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

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report of Euramax International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, J. David Smith, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)         the Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)         theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial position and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ J. DAVID SMITH                     |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| J. David Smith                         |   |
| *Chairman and Chief Executive Officer* |   |
| March 31, 2005                    |   |

 

 

----
#### In the Matter of Frances Meyers, Appellant, v Department of Education of the City of New York et al., Respondents.

[55 NYS3d 16]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.), entered January 6, 2016, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denying the petition to annul the determination of respondent New York City Department of Education, dated November 5, 2014, which sustained petitioner’s unsatisfactory performance rating for the 2013-2014 school year, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s determination that petitioner’s performance as a teacher of English as a second language during the 2013-2014 school year was unsatisfactory is not arbitrary and capricious *(see Matter of Richards v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y.,*117 AD3d 605 [1st Dept 2014]; *Matter of Brennan v City of New York,*123 AD3d 607 [1st Dept 2014]). The determination is rationally supported by the principal’s detailed descriptions of petitioner’s difficulties in developing learning objectives, using lesson plans, maintaining academic rigor, meeting students’ varying needs, facilitating “accountable talk” through “higher order thinking questions,” and actively engaging students, among other things, as well as managing her classroom, and petitioner’s persistent failure to improve despite the ongoing individualized professional development support she received.

Petitioner’s contention that she was not provided with sufficient time or feedback to remediate perceived deficiencies is belied by the record.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Feinman and Gesmer, JJ.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .







                                                                   Exhibit 99-13



                               CONSENT MEMORANDUM

<Table>
<S><C>
TO:               Michigan Consolidated Gas Company Bank Group

FROM:             JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Administrative Agent
                  Barclays Bank PLC and Citigroup Global Markets Inc., as Co-Syndication Agents

RE:               Michigan Consolidated Gas Company / March 2005 Financial Covenant Consent

DATE:             May 9, 2005
</Table>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  Reference is hereby made to that certain Three-Year Credit
Agreement, dated as of October 24, 2003, by and among MICHIGAN CONSOLIDATED GAS
COMPANY, as borrower (the "Borrower"), the financial institutions from time to
time parties thereto (the "Lenders"), JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. (successor by
merger to BANK ONE, NA (MAIN OFFICE - CHICAGO)), in its individual capacity as a
Lender and in its capacity as contractual representative (the "Administrative
Agent") and BARCLAYS BANK PLC and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as
Co-Syndication Agents (as amended, restated or otherwise modified from time to
time, the "Credit Agreement"). Terms used herein and not otherwise defined
herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Credit Agreement.

                  By this memorandum and at the request of the Borrower, the
Administrative Agent is seeking your consent pursuant to Section 8.01 of the
Credit Agreement, notwithstanding the limitations set forth in Section
6.01(j)(i) of the Credit Agreement, that the Borrower shall not be required to
comply with the provisions of Section 6.01(j)(i) of the Credit Agreement for the
twelve-month period ending on March 31, 2005. The consent provided hereunder
does not amend, waive or otherwise modify any other provision of the Credit
Agreement.

                  Please indicate your consent by filling in your institution's
name and signing and dating this Consent Memorandum in the space provided below
and return one copy by fax or e-mail to the attention of Michael Harrison at
Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP, counsel to the Administrative Agent (fax number:
312/853-7036; e-mail: mharrison@sidley.com) before 10:00 a.m. (New York time) on
May 10, 2005. Upon receipt of facsimile or electronically delivered acceptances
from the Required Lenders, such consent will be effective.

                  Please do not hesitate to contact your respective business
contact at the applicable Agent with any questions you may have regarding the
foregoing.

Acknowledged and Agreed as of the
___ day of ______________________, 2005

_______________________________________
     [Insert Legal Name of Entity]


By:________________________________
Its:________________________________
160 A.3d 706

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. MATTHEW J. RAMOS, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

February 13, 2017

ON PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION

To the Appellate Division, Superior Court:

A petition for certification of the judgment in [ A-XXXXXX-XX ] having been submitted to this Court, and the Court having considered the same;

It is ORDERED that the petition for certification is denied.
|                                                                                          
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                          
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                  
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                            
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                            
|View History:                                                                             
|                                                                                          
|Price of U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Indonesia (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                          
|                                                                                          
|Price of U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Indonesia (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
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --     | 8.84   | 11.40  | 6.91   |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
#### Richardson v. Kolsun

10/13/2015

118 EAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 120 A.3d 373
EXHIBIT 32.2




CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350




In connection with the
accompanying annual report on Form 20-F/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 (the Report) of NovAtel Inc., I, Werner Gartner,
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, of NovAtel Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


|1. |  | such 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 such Report fairly represents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of NovAtel Inc.
|-- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: May 24, 2006




/s/ Werner GartnerWerner GartnerExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


---
----

----

| NAME OF COMPANY                                | COUNTRY OF ORGANIZATION | DIRECT/INDIRECT OWNERSHIP PERCENTAGE |
|------------------------------------------------|-------------------------|--------------------------------------|
| BEA Hotels NV                                  | The Netherlands         | 100%                                 |
| Elbit Medical Technologies Ltd.                | Israel                  | 93.47%                               |
| InSightec Ltd.                                 | Israel                  | 65.9% (1)                            |
| Gamida Cell Ltd.                               | Israel                  | 31.6% (2)                            |
| Elbit Plaza India Real Estate Holdings Limited | Cyprus                  | 50% (3)                              |
| Elbit Plaza USA, L.P.                          | USA                     | 100% (4)                             |
| EPN GP, LLC                                    | USA                     | 43.3% (5)                            |
| EPN EDT Holding II                             | USA                     | 43.3% (5)                            |
| EDT Retail Trust                               | Australia               | 57.1% (6)                            |
| Elbit Trade & Retail Ltd.                  | Israel                  | 100%                                 |
| Elbit Ultrasound (Luxembourg) S.a.r.l.         | Luxembourg              | 100%                                 |
| Plaza Centers N.V.                             | The Netherlands         | 62.36% (7)                           |

----

| (1) | 54.77% on a fully diluted basis, including warrants granted by InSightec Ltd. contingent upon certain rates of return as well as certain options exercisable into InSightec Ltd.'s ordinary shares. Held through Elbit Medical Technologies Ltd. |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) | Held through Elbit Medical Technologies Ltd. |
|-----|----------------------------------------------|

| (3) | We hold 47.5% of the shares in Elbit Plaza India Real Estate Holdings Limited directly, and an additional 47.5% through Plaza Centers N.V. |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (4) | We hold 50% in Elbit Plaza USA, L.P. directly, and an additional 50% through Plaza Centers N.V. |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (5) | Indirectly held through Elbit Plaza USA, L.P. |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------|

| (6) | Indirectly held through EPN GP, LLC, in which we indirectly hold 43.3%. |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (7) | Approximately 58% on a fully diluted basis. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------|

----

----
Aircastle Advisor LLC
                       300 First Stamford Place, 5th Floor
                                Stamford CT 06902

March 8, 2006

David Walton
384 Sound Beach Avenue
Old Greenwich CT 06870

Dear Dave:

     Reference is made to that certain letter agreement, dated February 3, 2005
(the "Letter Agreement"), between you and Aircastle Advisor LLC.

1.   Initial Grant.

     On and as of the date hereof you have executed a Restricted Share Agreement
     in respect of certain shares of Aircastle Investment Limited. Accordingly,
     the final two paragraphs under "Annual Discretionary Incentive
     Compensation" are deleted from the Letter Agreement.

2.   Miscellaneous.

     (a)  You confirm receipt of your "Guaranteed 2005 Bonus".

     (b)  Except as expressly set forth herein, the Letter Agreement remains in
          full force and effect, unchanged.

AIRCASTLE ADVISOR LLC


By:  /s/ Mark Zeidman
    ----------------------------

Accepted and agreed to, this 8th day of March, 2006:

/s/ David Walton
--------------------------------
David Walton
# DLA Aviation Women’s History Month Spotlight: Julia Roquemore

/ Published March 18, 2020
Richmond, Va., 
**March is Women’s History Month. The**theme**this year is “Valiant Women of the Vote,” honoring “the brave women who fought to win suffrage rights for women, and who continue to fight for the voting rights of others.” This week, the Defense Logistics Agency Aviation spotlight shines on Julia Roquemore, who is the deputy director in the Supplier Operations Commodities Directorate.**

**Name:** Julia Roquemore

**Title:** deputy director, Supplier Operations Commodities Directorate, Defense Logistics Agency Aviation

**Years of Service:** 22 years

**What does this this year’s theme mean to you?**This is an opportunity to celebrate all the accomplishments of women in this country and to highlight their accomplishments and service to this country.

**What is your most important accomplishment that you would like to share?**I feel very fortunate that I accidentally ended up in the field of contracting. This field has many great women as role models. I feel even more honored to have had great women as mentors, one of which was very frank in telling me that I needed to get my college degree to have her job. Because of her I lost my excuses and went back to college. I earned my bachelor’s degree 20 years after I received my high school diploma. This opened doors that would have never been opened to me.

**Tell us a little-known fact that most people don’t know about you.**I was raised on a small farm in northwest Oklahoma. My family instilled the values of hard work, resiliency and respect. My Dad would never give us money, but he would always give us a way to earn it. Learning how to work hard has helped me get to the place I am today.

**How important is it to you that Defense Logistics Agency Aviation recognize this month?**It is great that we celebrate all special groups throughout the year. We can all learn from the cultures and history of others.

**What would you like employees to learn from celebrating Women’s History Month?**We’ve come a long way in recognizing equality for women. When I joined the government workforce, military women were not allowed in many jobs. In the last 30 years there have been so many positive changes and I am proud to have been here to see them.
**Crop 2014 A** **mount 2015 A** **mount** Commodities 740 0 Mills and processors 22,800 0 Dried Cured Pork 3,730 3,240 Total Post Harvest 27,270 3,240 Strawberry

- field 415,067 373,660 Total Pre-Plant 415,067 373,660 **Total Use Limit** 442,337 376,900 **as % of baseline** 1.7% 1.5%

**CRITICA L USES in DECISIONS XXIV/5 and XXV/4** Pre-plant total use (as percent of total use) 93.8% Total pre-plant CUA Allowances 415,067 Post-harvest total use (as percent of total use) 6.2% Total postharvest CUA Allowances 27,270 Sum of above percentages 100.0% **Total CUAs 442,337**  **As % of baseline 1.7%** 

Pre-plant total use (as percent of total use) 99.1% Total pre-plant CUA Allowances 373,660 Post-harvest total use (as percent of total use) 0.9% Total postharvest CUA Allowances 3,240 Sum of above percentages 100.0% **Total CUAs 376,900**  **As % of baseline 1.5%**  **CUA A** **llocation Calculations**
**PRE-PLA NT vs. POST-HA** **RVEST CUA A**  **LLOCA**

**TIONS (kg) 2014**

**PRE-PLA NT vs. POST-HA** **RVEST CUA A**  **LLOCA**

**TIONS (kg) 2015 Company**  **Relative Share**  **Pre-Plant**

**Al location**  **Post Harvest**

**Al location**  Chemtura Corp. 0.6077 252,236 16,572 Alberm arle 0.2499 103,725 6,815 ICL-IP (Ameribrom) 0.1381 57,321 3,766 Trical 0.0043 1,785 117 Subtotal 1.0000 415,067 27,270 Total (kg) 442,337

**Company Relative** 

**Share Pre-Plant** 

**Al location**  **Post Harvest**

**Al location**  Chemtura Corp. 0.6077 227,073 1,969 Alberm arle 0.2499 93,378 810 ICL-IP (Ameribrom) 0.1381 51,602 447 Trical 0.0043 1,607 14 Subtotal 1.0000 373,660 3,240 Total (kg) 376,900

**Company Specific CUA A** **llowances Proposed CUE A** **llowance A llocation 2014** 

**Proposed CUE A llowance A** **llocation 2015**
# HDIFC promotes Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month 

/ Published April 16, 2020
BATTLE CREEK, Mich., 
Usually, the month is full of Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month events at the Hart-Dole-Inouye Federal Center; however due to the current pandemic the activities have been postponed but that does not mean that sexual assault awareness and prevention fall to the wayside.

“Awareness is critical because knowing about this issue means that if it happened to someone, they would know where to go for help,” said Robin Rogers, Defense Logistics Agency Sexual Assault and Response coordinator. “Many survivors don’t know who they can talk to about their assault, where to turn or even identify that it was an assault. They may feel alone, confused, scared or embarrassed. For survivors and their support people, knowing where to turn to in a crisis is a step that can impact the rest of their journey.”

President Donald Trump signed the 2020 Sexual Assault and Awareness and Prevention Month Proclamation March 31.
> 
“...No person should ever have to endure the anguish and indignity of sexual assault. This horrific crime affects Americans of every age, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. During National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month, we reaffirm our commitment to supporting survivors of sexual assault, encouraging strong criminal justice responses to these crimes, and ending the scourge of sexual violence in our homes and communities.

Sexual assault is a particularly egregious and dehumanizing form of violence. Even after physical injuries of a sexual assault have healed, emotional and mental trauma can persist. Survivors often struggle with lingering anxiety, fear, anger, shame, and depression. The devastating aftermath of sexual assault can also harm a survivor’s relationships with their loved ones. My Administration has made combating sexual assault a top priority.”

Rogers is available for associates via email and phone. She is focused on client care, victim advocacy and awareness.

“Building awareness about sexual violence is also one of the biggest steppingstones in prevention and creating change,” Rogers said. Victims need the strength of the community to prevent this crime from happening to others.”

She helps survivors and their support systems find counseling and treatment needed. She can also help associates in the case of sexual assault with the process of filing an official complaint with the Equal Employment Office or with local law enforcement.

She wants survivors to know they are not alone, and it is never their fault. No one deserves to be sexual assaulted.

If you or someone you know has been assaulted or needs assistance, they should contact their SARC or call the DLA SAPR Hotline 1-800-841-0937.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-1497

___________

Alistair Jude Oduah, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of a

v. * Decision of the Board of

* Immigration Appeals.

John Ashcroft, Attorney General, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: March 5, 2004

Filed: March 25, 2004 

___________

Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Alistair Oduah, a citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of an order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals affirming an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of his

application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention

Against Torture. After careful review of the record, we deny the petition because

substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the IJ’s conclusions. See

Menedez-Donis v. Ashcroft, 02-3692, 2004 WL 307451, at *3 (8th Cir. Feb. 19,

2004) (standard of review). The IJ concluded that Oduah was not entitled to asylum:

he had been subjected to discrimination and harassment, but not persecution, on

account of his religion, see Fisher v. INS, 291 F.3d 491, 497 (8th Cir. 2002) (slurs
-2-

and harassment from private individuals do not constitute persecution); and it was

reasonable for him to relocate to the southern part of Nigeria to avoid future conflicts,

see 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1)(i)(B).

As Oduah did not establish a clear probability of persecution or a likelihood

of torture upon his return to Nigeria, his claims for withholding of removal and relief

under the Convention Against Torture also failed. See Francois v. INS, 283 F.3d 926,

932-33 (8th Cir. 2002) (withholding standard is more onerous than asylum standard);

8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2) (burden is on applicant to show likelihood of torture upon

removal to proposed country).

Accordingly, we deny the petition.

______________________________