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 this  Annual  Report of Uranium  International  Corp.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-K/A No. 2 for the year ending  February 29, 2008, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Marek J. Kreczmer,  President/Chief Executive Officer, and William D. Thomas,
Treasurer/Chief  Financial Officer,  of the Company,  certify to the best of our
knowledge,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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: May 27, 2009

                                          /s/ MAREK J. KRECZMER
                                          _____________________________________
                                              Marek J. Kreczmer
                                              President/Chief Executive Officer



Date: May 27, 2009

                                          /s/ WILLIAM D. THOMAS
                                          ______________________________________
                                              William D. Thomas
                                              Treasurer/Chief Financial Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-08-434-CV

IN RE MIKO TRUCKING, INC., KART 					 RELATORS

CONSTRUCTION & EQUIPMENT CO., INC., 

HANOVER PROPERTY COMPANY, L.L.C. 

D/B/A HANOVER PROPERTY COMPANY, 

MOZLEY ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT 

PARTNERS, L.P., AND MIRA LAGOS 

HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC.

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

	ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	We have considered relators’ “Motion To Dismiss Petition For Writ Of Mandamus.”  It is the court’s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss this original proceeding.

	Costs of the original proceeding shall be paid by the party incurring the same, for which let execution issue.

							PER CURIAM

PANEL:  DAUPHINOT, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DELIVERED:  March 26, 2009
ORIGINAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

OLIVIA K. ANACLETO,

Petitioner,

v.

OP 20-0219

RAVALLI COUNTY JUSTICE COURT,

JENNIFER A. RAY, JUSTICE OF THE PEACE,

Respondent.

FILED

APR 2 9 2020

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of Supreme Court

State of Montana

ORDER

Petitioner Olivia K. Anacleto seeks a writ of supervisory control over the

Ravalli County Justice Court, Dept. 1, regarding the Justice Court's requirement that

Anacleto post a cash bond in Cause No. TK-705-2019-0002036.

Supervisory control is an extraordinary remedy that is sometimes justified when

urgency or emergency factors exist making the normal appeal process inadequate, when

the case involves purely legal questions, and when the other court is proceeding under a

mistake of law and is causing a gross injustice, constitutional issues of state-wide

importance are involved, or, in a criminal case, the other court has granted or denied a

motion to substitute a judge. M. R. App. P. 14(3). Whether supervisory control is

appropriate is a case-by-case decision. Stokes v. Mont. Thirteenth Judicial Dist. Court,

2011 MT 182, ¶ 5, 361 Mont. 279, 259 P.3d 754 (citations omitted).

According to her Petition for Writ, after Anacleto failed to appear for a jury trial

status hearing, the Justice Court forfeited Anacleto's previously posted bond and issued a

warrant for her arrest. Anacleto was arrested on that warrant on March 5, 2020 and the

court ordered her detained with bail set in the amount of $1,000 "cash only." That same

day, Anacleto filed an emergency motion to strike the cash-only bail requirement. On

March 11, 2020, prior to the court ruling on Anacleto's motion, Anacleto moved to set a

change of plea hearing. Anacleto changed her plea at hearing on March 13, 2020.

04/29/2020

Case Number: OP 20-0219
Per Anacleto's Petition for Writ, the Justice Court never ruled upon her motion to

strike the cash-only bail requirement. Moreover, Anacleto changed her plea and the matter

is now resolved. Simply put, there is no case presently before the Justice Court over which

this Court may take supervisory control.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the petition for writ of supervisory control is DENIED and

DISMISSED.

The Clerk is directed to provide immediate notice of this Order to counsel for

Petitioner, all counsel of record in the Ravalli County Justice Court,

Cause No. TK-705-2019-0002036, and the Honorable Jennifer A. Ray, presiding.

DATED this 21 day of April, 2020.

Chief Justice

Justices

2
|                                                                         
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                         
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                           
|View History: Annual                                                     
|View History: Annual                                                     
|View History:                                                            
|                                                                         
|Vermont Natural Gas Number of Residential Consumers  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                         
|                                                                         
|Vermont Natural Gas Number of Residential Consumers  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                         

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 15,553 | 16,616 | 16,920
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 18,300 | 19,879 | 20,468 | 21,553 | 22,546 | 23,523 | 24,383 | 25,539 | 26,664 | 27,931
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 28,532 | 29,463 | 30,108 | 30,856 | 31,971 | 33,015 | 34,081 | 34,937 | 35,929 | 37,242
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 38,047 | 38,839 | 39,917 | 41,152 | 42,231 | 43,267 | 44,244 | 45,275 | 46,372 | 47,122
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 47,739 | 48,229 | 48,791 |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
#### Greenburgh Eleven Union Free School District, Respondent-Appellant, v National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., Appellant-Respondent, and Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. of New York, Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[767 NYS2d 612]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered June 25, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from by plaintiff, vacated the award of statutory interest on the amount of $178,500, representing interest charges paid by plaintiff in connection with the settlement of the underlying action, unanimously modified, on the law, to reinstate such award of statutory interest, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Appeal by defendant National Union Fire Insurance Company from portions of the same judgment and from corresponding portions of the same court’s underlying order, entered June 25, 2003, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

The amended judgment from which the parties purport to appeal, entered subsequent to this Court’s order disposing of all the issues in the action, is not appealable as of right (CPLR 5701 [a] [1]). On the previous appeals, we modified a judgment entered October 18, 2002 to the extent of directing that plaintiff recover from defendant insurer the cost of obtaining a letter of credit and reducing to their present value the awards for future salary and benefits to two of the plaintiffs in the underlying action (304 AD2d 334 [2003]). Upon remittance, the court’s order “shall be authority for any further proceedings” (CPLR 5524 [b]). Remission for the ministerial act of calculating the present value of a component of the award does not detract from the finality of the order (CPLR 5522 [a]; *see Harvey v Members Empls. Trust for Retail Outlets,*96 NY2d 99, 103 n 1 [2001]).

In view of our prior order, Supreme Court was without authority to reduce the award of statutory interest. Accordingly, we sua sponte grant plaintiff leave to appeal in order to reach and correct this error. No comparable justification exists to permit defendant’s appeal, particularly since the issues it would now raise were previously argued on the prior appeal. Concur— Buckley, P.J., Saxe, Ellerin, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.
#### Charles A. D’Agostino, Jr, Appellant, v Robert S. Franklin et al., Respondents.

[768 NYS2d 636]

—In an action to recover damages for fraudulent misrepresentation, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered January 30, 2003, which denied his motion for leave to enter a judgment against the defendants upon their failure to appear or answer, and (2) an order of the same court dated June 17, 2003, which granted the defendants’ motion to vacate their default in appearing or answering.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

It is well established that a party seeking to vacate a default in answering or appearing must make a showing of a justifiable excuse for the default, and a meritorious defense *(see Hazen v Bottiglieri,*286 AD2d 708 [2001]; *Miles v Blue Label Trucking,*232 AD2d 382 [1996]). In this case, the defendants made a sufficient showing of both a justifiable excuse and a meritorious defense. In addition, there was no prejudice to the plaintiff as a result of the relatively short delay. Altman, J.P., S. Miller, McGinity, Adams and Mastro, JJ., concur.
|                                                                           
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                           
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                   
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                             
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                             
|View History:                                                              
|                                                                           
|Cove Point, MD Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Poland (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                           
|                                                                           
|Cove Point, MD Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Poland (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                           

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 3,231  | 6,743 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 3,375  | 10,458 | 351    | 3,499  |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:**

__20 11

________ - NM -

____ 195

______ - AD **Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significan t? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

CYNTHIA CAPUTO , Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL CAPUTO , Appellee

.

No. 4D 15

- 2455

[ April 6, 2016 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Jeffrey Dana Gillen , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2013

- DR

004448XXXXSB

- FZ

.
Cynthia Caputo, Jupiter, pro se.

Jay A. Schwartz and Colleen E. Huott of Sachs Sax Caplan, Boca Raton, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
The appeal in this case involved the former wife’s attempt to hol d the former husband in contempt for enrolling their child in day care in Boynton Beach, near his place of employment. The trial court granted the former husband’s motion to dismiss and awarded the former husband attorney’s fees. We affirm all points on appeal regarding the dismissal because contempt could not lie where the final judgment of dissolution did not expressly address day care. See Wilcoxon v. Moller , 132 So. 3d 281, 286 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). However, we write to dismiss the portion of the

app eal directed at the award of former husband’s attorney’s fees because the order stated the amount was “to be determined at a subsequent hearing.” “An order merely finding entitlement to attorneys’ fees is a non

final, non

- appealable order.” Alexopoulos v . Gordon Hargrove & James, P.A. , 109 So. 3d 248, 250 (Fla. 4th D C A 2013).

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part

.

S TEVENSON , G ROSS and F ORST , JJ., concur.- 2

- * * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       3,192,647
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             6,650,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  6,836,993
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                     44,285,792
<ALLOWANCE>                                    674,143
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              62,331,826
<DEPOSITS>                                  53,783,842
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            304,077
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       951,580
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,292,327
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              62,331,826
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              4,066,177
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              337,830
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               210,913
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             4,614,920
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,504,334
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,504,334
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        3,110,586
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  309,161
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              2,533,498
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                444,990
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     444,990
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   444,990
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .47
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.21
<LOANS-NON>                                      4,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 52,000
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               373,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    8,000
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              674,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           674,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
|                                                                          
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                          
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                  
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                            
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                            
|View History:                                                             
|                                                                          
|Everett, MA Liquefied Natural Gas Imports From France (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                          
|                                                                          
|Everett, MA Liquefied Natural Gas Imports From France (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                          

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 0      | 2,768  | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
No. 12-6936.

No. 12-7153.

No. 12-7154.

No. 12-7155.

No. 12-7156.

No. 12-7172.

No. 12-7173.

No. 12-7174.

No. 12-7177.

No. 12-7182.

No. 12-7184.

No. 12-7185.

#### Avila et al. *v.*United States; Bell v. United States; Harden *v.*United States; Baskin *v.*United States; Battiste *v.*United States; Downs *v.*United States; Denmark *v.*United States; Daniels *v.*United States; Crumbly *v.*United States; Lamar *v.*United States; Johnson *v.*United States; Lloyd *v.*United States; *1101Jenkins *v.*United States; Scott *v.*United States; Sullivan *v.*United States; Smith *v.*United States; Stilling, aka Stillings v. United States; Smith *v.*United States; Knight *v.*United States; Jelks *v.*United States; Mills *v.*United States; McGraw *v.*United States; Murphy *v.*United States; Bell *v.*United States; Moore *v.*United States; Bellott *v.*United States; Mann *v.*United States; and Singletary *v.*United States.

No. 12-7186.

No. 12-7187.

No. 12-7188.

No. 12-7189.

No. 12-7190.

No. 12-7191.

No. 12-7192.

No. 12-7193.

No. 12-7196.

No. 12-7199.

No. 12-7200.

No. 12-7202.

No. 12-7220.

No. 12-7244.

No. 12-7285.

No. 12-7286.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 486 Fed. Appx. 756.
Exhibit 32

    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 annual report of General Bearing Corporation and
Subsidiaries (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending January 3, 2004
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Controller of the Company
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002 that based on their knowledge and belief 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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report.

Date: April 19, 2004.


/s/ David L. Gussack
--------------------------
David L. Gussack
CEO


/s/ Rocky Cambrea
--------------------------
Rocky Cambrea
Controller


                                       76
#### Sayvon THOMPSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1879

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed October 10, 2017

3.800Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Man S. Apte, Judge.

AFFIRMED.
No. 12-7531.

#### Foxworth *v.*Mississippi.

Ct. App. Miss. Cer-tiorari denied.
No. 12A509.

#### Meza *v.*Holder, Attorney General.

C. A. 5th Cir. Application for stay, addressed to The Chief Justice and referred to the Court, denied.