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





CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Charif Souki, Chief Executive Officer of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:





|    |                                                                                                                      
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




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







Date: March 1, 2013





/s/ CHARIF SOUKICharif SoukiChief Financial Officer ofSabine Pass LNG-GP, LLC, the general partner ofSabine Pass LNG, L.P.
II

Calendar No. 76

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 84

[Report No. 104–54]

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel BAGGER,

and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. INOUYE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

APRIL 18, 1995

Reported, under authority of the order of the Senate of April 6 (legislative

day, April 5), 1995, by Mr. PRESSLER, without amendment

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a

certificate of documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel BAGGER, 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. CERTIFICATE OF DOCUMENTATION.

4 Notwithstanding sections 12106 through 12108 of

5 title 46, United States Code, and section 27 of the Mer-
2

S 84 RS

1 chant Marine Act, 1920 (46 U.S.C. App. 883), the Sec2 retary of Transportation may issue a certificate of docu3 mentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel

4 BAGGER, hull identification number 3121125, and State

5 of Hawaii registration number HA1809E.

Calendar No. 76

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 84

[Report No. 104–54]

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to

and for other purposes.wise trade endorsement for the vessel BAGGER,issue a certificate of documentation and coastAPRIL 18, 1995

Reported without amendment
History: 

June Felman tests II 

Conrad Chin to: Amy M. Lincoln 

Rlunn, JKonrady, Chuck French, Jonathan Averback, "Beth 

Cc: Friedman", Peter Westlin, Robin Segall, Steffan Johnson, "Brad 

Nelson", Jason Dewees, Conrad Chin 

This message has been forwarded. 

Good morning AmyThanks for the heads up. 

06/02/2012 07:37AM 

A colleague provided an aerial photo of the Felman furnace building, and it seems that there are 

"stack-like" roof vents for the release of fugitive emissions. We would like to investigate the possibility 

and feasibility of conducting stack sampling at these roof vents, and considering to request Felman to test 

these vents in June. 

Could we set up a call for this purpose next week (week of June 4)? 

Have a great weekend! 
Conrad K. Chin 

Mail Code 0243-02 

Metals_and_Mineiats_GLQup 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

919-541-1512 (voice) 

919-541-3207 (fax) 

"Amy M. Lincoln" Conrad, 

From: "Amy M. Lincoln" <Alincoln@bdlaw.com> 

05/31/2012 05:27:16 PM 

To: Conrad Chin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "John Rego" <jrego@JonesDay.com>, 

<Jeff.McKinney@erametgroup.com>, <Rlunn@fpiwv .com>, <JKonrady@fpiwv .com> 

Cc: Chuck French/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Jonathan Averback!DC/USEPA/US@EPA, "Beth Friedman" 

<friedman.beth@ecrweb.com>, Peter Westlin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Robin 

Segaii/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Steffan Johnson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Brad Nelson" 

<nelson.brad@ecrweb.com>, Kelly Rimer/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Darcie 

Smith/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [B-75-2021]

On November 8, 2021, GXO Logistics submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within FTZ 41, in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

                    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     inviting public comment (86 FR 64898-64899, November 19, 2021). On March 8, 2022, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including Section 400.14.                

Dated: March 8, 2022.

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2022-05216 Filed 3-10-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### September 10, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 

### 132974(24) Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 132974 COA: 274219 Kent CC: 71-014614 CHESTER PATTERSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for re consideration of this Court’s May 30, 2007 order is considered, and it is DENIED, beca use it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

p0830 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 10, 2007

Clerk
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

CARLOS JONATHAN GONZAL EZ

BECERRA, a.k.a. Carlos Jonathan Becerra,

a.k.a. Jonathan Becerra, a.k.a. Carlos

Jonathan Gonzalez,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 18

- 50155

D.C. No. 2:07

- cr

- 00812

- DSF

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 12, 2019 **

Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Carlos Jonathan Gonzalez Becerra appeals from the revocation of supervised

release and the six

- month sentence imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to Anders

v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Becerra ’s counsel has filed a brief stating that

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAR 19 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 50155

there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of

record. We have provided Becerra the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental

brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. However,

the court has considered Becerra ’s letter dated July 27, 2018.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for rel ief on direct appeal.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED

.
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-19-00208-CR 

BENITO CRUZ RAMIREZ, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 119th District Court 

Concho County, Texas 

Trial Court No. DSM-18-02011, Honorable Ben Woodward, Presiding 

 

December 17, 2019 

 

ORDER OF ABATEMENT AND REMAND 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ. 

Appellant Benito Cruz Ramirez appeals his conviction for possession of a 

controlled substance with the intent to deliver. Appellant’s brief was originally due 

September 18, 2019. We subsequently granted appellant’s counsel three extensions to 

file a brief. By letter of November 19, 2019, we notified appellant’s counsel that if the brief

was not filed by December 2, the appeal would be abated and the cause remanded to 

the trial court for further proceedings. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(2), (3). On December 2,

2019, appellant’s counsel filed a motion seeking an extension until December 6 to file the
2

brief. To date, counsel has not filed appellant’s brief or had any further communication 

with this Court.

Accordingly, we deny appellant’s motion for extension, abate the appeal, and

remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings. Upon remand, the trial court 

shall determine the following:

1. whether appellant still desires to prosecute the appeal;

2. whether appellant is indigent;

 

3. whether appellant has been denied the effective assistance of counsel due 

to counsel’s failure to timely file an appellate brief, see Ex parte Briggs, 187 

S.W.3d 458, 467 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding “a reasonably competent 

attorney—regardless of whether he is retained or appointed—must seek to 

advance his client’s best defense in a reasonably competent manner”);

4. whether new counsel should be appointed; and

5. if appellant desires to continue the appeal, the final date on which appellant 

will file appellant’s brief.

The trial court is also directed to enter such orders necessary to address the 

aforementioned questions. So too shall it include its findings on those matters in a 

supplemental record and cause that record to be filed with this Court by January 10, 2020. 

If it is determined that appellant desires to proceed with the appeal, is indigent, and has 

been denied the effective assistance of counsel, the trial court may appoint him new 

counsel; the name, address, email address, and phone number of any new counsel 

appointed shall be included in the aforementioned findings. Should further time be 

needed to perform these tasks, then same must be requested before January 10, 2020.

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6348 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6348

 To extend for two years the program for priority review to encourage 
                treatments for rare pediatric diseases.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 17, 2016

 Mr. Grayson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend for two years the program for priority review to encourage 
                treatments for rare pediatric diseases.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF PROGRAM FOR PRIORITY REVIEW TO ENCOURAGE 
              TREATMENTS FOR RARE PEDIATRIC DISEASES.

    Section 529(b)(5) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
U.S.C. 360ff(b)(5)) is amended by striking ``December 31, 2016'' and 
inserting ``December 31, 2018''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Jasvir SINGH, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-72321

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 15, 2017 *

Filed November 21, 2017

Jaspreet Singh, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights, NY, for Petitioner

Lynda Do, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

*607Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jasvir Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. *Najmabadi v. Holder,*597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion by denying Singh’s motion to reopen where it was filed thirteen years after his final order of removal, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), and where Singh failed to establish materially changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i); *Najmabadi,*597 F.3d at 990 (evidence must be “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1849

In Re: STEPHEN YAGMAN,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:08-hc-02103-D)

Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 20, 2009

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen Yagman, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Stephen Yagman petitions for a writ of mandamus, requesting this court to direct the district court to order an immediate return to Yagman’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) habeas petition and to discontinue its alleged custom and practice of ordering returns to habeas petitions within twenty days without a finding of good cause, a custom and practice Yagman alleges violates 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (2006). Our review of the docket sheet reveals that the district court recently dismissed Yagman’s § 2241 habeas petition. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Yagman’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 765 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 765

To amend the Public Buildings Act of 1959 to require the Administrator 
of General Services to prioritize construction and alteration projects 
 in accordance with merit-based needs criteria, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                  May 8 (legislative day, May 1), 1995

  Mr. McCain introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
           referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Public Buildings Act of 1959 to require the Administrator 
of General Services to prioritize construction and alteration projects 
 in accordance with merit-based needs criteria, and for other purposes.
    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 ``Federal Buildings Construction and 
Alteration Funding Improvement Act''.

SEC. 2. PRIORITIZATION OF FEDERAL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION AND ALTERATION 
              FUNDING REQUESTS.

    (a) In General.--The Public Buildings Act of 1959 is amended by 
inserting after section 6 (40 U.S.C. 605) the following:

``SEC. 6A. PRIORITIZATION OF FEDERAL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION AND 
              ALTERATION FUNDING REQUESTS.

    ``(a) Annual Submission to Congress.--As part of the submission to 
Congress of the budget of the United States Government for a fiscal 
year under section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, the President 
shall submit a list, in order of need (as determined in accordance with 
the regulations issued under subsection (b)), of projects for the 
construction and alteration of public buildings for which 
authorizations of appropriations are requested for the fiscal year.
    ``(b) Criteria for Determining Need.--The Administrator shall issue 
regulations specifying merit-based criteria for determining the 
relative need for a project described in subsection (a).''.
    (b) Building Project Surveys.--Section 11(b) of the Act (40 U.S.C. 
610(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``In the case of 
a surveyed project for the construction or alteration of a public 
building, the report shall specify the relative need (as determined in 
accordance with the regulations issued under section 6A(b)) for the 
project with respect to all other such surveyed projects that are not 
approved under section 7(a).''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

RICHARD J. COPPOLA, JR.,

Petitioner

v.

ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED AND 

ADOBE INCORPORATED,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 690 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6th day of May, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED, and the Application to QUASH is DISMISSED.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 67 Referred in House (RFH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 67

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 18, 1996

              Referred to the Committee on House Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
To authorize printing of the report of the Commission on Protecting and 
                      Reducing Government Secrecy.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That there shall be printed as a Senate document the report of the 
Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy.
    Sec. 2. The document referred to in the first section shall be--
            (1) published under the supervision of the Secretary of the 
        Senate; and
            (2) in such style, form, manner, and binding as directed by 
        the Joint Committee on Printing, after consultation with the 
        Secretary of the Senate.
The document shall include illustrations.
    Sec. 3. In addition to the usual number of copies of the document, 
there shall be printed the lesser of--
            (1) 5,000 copies for the use of the Secretary of Senate; or
            (2) such number of copies as does not exceed a total 
        production and printing cost of $45,000.

            Passed the Senate September 17, 1996.

            Attest:

                                             KELLY D. JOHNSTON,

                                                             Secretary.
```
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


     In  connection  with  the   accompanying   Quarterly  Report  of  Concierge
Technologies,  Inc.  (the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March
31,  2006 (the  "Report"),  I, Allen E.  Kahn,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the
Company, hereby certify that to my knowledge:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. ss.78o(d)); and

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

Dated:  May 10, 2006

                                             /s/ Allen E. Kahn
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Allen E. Kahn
                                            Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


     The above  certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss.1350) and is not being filed as part of
the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.














                                                                      Exhibit 32
                                                                Page 1 of 1 Page