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

I, Raymond N. Joeckel, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Eagle Exploration Company, (the
Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:



|(1) | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13
(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Dated: February 17, 2009



/s/ Raymond N. JoeckelName:

Raymond N. JoeckelTitle:

President and Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2695 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2695

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To rename the Success Dam in Tulare County, California, as the Richard 
                            L. Schafer Dam.

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

SECTION 1. RENAMING OF DAM.

    (a) Renaming.--The Success Dam in Tulare County, California, shall 
hereafter be known and designated as the ``Richard L. Schafer Dam''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in any law, regulation, map, 
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the dam 
referred to in subsection (a) shall be considered to be a reference to 
the Richard L. Schafer Dam.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 10, 2019.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
116th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2695

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To rename the Success Dam in Tulare County, California, as the Richard 
                            L. Schafer Dam.
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    VOYAGER ENTERTAINMENT INTERNATIONAL, INC.

        CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2010, as filed by Voyager Entertainment International, Inc. with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of Voyager
Entertainment International, Inc.


Date: March 29, 2011

                                     /s/ Richard L. Hannigan, Sr.
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     President and Chief Executive Officer
                                     (Principal Executive and Financial Officer)
Cost summit helps build customer trust, understanding
 
  By Dianne Ryder
                                          Scott and Poleo indicated that TRANSCOM and Coast Guard representatives, who both  attended the summit for the first time, have a standing invitation to future summits.  Poleo also noted the summits were productive and increased DLA’s credibility with its customers.
#### In the Matter of Gerard Hayden, Appellant, v William J. Bratton, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York and Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund, Article II, et al., Respondents.

[66 NYS3d 115]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arthur F. Engoron, J.), entered August 12, 2016, which denied the petition to annul respondents’ determination, dated August 12, 2015, denying petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement, and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner failed to establish a causal connection between his disabling condition, acoustic neuroma, which has not been previously recognized as a “new onset disease! ],” under Retirement and Social Security Law § 2 (36) (c) (v), and his exposure to World Trade Center contaminants (see *Matter of Ryan v Kelly,*154 AD3d 629 [1st Dept 2017]; *Matter of Stavropoulos v Bratton,*148 AD3d 449, 453 [1st Dept 2017]). Petitioner’s neuro-oncologist, his only physician to comment on causation, stated that “ [i]t is *possible*that . . . exposure may have contributed to pathogenesis.” This combination of “possible” and “may” consists of speculation, which, absent explanation or supporting medical, epidemiological, or other evidence, does not satisfy the evidentiary standard for previously unrecognized “new onset diseases” *(see Stavropoulos*at 453). There is no basis to set aside the finding of the Board of Trustees, reached by a tie vote, as a matter of law *(see Matter of Meyer v Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund,*90 NY2d 139, 145 [1997]).

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

Concur—Richter, J.P., Tom, Kapnick, Kern and Moulton, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A (the Report) of Double Eagle Petroleum Co. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2012, each of Richard Dole, the
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Kurtis S. Hooley, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
the best of the undersigned's 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 (15 U.S.C 78m or 78o(d)); and (2) the information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Report.



|                  |  |                                           
|----------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|Date: May 3, 2013 |  | /s/ Richard Dole                          
|                  |  | Principal Executive Officer               
|                  |  | Chief Executive Officer                   
|                  | 
|                  |  | /s/ Kurtis S. Hooley                      
|                  |  | Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
|                  |  | Chief Operating Officer
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2483

To amend the Small Business Act, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 30 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 12), 1994

Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself and Mr. HEFLIN) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Small Business

A BILL

To amend the Small Business Act, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Minority Small Busi5 ness Preservation Act of 1994’’.

6 SEC. 2. SUSPENSION OF DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM GRAD7 UATIONS.

8 Section 7(j)(10)(C) of the Small Business Act (15

9 U.S.C. 636(j)(10)(C)) is amended—

10 (1) by redesignating clause (ii) as clause (iii);

11 and
2

•S 2483 IS

1 (2) by inserting after clause (i) the following

2 new clause:

3 ‘‘(ii) A small business concern that, as

4 of October 1, 1993, is participating in any

5 program or activity conducted under this

6 paragraph or is eligible for the award of

7 contracts pursuant to section 8(a), shall be

8 permitted continued participation in such

9 program or activity and continued eligi10 bility under section 8(a), until the later

11 of—

12 ‘‘(I) 365 days after the date on

13 which final regulations are issued to

14 implement a law establishing appro15 priate terms for participation in the

16 Program by industry sector, based on

17 the study conducted pursuant to sec18 tion 10(i); or

19 ‘‘(II) the date on which such par20 ticipation and eligibility would other21 wise expire under this subsection.’’.

Æ
No. 10-7189.

#### In re Donabel Martinez-Herrera, Petitioner.

562 U.S. 1059, 131 S. Ct. 676,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9290.

178 L. Ed. 2d 517,

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
No. 09-10893.

#### Sheila Dennis, Petitioner v. City of Aventura, Florida, et al.

562 U.S. 1086, 131 S. Ct. 690,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9131.

178 L. Ed. 2d 520,

November 29, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 855, 131 S. Ct. 118,178 L. Ed. 2d 72, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 6318.
# C_2015081EN.01001601.xml

| 9.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 81/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 81/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2015 — Pro-Aqua International v OHIM — Rexair (WET DUST CAN’T FLY)

(Case T-133/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark WET DUST CAN’T FLY - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 081/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Pro-Aqua International GmbH (Ansbach, Germany) (represented by: T. Raible, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: M. Rajh and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Rexair LLC (Troy, Michigan, United States of America) (represented by A. Bayer, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 December 2012 (Case R 211/2012-2), concerning invalidity proceedings between Pro-Aqua International GmbH and Rexair LLC.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Pro-Aqua International GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Pro-Aqua International GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.

1

---
```

[Federal Register: July 28, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 144)]
[Notices]               
[Page 44215]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28jy10-36]                         

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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

 
Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the District of Columbia 
Advisory Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act, that planning and briefing meetings of the 
District of Columbia Advisory Committee will convene at 10 a.m. on 
Thursday, September 16, 2010, at the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 
624 Ninth Street, NW., Conference Room 540, Washington, DC 20425. The 
purpose of the briefing meeting is for the Committee to gather 
information on Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing in the District. 
The purpose of the planning meeting is to discuss the Committee's next 
steps.
    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the 
comments must be received in the regional office by Friday, October 15, 
2010. The address is the Eastern Regional Office, 624 Ninth Street, 
NW., Suite 740, Washington, DC 20425. Persons wishing to e-mail their 
comments, or who desire additional information should contact the 
Eastern Regional Office at 202-376-7533 or by e-mail to: ero@usccr.gov.
    Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require 
the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional 
Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the 
meeting.
    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced 
at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before 
and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory 
committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the above 
e-mail or street address.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the rules and regulations 
of the Commission and FACA.

    Dated in Washington, DC, July 23, 2010.
Peter Minarik,
Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 2010-18480 Filed 7-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```
No. 10-6322.

#### Stacey Ian Humphreys, Petitioner v. Georgia.

562 U.S. 1046, 131 S. Ct. 599,

178 L. Ed. 2d 438,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8958.

November 15, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Georgia denied.

Same case below, 287 Ga. 63, 694 S.E.2d 316.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

The undersigned officer of Albany Molecular Research, Inc. (the“Company”) hereby certifies to his knowledge that the Company’s quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q to which this certification is attached (the“Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “ExchangeAct”), and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany. This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350 and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K(“Item 601(b)(32)”) promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, asamended (the “Securities Act”), and the Exchange Act. In accordance withclause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32), this certification (A) shall notbe deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, orotherwise subject to the liability of that section, and (B) shall not bedeemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Actor the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specificallyincorporates it by reference.

 

 
| Date:   August 8, 2005 | /s/ Mark T. Frost                                                            |
|-----------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                        | Name: Mark T. Frost  Title: Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer |

 

----
#### People v Baxter

2d Dept: 140 AD3d 1180 (Rockland)

denied 3/2/17 (Rivera, J.)
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 Quarterly Report of Sunburst Acquisitions VII, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form  10-QSB  for the period ending  March 31, 2005
(the "Report"),  I, Jay Lutsky,  Principal  Executive  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:

1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.



/s/ Jay Lutsky
-----------------------
Principal Executive Officer
November 8, 2005
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 10.1

                               TIMOTHY M. DONAHUE
                             10128 HIGH HILL COURT
                          GREAT FALLS, VIRGINIA 22066

                               December 15, 2004

Board of Directors
Nextel Communications, Inc.
2001 Edmund Halley Drive
Reston, Virginia 20191

                         LIMITED WAIVER OF GOOD REASON
                         -----------------------------

Dear Board of Directors:

              Reference is made to (i) the Employment Agreement, dated as of
July 1, 2003, between me and Nextel Communications, Inc. (the "Company") and
(ii) the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of December 15, 2004, by and
among Sprint Corporation, a Kansas corporation ("Sprint"), the Company and a
Delaware corporation wholly owned by Sprint (the "Merger Agreement").

              This will confirm that, during the period commencing at the
"Effective Time" (as defined in the Merger Agreement) and ending six months
following the Effective Time (the "Waiver Period"), I shall not claim that my
having the titles and duties assigned to the "Chairman" in Exhibit D to the
Merger Agreement (the "Chairman Duties and Responsibilities") is a basis to
claim that a "Good Reason" (as defined in the Employment Agreement) has
occurred. This does not constitute a waiver of my right, if any, to claim that
any other action of or inaction by the "Company" (for this purpose meaning as
such term is used in the Agreement) constitutes Good Reason, whether occurring
before, during or after the Waiver Period, nor to claim that my assuming the
Chairman Duties and Responsibilities constitutes Good Reason following the
Waiver Period (and I specifically do not consent to my assumption of the
Chairman Duties and Responsibilities for purposes of Section 9(f)(ii) of the
Agreement).

                                             Very truly yours,

                                             /s/ TIMOTHY M. DONAHUE
No. 10-6738.

No. 10-6776.

#### Mary Helen Quaintance, Petitioner v. United States. Danuel Dean Quaintance, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1019, 131 S. Ct. 544,

178 L. Ed. 2d 399,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8383.

November 1, 2010.

Petitions for writs of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Same cases below, 608 F.3d 717.
# DLA Distribution Acquisition shows dedication to Better Buying Power initiative with training

/ Published March 4, 2016
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
Better Buying Power is the implementation of best practices to strengthen the Defense Department's buying power, improve industry productivity, and provide an affordable, value-added military capability to the warfighter.  While the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act already requires acquisition specialists to complete trainings for their career certifications, individuals are now also required to complete 80-credit learning points within a 24-month period.  As a result, DLA Distribution Acquisition Operations director Gene Surmacz has established a standard commitment, “Our Team is First,” which is designed to provide opportunities for professional and personal growth while establishing an environment for success.  

“Team members are our most valuable resource; professional acquisition employees cannot be mass produced,” explains Surmacz. The same idea is also raised in Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Frank Kendall’s “Better Buying Power Principle  #5,” which states “ People matter most; we can never be too professional or too competent.”

With the ever changing push to learn more, achieve an advanced education and multi task, it seems difficult to believe that acquisition specialists have the desire to want to surpass their required training. Recognizing this, DLA Distribution Acquisition offers every opportunity for individuals to reach beyond the fundamentals and realize their business cravings.  Some of the recent training offerings that have been provided are developmental-operations cross training, COR training, Lunch and Learn events and in-house training.

“When we take the time and effort to educate our workforce, we will develop individuals who will be empowered to get us where we need to be,” said Surmacz.

In addition to training opportunities, one DLA Distribution Acquisition’s employee has completed a rotational assignment at the Pentagon under the Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy Exchange Program, while another employee is currently participating in a program that provides regional awareness by interacting with other DLA distribution centers.  Opportunities like these strengthen the workforce and allow DLA to retain individuals that understand the extent of the agency and Better Buying Power.

 “The original goal of Better Buying Power, which was to do more without more, remains our overriding focus,” explains Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work.
#### Abdul Wahid, Respondent, v Marie L. Shelto, Appellant.

[49 NYS3d 700]

*859In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dufficy, J.), entered March 25, 2015, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

On July 5, 2014, the plaintiff allegedly sustained personal injuries when his pushcart collided with the defendant’s vehicle. After issue was joined, the defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, alleging in an affidavit that she was stopped at a traffic light, with one or two vehicles in front of her, for approximately 15 seconds, when the plaintiff’s pushcart collided with her vehicle on the rear passenger side, breaking the rear window on the passenger side. The defendant also submitted a police report, which recorded the plaintiff’s statements that he was pushing a pushcart in the street when the wheel got stuck in a pothole and, as he was trying to right the cart, it got away from him and struck the plaintiff’s vehicle, breaking the passenger side rear quarter window. At that point, an unknown vehicle struck the plaintiff on his left ankle and fled the scene. In opposition, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit, in which he averred that the defendant’s vehicle “came into contact with my body, causing me serious injuries.”

In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendant appeals.

The defendant met her initial burden as the movant of demonstrating, prima facie, that she was not negligent in the happening of the accident and that she could not be held liable for the plaintiff’s injuries *(see Rieman v Smith,*302 AD2d 510 [2003]; *Fiscella v Gibbs,*261 AD2d 572 [1999]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]).

The parties’ remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be addressed in light of our determination.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Dillon, J.P., Roman, Hinds-Radix and Barros, JJ., concur.