa, 320. But in those cases the certificates on their face were sufficient to confer jurisdiction, and we went into the record for the purpose of determining whether the cause in fact involved the determination of the questions propounded ; while in this the fact essential to the jurisdiction is not stated. The appeal will therefore be

Dismissed.
#### Audrey Dagmar TOMERLIN Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, INC. Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-56695

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 24, 2017

Audrey Dagmar Tomerlin, Pro Se

Tambry Bradford, Attorney, Pepper Hamilton LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Laurence Z. Shiekman, Pepper Hamilton LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Audrey Dagmar Tomerlin appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her diversity action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. *Assoc. of Am. Med. Colls. v. United States,*217 F.3d 770, 778 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Tomerlin’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the Maryland state *579court retains exclusive jurisdiction over the interpretation and enforcement of the settlement agreement that is the subject of this dispute. *See Flanagan v. Arnaiz,*143 F.3d 540, 544-45 (9th Cir. 1998) (court where settlement agreement was entered retains exclusive jurisdiction over the interpretation and enforcement of the agreement); see *also Assoc. of Am. Med. Colls.,*217 F.3d at 778-79 (the party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing it).

We do not consider issues not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Tomerlin’s motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 20) and Johns Hopkins’ motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 28) are denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Charles Morriale, Appellant, against Vernon C. Branham, as Superintendent of Woodbourne Institution for Defective Delinquents, Respondent.

Submitted January 3, 1944;

decided January 13, 1944.

Motion for reargument granted. (See 291 N. Y. 312.)