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




CERTIFICATION
      OF THE PRINCIPAL 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 the annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of RxElite, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Jonathan Houssian, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
      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 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 results of operations of the
                Company.




Dated:
      April 29, 2008




/s/
                Jonathan HoussianJonathan
                HoussianPresident
                and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2019076EN.01000102.xml

| 1.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 76/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 76/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9266 — IIF/Kuwait Investment Authority/North Sea Midstream Partners)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 76/02)

On 13 February 2019, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9266. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9266. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
|                                                                        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                        
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                          
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                          
|View History:                                                           
|                                                                        
|Natural Gas Citygate Price in Alabama  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                        
|                                                                        
|Natural Gas Citygate Price in Alabama  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                        

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        | 4.03   | 3.97   | 3.45   | 3.27   | 3.16   | 3.00  
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 3.13   | 3.11   | 3.21   | 3.51   | 3.44   | 2.89   | 3.48   | 3.65   | 3.17   | 3.21  
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 4.50   | 6.63   | 4.74   | 6.06   | 6.65   | 8.47   | 10.26  | 8.78   | 9.84   | 7.61  
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 6.46   | 5.80   | 5.18   | 4.65   | 4.93   | 3.91   | 3.44   | 3.80   | 3.87   | 3.56  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 2.98   | 4.16   | 6.74   | 4.03   |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
|                                                               
|---------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                               
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)       
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                 
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                 
|View History:                                                  
|                                                               
|Kansas Natural Gas Industrial Consumption  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                               
|                                                               
|Kansas Natural Gas Industrial Consumption  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                               

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0  | Year-1  | Year-2  | Year-3  | Year-4  | Year-5  | Year-6  | Year-7  | Year-8  | Year-9 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | -------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |         |         |         |         |         |         |         | 115,552 | 110,881 | 97,254 
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 108,625 | 93,351  | 108,387 | 104,789 | 100,811 | 97,879  | 110,910 | 126,884 | 113,663 | 107,569
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 108,484 | 113,356 | 114,720 | 116,778 | 118,590 | 121,064 | 124,071 | 127,653 | 132,495 | 131,590
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 135,733 | 135,508 | 142,391 | 132,511 |         |         |         |         |         |        
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
#### IN RE: ADOPTION OF: M.T., a Minor

804 MDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

07/14/2017

23 Adoptions 2016

(Cumberland)

Affirmed
September 10, 2010

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Economic Impact Analysis for Chromium Electroplating RTR

FROM: Tom Walton

Economist ABCG (C439-02)

TO: Phil Mulrine Engineer MMG (D243-02)

This document addresses the economic imp acts of Chromium Electroplating NESHAP: a phase-out of PFOS-based fume suppressants, and hous ekeeping procedures.

Both the magnitude of control costs needed to comply with the rule and the distribution of these costs among affected f acilities can have a role in determining how the market will change in response to rule. Total a nnualized costs for a phase-out of PFOS-based fume suppressants is $ 261,000 for 806 plants . Total annualized costs for housekeeping procedures are estimated to be $2,000,000 for 1,770 plants. Together the estimated cost is $2,300,000.

Because sales information was not available at the facility level, 2002 Economic Census Industry Series Reports were used to devel op average value of shipments estimates for two different levels of employment for an averag e plant. Facilities that are subject to the Chromium Electroplating NESHAP are gene rally classified under NAICS Code 332813, which includes facilities engaged in el ectroplating, plating, polishing, anodizing, and coloring. In addition to plan ts that perform chromium el ectroplating, this NAICS code
also covers other facilities that perform other types of el ectroplating. The Small Business Administration definition for NAICS 332813 is less than 500 employees. In 2006, 2,622 of the 2,659 firms or almost 99% of the firms were small. See the table on the next page. All costs and sales are in 2009 dollars.The total costs are estimated assuming that a su bset of the 1,770 plants incur costs. To assess the possibility of sma ll business and market impacts, the maximum possible cost was compared to average value of shipments as a estimate of business receipts. In the above table costs as a percentage of busine ss receipts is always less than 0.66%. This would not be considered a significant impact on small business. Whether these costs are absorbed by the plants or passed on by higher prices, market impacts are expected to be quite small. Highest Plant Costs for Proposed PFOS Phase-Out and Housekeeping Requirements

Option Cost per plant, $/yr Notes Average
business receipts ($) Cost as a
percentage of receipts

Require phase-out of PFOS fume suppressants Small Plants (1-20 employees) Hard Chromium Electroplating $2,647 $636,614 0.42%

Decorative Chromium Electroplating $1,910 $636,614 0.30%

Chromium Anodizing $2,647 $636,614 0.42% Other Plants (21 - 99 employees) $0 Not applicable $4,009,710 0.00%

Require specific housekeeping procedures Small Plants (1-20 employees) $1,516 $636,614 0.24% Other Plants (21 - 99 employees) $2,923 $4,009,710 0.07% Both phase-out of PFOS & Housekeeping Small Plants (1-20 employees) Hard Chromium Electroplating $4,163 $636,614 0.65%

Decorative Chromium Electroplating $3,426 $636,614 0.54%

Chromium Anodizing $4,163 $636,614 0.65% Other Plants (21 - 99 employees) $2,923 $4,009,710 0.07%
#### COM. v. MONROE, K.

712 EDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania,

07/18/2017

CP-51-CR-0010262-2015

(Philadelphia)

Reversed/Remanded
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICKY WISNU SULISTIO; et al.,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-73846

Agency Nos. A096-499-641

A096-499-642

A096-499-643

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 26, 2012** 

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

Ricky Wisnu Sulistio and his family, natives and citizens of Indonesia,

petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their

appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

FILED

JUL 06 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency’s

factual findings for substantial evidence. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056

(9th Cir. 2009). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and

remand for further proceedings.

The record does not compel the conclusion that petitioners established

changed circumstances to excuse their untimely asylum application. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.4(a)(4); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 656-658 (9th Cir. 2007) (per

curiam). Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they will be tortured with the

consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Indonesia. See Wakkary,

558 F.3d at 1067-68. Accordingly, petitioners’ CAT claim fails.

With respect to withholding of removal, however, the record compels the

conclusion that the Sulistios suffered past persecution based on their experience

during the 1999 riot in Ternate, when they had to evacuate their home and town

because Muslim attackers were killing all Christians they could find. 

See Knezevic v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1206, 1211-12 (9th Cir. 2004) (finding past

persecution where petitioners were forced to “flee[] from hostile forces motivated

by a desire to kill each and every member of [a] group”). Because the Sulistios
3

established past persecution, they are entitled to a presumption of a clear

probability of future persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(i). Accordingly, we

remand for the agency to decide in the first instance whether the government has

met its burden to rebut this presumption. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18

(2002) (per curiam).

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;

REMANDED.
Exhibit 32.1

Statement of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code as
adopted

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, John Aglialoro, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
of Cybex International, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that:

The Companys Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for the period
ended June 30, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



|                      |  |  |  |                                     
|--------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------
|Dated: August 3, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ John Aglialoro                  
|                      |  |  |  | John Aglialoro                      
|                      |  |  |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO CYBEX INTERNATIONAL, INC.
AND WILL BE RETAINED BY CYBEX INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND WILL BE FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
#### State v. Pruitt

111,465

09/14/2015

Denied

Unpublished
#### IN the INT. OF: K.,G., a Minor Appeal of: York CYS

1922 MDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

07/06/2017

CP-67-DP-0000220-2016 (York)

Vacated/Remanded
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 00-4295



# 
S COTTIE J ENKINS , a/k/a Boobie,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-99-769) Submitted: January 25, 2002 Decided: February 7, 2002 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSELFrank L. Eppes, EPPES & PLUMBLEE, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Rene Josey, United States Attorney, E. JeanHoward, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION
PER CURIAM: Scottie Jenkins appeals his conviction and sentence, pursuant to aguilty plea without a written plea agreement, for conspiracy to possess cocaine base with the intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841, 846 (West 1999 & Supp. 2001). Finding no error, we affirm Jenkins’ conviction and sentence. Jenkins claims the district court did not satisfy the minimum requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 when it accepted his guilty plea because the court failed to fully explain the elements of the offense and because his testimony could not form the basis of a voluntary and intelligent plea. We have reviewed the record, however, and find no reversible error in Jenkins’ Rule 11 hearing. Both the Government in its summary of facts, and the district court in its explanation of the charge contained in the indictment, summarized the elements of the drug conspiracy. See generally United States v. Rhynes , 206 F.3d 349, 361 (4th Cir. 1999); United States v. Carter , 662 F.2d 274, 276 (4thCir. 1981). Moreover, at the plea hearing, Jenkins stated he understood the elements of the offense to which he was pleading guilty andindicated he had in fact distributed drugs. Accordingly, we affirm Jenkins’ conviction.
Jenkins also claims his 262-month sentence is invalid under Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Because Jenkins’ sentence is not above the thirty year statutory maximum of § 841(b)(1)(C) for a defendant with a prior felony drug conviction, we find Apprendi is not implicated and affirm his sentence.* See United States v. Promise , 255 F.3d 150 (4th Cir. 2001) (en banc), petition for cert. filed , (U.S. Sept. 20, 2001) (No. 01-6398); United States v. Dinnall , 269 F.3d 418 (4th Cir. 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-*At the time of the present conviction, Jenkins had two prior convictions for a felony drug offense, thus triggering § 841(b)(1)(C)’s thirty year maximum penalty. 2 U NITED S TATES v. J ENKINStions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED 3 U NITED S TATES v. J ENKINS
1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Global Traffic Network, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant
as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial
reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the
registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
    By:
    /s/ William L. Yde IIIWilliam L. Yde III, Chief Executive Officerand President (Principal Executive Officer)
|                                                                
|----------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)        
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                  
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                  
|View History:                                                   
|                                                                
|Wyoming Natural Gas Industrial Consumption  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                
|                                                                
|Wyoming Natural Gas Industrial Consumption  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 46,936 | 54,259 | 38,475
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 39,604 | 37,136 | 42,115 | 43,000 | 43,086 | 43,304 | 43,460 | 43,830 | 41,890 | 37,654
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 43,059 | 45,462 | 51,190 | 48,387 | 47,153 | 47,667 | 52,810 | 54,512 | 66,272 | 61,755
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 60,368 | 48,702 | 57,776 | 65,829 |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
#### State v. Norwood

109,419

07/22/2015

Denied

Unpublished