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/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/ 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 118 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 118

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding proliferation of missile 
                    technology from Russia to Iran.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 22, 1997

  Ms. Harman submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
          referred to the Committee on International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding proliferation of missile 
                    technology from Russia to Iran.

Whereas there is substantial evidence in support of allegations that 
        nongovernmental entities in the Russian Federation have provided missile 
        technology and technical advice to Iran, in violation of the Missile 
        Technology Control Regime;
Whereas these violations include providing assistance to Iran in developing 
        ballistic missiles, including the transfer of wind tunnel and rocket 
        engine testing equipment;
Whereas these technologies give Iran the capability to deploy a missile of 
        sufficient range to threaten United States military installations in the 
        Middle East and Persian Gulf, as well as the territory of Israel, and 
        our North Atlantic Treaty Organization ally Turkey; and
Whereas President Clinton has raised with Russian President Boris Yeltsin United 
        States concerns about these activities and the Russian response has to 
        date been inadequate: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that--
            (1) the President should demand that the Government of 
        Russia take concrete actions to stop nongovernmental entities 
        in the Russian Federation from providing missile technology and 
        technical advice to Iran, in violation of the Missile 
        Technology Control Regime;
            (2) in the absence of such actions, the United States 
        should impose sanctions on the responsible Russian entities in 
        accordance with Executive Order 12938 on the Proliferation of 
        Weapons of Mass Destruction, and reassess cooperative 
        activities with Russia;
            (3) the threshold under current law allowing for the waiver 
        of the prohibition on the release of foreign assistance to 
        Russia should be raised; and
            (4) our European allies should be encouraged to take steps 
        in accordance with their own laws to stop such proliferation.

                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATIONS
      a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting; or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles;c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andd)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: August 6, 2008
    /s/ William J. HemeltWilliam J. HemeltExecutive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer
# EUR-Lex - 32003R0411 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003R0411

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 411/2003 of 5 March 2003 amending Regulation (EC) No 805/1999 laying down certain measures for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 on a Community-fleet capacity policy to promote inland waterway transport **

*
Official Journal L 062 , 06/03/2003 P. 0018 - 0018 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 411/2003

of 5 March 2003

amending Regulation (EC) No 805/1999 laying down certain measures for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 on a Community-fleet capacity policy to promote inland waterway transport

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 of 29 March 1999(1) on a Community-fleet policy to promote inland waterway transport, and in particular Article 7 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) The Commission sets, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 and after consulting the Member States and the organisations which represent inland waterway transport at Community level, the ratios of the "old-for-new" rule for dry cargo vessels, tanker vessels and pusher craft.

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 805/1999 of 16 April 1999(2) laying down certain measures for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 set the ratios for the "old-for-new" rule to apply from 29 April 1999.

(3) These ratios have to be reduced constantly in order to bring them, as quickly as possible and in regular stages, to zero no later than 29 April 2003 pursuant to Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 718/1999.

(4) The "old-for-new" ratios were reduced in 2000, 2001 and 2002 by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1532/2000(3), Commission Regulation (EC) No 997/2001(4) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 336/2002(5).

(5) The ratios of the "old-for-new" rule must now be set at zero for dry cargo vessels, tanker vessels and pusher craft, with effect from 29 April 2003, in accordance with the second sentence of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 718/1999.

(6) It is therefore necessary to amend Regulation (EC) No 805/1999 accordingly.

(7) The measures provided for in this Regulation have been the subject of consultation within the Group of Experts on Community Fleets Capacity and Promotion Policy set up by Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 805/1999,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EC) No 805/1999 is hereby amended as follows:

1. in Article 4(1), the ratio "0,30:1" is replaced by "0:1";

2. in Article 4(2), the ratio "0,45:1" is replaced by "0:1";

3. in Article 4(3), the ratio "0,125:1" is replaced by "0:1".

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 29 April 2003.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 5 March 2003.

For the Commission

Loyola De Palacio

Vice-President

(1) OJ L 90, 2.4.1999, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 102, 17.4.1999, p. 64.

(3) OJ L 175, 14.7.2000, p. 74.

(4) OJ L 142, 29.5.2001, p. 18.

(5) OJ L 53, 23.2.2002, p. 11.
# EUR-Lex - 32003R0853 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003R0853

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 853/2003 of 16 May 2003 fixing the maximum export refund on wholly milled long grain B rice to certain third countries in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1898/2002 **

*
Official Journal L 123 , 17/05/2003 P. 0011 - 0011 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 853/2003

of 16 May 2003

fixing the maximum export refund on wholly milled long grain B rice to certain third countries in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1898/2002

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 of 22 December 1995 on the common organisation of the market in rice(1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 411/2002(2), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) An invitation to tender for the export refund on rice was issued pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1898/2002(3).

(2) Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 584/75(4), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1948/2002(5), allows the Commission to fix, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 and on the basis of the tenders submitted, a maximum export refund. In fixing this maximum, the criteria provided for in Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 must be taken into account. A contract is awarded to any tenderer whose tender is equal to or less than the maximum export refund.

(3) The application of the abovementioned criteria to the current market situation for the rice in question results in the maximum export refund being fixed at the amount specified in Article 1.

(4) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The maximum export refund on wholly milled long grain B rice to be exported to certain third countries pursuant to the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1898/2002 is hereby fixed on the basis of the tenders submitted from 12 to 15 May 2003 at 295,00 EUR/t.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 17 May 2003.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 16 May 2003.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 329, 30.12.1995, p. 18.

(2) OJ L 62, 5.3.2002, p. 27.

(3) OJ L 287, 25.10.2002, p. 11.

(4) OJ L 61, 7.3.1975, p. 25.

(5) OJ L 299, 1.11.2002, p. 18.
# C_2006326EN.01000701.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/7

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 October 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Aachen, Germany) — Hasan Güzeli v Oberbürgermeister der Stadt Aachen

(Case C-4/05) (1)

1

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - EEC-Turkey Association - Freedom of movement for workers - Article 10(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council - Refusal to extend a Turkish worker's residence permit)

(2006/C 326/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Aachen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hasan Güzeli

Applicant:

Defendant: Oberbürgermeister der Stadt Aachen

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Aachen — Interpretation of Article 10(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC/Turkey Association Council — Non discrimination against Turkish workers duly registered as belonging to the labour force as regards conditions of employment — Refusal to extend the residence permit putting an end to the employment of a seasonal Turkish worker in possession of a work permit of unlimited duration

Operative part of the judgment

The first indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC Turkey Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association must be interpreted as meaning that a Turkish worker can rely on the rights conferred upon him by that provision only where his paid employment with a second employer complies with the conditions laid down by law and regulation in the host Member State governing entry into its territory and employment. It is for the national court to make the requisite findings in order to establish whether that is the case in respect of a Turkish worker who changed employer prior to expiry of the period of three years provided for in the second indent of Article 6(1) of that decision.

The second sentence of Article 6(2) of Decision No 1/80 must be interpreted as meaning that it is intended to ensure that periods of interruption of legal employment on account of involuntary unemployment and long term sickness do not affect the rights that the Turkish worker has already acquired owing to preceding periods of employment the length of which is fixed in each of the three indents of Article 6(1) respectively.

---

(1)  OJ C 57, 05.04.2005.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                              55
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      723
<ALLOWANCES>                                       436
<INVENTORY>                                      1,215
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,614
<PP&E>                                           2,821
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,294
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,217
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,261
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                         103
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,217
<SALES>                                             80
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    80
<CGS>                                               20
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,121
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 165
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,165)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,165)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      60
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,105)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.25)


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-40218 Summary Calendar

WILLIAM ROBERT PARKER, Petitioner-Appellant,

v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, PARDONS & PAROLE DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

(6:95-CV-264)

_________________________________________________________________ October 3, 1996 Before KING, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * William Robert Parker, Texas inmate #325353, appeals the denial of his habeas corpus petition challenging the revocation of his parole and continued confinement in prison. He raises the following issues on appeal: 1) the evidence was insufficient to justify revocation of his parole; 2) his waiver of the2

preliminary revocation hearing was coerced; 3) he was denied counsel when he pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor charge arising from the same operative facts as the basis for the revocation of his parole; 4) due process was violated by the purported reliance on the misdemeanor conviction to revoke his parole; 5) revocation of parole was illegal because Parker had not been convicted of a subsequent felony; 6) Parker’s detention prior to the revocation hearing violated due process; 7) the district court erred in its findings of fact and conclusions of law; 8) Parker’s parole revocation and continued confinement violate double jeopardy; 9) Parker’s parole revocation and continued confinement are ex post facto violations; and 10) the district court and the respondent erred by viewing Parker’s thirteen grounds as raising only nine grounds. We have carefully reviewed the arguments and the appellate record. For essentially the same reasons adopted by the district court in its order of dismissal, we conclude Parker has failed to raise a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See Parker v. Director,
TDCJ-PD , No. 6:95cv264 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 13, 1996). The appeal is without arguable merit and is therefore frivolous. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The appeal is DISMISSED. Parker has been warned by this court of the consequences of bringing frivolous appeals. See Parker v. Highland Ins. , No. 96- 20118 (5th Cir. Apr. 16, 1996) (unpublished). The warning has gone unheeded. Accordingly, Parker is BARRED from filing any pro3

se, in forma pauperis (IFP), civil appeal in this court, or any pro se, IFP, initial civil pleading in any court which is subject to this court’s jurisdiction, without the advance written permission of a judge of the forum court; the clerk of this court and the clerks of all federal district courts in this Circuit are directed to return to Parker, unfiled, any attempted submission inconsistent with this bar.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION IMPOSED.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 22, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 16170]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06032]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers


Notice of Solicitation of Applications for Stakeholder 
Representative Members of the Committee on Levee Safety

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

ACTION: Notice; extension of application period.

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

SUMMARY: On January 21, 2022, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers posted a 
notice in the Federal Register soliciting applications to fill non-
federal member positions for the Committee on Levee Safety (Committee). 
The Committee is being formed to advise the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency on various 
aspects of developing the National Levee Safety Program. The Committee 
will be comprised of 14 voting members from state, local, regional, and 
tribal governments, as well as the private sector. In that notice, the 
Corps stated that applications must be submitted on or before March 22, 
2022. The Corps has decided to extend the application period by 45 
days.

DATES: Applications must be submitted on or before May 6, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons may apply by submitting the required 
information to any of the following:
    Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1c746d3170796a79796f7d7a7968655c696f7d7f79327d6e716532717570"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9ef6efb3f2fbe8fbfbedfff8fbeae7deebedfffdfbb0ffecf3e7b0f3f7f2">[email protected]</span></a> and include ``Committee on 
Levee Safety'' in the subject line of the message.
    Mail: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg District, ATTN: Levee 
Safety Center--RM 221, 4155 East Clay Street, Vicksburg, MS 39183.
    Hand Delivery/Courier: Due to security requirements, we cannot 
receive applications by hand delivery or courier.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Tammy Conforti, 202-365-6586, 
email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ea829bc7868f9c8f8f998b8c8f9e93aa9f998b898fc48b988793c4878386"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="234b520e4f4655464650424546575a6356504240460d42514e5a0d4e4a4f">[email protected]</span></a> or visit www.leveesafety.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Please see the notice published in the 
January 21, 2022, issue of the Federal Register (87 FR 3286) for 
expectations for Committee members and the process for applying for 
membership on the Committee.

Pete G. Perez,
Chief, Engineering and Construction, Directorate of Civil Works.
[FR Doc. 2022-06032 Filed 3-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3720-58-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF**

**CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**OF PATINA OIL & GAS CORPORATION**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.ss.1350**

 

1. I, David J. Kornder, Chief Financial Officer of Patina Oil & Gas Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certify to the best of my knowledge that the accompanying report on Form 10-Q for the quarterlyperiod ending June 30, 2004 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Report”) by the Company fully complies with the requirements ofthat section. 

 

2. I further certify to the best of my knowledge that theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the Company. 

 

 

The foregoing certification isbeing furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosuredocument. 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to Patina Oil & Gas Corporation and will be retained by Patina Oil & Gas Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.