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  the  Quarterly  Report  of  Entech  Environmental
Technologies,  Inc.,  a  Florida corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for
the  period  ended  December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission  on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Burr Northrop, Chief 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 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.

Dated:  March 30, 2005.

                                       /s/  Burr Northrop
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Burr Northrop, President and Chief
                                       Financial Officer of Entech Environmental
                                       Technologies, Inc.


<PAGE>
Dennis Dudek 

is being inducted into the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Hall of Fame this fifth day of 

November for his outstanding mission support from 1977 through 2009. Mr. Dudek was an 

outstanding logistician whose vision and willingness to explore new and better ways of doing 

business brought change and improved practices, as well as numerous accolades to DLA Troop 

Support and the entire Defense Logistics Agency. Although he spent most of his career in Clothing 

and Textiles, he also served as the director of the Business Systems Modernization Office and the 

Electronic Commerce Office. Many of the improvements implemented during his career remain as 

DLA Troop Support standard business practices. Mr. Dudek empowered his employees, provided 

them with ample educational opportunities and set goals, allowing his employees to find ways to 

meet them. As a result of his leadership, his commodity business unit was recognized as the 

standard for the agency. Implementing Army Direct Ordering, with deliveries of items to the 

foxhole in as little as 11 days, earned the agency the Supply Chain Operational Excellence Award 

for all of the Department of Defense in 2005. Mr. Dudek also earned multiple awards for his support 

and work with the Ability One program. His dedication during his tenure at DLA Troop Support set 

him apart from his peers. We have, and will continue to, benefit from the contributions and 

leadership of Mr. Dudek. 

Hall of Fame Inductees Page 1 of 1

https://www.troopsupport.dla.mil/about_us/ddudek.htm 1/20/2016
No. 11-6158.

#### William Holmes, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 955, 132 S. Ct. 431,

181 L. Ed. 2d 280,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7221.

October 11, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.

Same case below, 429 Fed. Appx. 7.
ssvioisyid 03iyoS3Hd <& 

### cS1 

# r»;25«i|* „,

jit^,J 

# <oCuf 

# S|S<g U- 5 Z 2 U. p ui K O co a. q. o I o CO o 

### C\f 00

I DC

LU DC 

# r

CO LU
O X

X 0. 

# *> & ujQo 

# o£cr ZtnL LU 3 U co c a 

### OS I



### a: do u
.:Pi

rffi
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 (1984); Kirksey v.

State, 112 Nev. 980, 987, 923 P.2d 1102, 1107 (1996). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by not conducting an evidentiary hearing, see NRS 34.770(2); Nika v. State, 124 Nev. 1272, 1300-01, 198 P.3d 839, 858 (2008) (holding that a petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing only when specific factual allegations are asserted "that are not belied or repelled by the record and that, if true, wouldentitle him to relief"), and did not err by rejecting Bates' ineffectiveassistance claims.

Bates also contends that "NRAP 3C has a chilling effect on the constitutional right to direct appeal and the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel on direct appeal." In its order dismissing the petition, the district court noted that Bates failed to present any facts or authority in support of this claim. We have consistently rejected this argument, as Bates concedes, and again point out that NRAP 3C complies with the due process requirements of the state and federal constitutions. See Wood v. State, 115 Nev. 344, 352, 990 P.2d 786, 791 (1999). Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err by rejecting this claim, and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.



## / Hardesty

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A ittgargttg6 .4, 1 , . KMIAMMEMilMcc: Hon. Brent T. Adams, District Judge Karla K. Butko Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A 3

az :LleaNnit1111111111111BEINEWASEMEMONNIMMOr
# 19 Months
Deliver the right solution on time, every time

WARFIGHTER FIRST - PEOPLE & CULTURE - STRATEGIC ENGAGEMENT - FINANCIAL STEWARDSHIP - PROCESS EXCELLENCE

DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM

Strategic Priorities

Mission: Integrate and synchronize DLA enterprise operations in the CENTCOM and SOCOM Areas of Responsibility (AORs). Provide the 

supported Warfighter and DLA enterprise with credible and reliable timely information about DLA capabilities and Warfighter requirements. 

Provide C2 over the DLA organizations, Warfighter Support Representatives (WSR), and Liaison Officers (LNO) in the CENTCOM AOR and in 

support of SOCOM missions. 

 Warfighter First Mentality

 People and Culture

 Financial Stewardship

 Process Excellence

 See, Hear, Share, and Act Culture

 Force Protection and Safety

 Set, Reset, and Sustain the Theater

 CENTCOM family of plans support

 Strategic Partner Integration

 Contingencies and Humanitarian

Assistance / Disaster Relief Support

Enduring Priorities

Vision/Endstate: DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM is proactively prepared to meet all COCOM sustainment mission requirements, across the 

full range of military operations throughout the CENTCOM and SOCOM AORs. We are an organization of dynamic leaders and strong 

teams where proactive action and initiative are the norm, where we take pride in mission accomplishment, and forging a resilient

military and civilian work force. 

FY 17-18

Priorities

TAN 

Utilization

Customer/ Supplier 

Collaboration

FY 17-18

Priorities

Posture DLA

Capabilities

Exercise 

Support

DST/WSR 

Integration

Strategic 

Partnering 

FY 17-18

Priorities

Strengthen Partnerships 

IAW DLA Priorities

Workforce 

Analysis

Future Mission 

Analysis

FY 17-18

Priorities SHARP/Safety Healthy Command Climate Training and 

Development

Planning and 

Forecasting 

Accuracy 

OFS/OIR Support

Optimize 

Global 

Distribution 

Train and Sustain DSTs

Cultivate a Resilient Team

Support to CENTCOM and SOCOM 

Continuous Process Improvement

FY 17-18

Priorities

Pre-Deployment 

Training

Build Relationships with 

PLFAs and DLA 

Headquarters

Integrated 

Personnel COP

Integrate Strategic 

Partners into all Training 

and Planning

LOE 2.

LOE 1.

LOE 5.

LOE 4.

LOE 3.

C2 Initiative

Risk Mitigation

Support to DLA Director’s Priorities

Theater Distribution
No. 11-177.

#### Eric E. Alt, et al., Petitioners v. Robertson Stephens Group, Inc.

565 U.S. 944, 132 S. Ct. 415,

181 L. Ed. 2d 259,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7403.

October 11, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.

*260Same case below, 638 F.3d 70.
If there were a vaccine against cancer, wouldn’t you get it for your kids?

HPV vaccine is cancer prevention. Talk to the doctor about

 vaccinating your 11–12 year old sons and daughters against HPV.

www.cdc.gov/vaccines/teens

CS250577-D

HPV vaccine is

cancer prevention. 

Talk to the doctor 

about vaccinating

your 11–12 year old

sons and daughters 

against HPV.

www.cdc.gov/vaccines/teens

If there were a 

vaccine against

cancer, wouldn’t

you get it for

your kids?

June 2015
Exhibit 31.1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13A-14(A) and 15D-14(A),


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Simon Turner, certify that:


1.             I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K/A of Venator Materials PLC; and


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.





Date: April 29, 2020


/s/ Simon TurnerSimon TurnerChief Executive Officer
No. 11-6853.

#### Latchmie Narayan Too-lasprashad, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1043, 132 S. Ct. 594,

181 L. Ed. 2d 436,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8164.

November 14, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 430 Fed. Appx. 240.
ex10-22.htm


EXHIBIT 10.22


 


TRANSFER AND ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT


 


This Transfer and Assignment Agreement (this “Agreement”) is made and entered into effective as of May 6, 2011, by and between Juhl Wind, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Assignor”), and Juhl Wind Asset Investment, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Assignee”).


 


WHEREAS on April 28, 2011, Assignor purchased a 99.9% of the existing ownership interests of Woodstock Hills LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Woodstock Hills Interest”), which operates a 10.2 megawatt wind-powered electric generating facility near Woodstock, Minnesota; and


 


WHEREAS Assignee is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Assignor.


 


NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the promises and the respective undertakings of the parties hereto hereinafter set forth, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:


 


1.           Assignment of the Woodstock Hills Interest.  Assignor does hereby sell and transfer on an “as-is” basis, to Assignee all of Assignor’s right, title, and interest in and to the Woodstock Hills Interest.


 


2.           Assumption of the Woodstock Hills Interest.  Assignee hereby accepts the assignment to it set forth in Section 1 above, hereby assumes all of the obligations of Assignor relating to the Woodstock Hills Interest.


 


3.           Further Documents. The parties hereto agree to execute such further documents and take such actions as may be reasonably required to further evidence, confirm and effectuate the transfer of ownership of the Woodstock Hills Interest.


 


4.           Binding Effect.  This Agreement shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, the parties hereto and their respective successors and permitted assigns.


 


5.           Governing Law.  This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota without regard to the principles of conflicts of laws thereof.


 


6.           Counterparts; Facsimile Signatures.  This Agreement may be executed in more than one counterpart, including by facsimile signature, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which collectively will constitute one and the same instrument.


 


[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]


 




  





  











  






IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into this Agreement as of and on the date first written above.


 


ASSIGNOR:


 



	
JUHL WIND, INC.


	
By /s/ John Mitola 


	
Name: John Mitola


	
Title: President












 


ASSIGNEE:


 



	
JUHL WIND ASSET INVESTMENT, INC.


	
By /s/ Daniel Juhl 


	
Name: Daniel Juhl


	
Title: Chief Executive Officer
No. 11-6102.

#### Jonathan Lewis, Petitioner v. Florida, et al.

565 U.S. 984, 132 S. Ct. 511,

181 L. Ed. 2d 360,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7852.

October 31, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, denied.

Same case below, 58 So. 3d 264.
ID Descriptor L* a* b* c h dL* da* db* dEcmc*

Standard 16298 STANDARD 17.59 0.17 -1.31

Tolerance

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Shade Number BLACK 3243 Piece/Roll Number 16298

DLA/NAVY SHADE TOLERANCE PROJECT July 17, 2017

Fabric Nomenclature CLOTH, WATERPROOF AND 

MOISTURE VAPOR PERMEABLE PD 03-16

COMMENTS: NUMBERS ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY 

Equipment Type HUNTER ULTRA SCAN PRO Setting Mode: Specular Included - 

Reflectance

UV Filter – OUT UV Lamp 

OFF
No. 10-11145.

#### Corey Davis, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 933, 132 S. Ct. 377,

181 L. Ed. 2d 238,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6378.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

*239Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
No. 11-6021.

#### Robert Sapanara, Petitioner v. Todd Thomas, Warden.

565 U.S. 982, 132 S. Ct. 505,

181 L. Ed. 2d 356,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7777.

October 31, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
**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 the Quarterly Report of theglobe.com, inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael S. Egan,
      Chief
      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
      to
      the best of my 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.




*Date:
                July 23, 2007*
            By:
            /s/*Michael
                S. Egan**Michael
                S. Egan**Chief
                Executive Officer*
91

Section C: Recommended Funding Levels, by State

Illinois

Program Intervention Budgets: 2014

Recommended Annual Investment $136.7 million

Deaths in State Caused by Smoking

Annual average smoking-attributable deaths 18,300

Youth aged 0-17 projected to die from smoking 230,400

Annual Costs Incurred in State from Smoking

Total medical $5,496 million

State Revenue from Tobacco Sales and Settlement

FY 2012 tobacco tax revenue $608.8 million

FY 2012 tobacco settlement payment $273.7 million

Total state revenue from tobacco sales and settlement $882.5 million

Percent Tobacco Revenue to Fund at Recommended Level 15%

Annual Total (Millions) Annual Per Capita

Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended

I. State and Community Interventions 

Multiple social resources working together will 

have the greatest long-term population impact.

$36.1 $45.2 $2.80 $3.51

II. Mass-Reach Health Communication Interventions 

Media interventions work to prevent smoking initiation, 

promote cessation, and shape social norms.

$15.9 $22.8 $1.23 $1.77

III. Cessation Interventions 

Tobacco use treatment is effective and highly cost-effective. $31.7 $50.9 $2.46 $3.95

IV. Surveillance and Evaluation 

Publicly funded programs should be accountable and 

demonstrate effectiveness.

$8.4 $11.9 $0.65 $0.92

V. Infrastructure, Administration, and Management 

Complex, integrated programs require experienced 

staff to provide fiscal management, accountability, 

and coordination.

$4.2 $5.9 $0.32 $0.46

TOTAL $96.3 $136.7 $7.46 $10.61

Note: A justification for each program element and the rationale for the budget estimates are provided in Section A. The funding estimates presented are based on adjustments for changes in population and cost-of-living increases since Best Practices—2007 was published. The actual 

funding required for implementing programs will vary depending on state characteristics, such as prevalence of tobacco use, sociodemographic 

factors, and other factors. See Appendix E for data sources on deaths, costs, revenue, and state-specific factors. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention • Office on Smoking and Health

www.cdc.gov/tobacco • tobaccoinfo@cdc.gov • 1 (800) CDC-INFO or 1 (800) 232-4636 

2014
ID Descriptor L* a* b* c h dL* da* db* dEcmc*

Standard 3863 STANDARD 39.12 5.04 19.38

Tolerance

1 3863A FULL BLUE 

LIMIT 38.83 5.23 19.26 -0.29 0.19 -0.12 0.30

2 3863B RED LIMIT 40.11 5.79 20.26 0.99 0.75 0.88 1.03

3 3863C THIN REDVIOLET LIMIT 40.34 5.61 19.15 1.22 0.57 -0.23 0.97

4 3863D THIN GREEN 

LIMIT 40.61 4.42 19.74 1.49 -0.62 0.36 1.14

5 3863E FULL GREEN 

LIMIT 37.68 4.85 18.85 -1.44 -0.19 -0.53 0.83

6

7

8

9

COMMENTS: NUMBERS ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY 

Equipment Type HUNTER ULTRA SCAN PRO Setting Mode: Specular Included - 

Reflectance

UV Filter – OUT UV Lamp OFF

Shade Number COYOTE 498 Piece/Roll Number 3863

DLA/MARINE CORP SHADE TOLERANCE PROJECT December 29, 2017

Fabric Nomenclature CAP, HARDFACE, MICROFLEECE MC/PD-04-2011

SYSCOM
Skip directly to site content Skip directly to search


Español  Other Languages


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC twenty four seven. Saving Lives, Protecting People
 Search
		×
			Vaccines site
			Vaccines site
				All CDC
				Submit
			For a full list of topics:A-Z Index
			Advanced Search
		Advanced Search


Immunization Education & Training








Provider Education Resources						Print
																Related Pages
										Use this filter/sort tool to quickly find relevant provider education resources to use or share.
Looking for resources for yourself or your patients? Visit the Communication Resources page.
Want to share CDC web content on your website? Visit our Content Syndication page.
loading...
							
					
							Last Reviewed:  May 17, 2022						Source: 	National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases
					Facebook
        Twitter
        LinkedIn
        Syndicate homeEducation and Training Home
You Call The Shots
Current Issues in Immunization Webinar (CIIW)
Immunization Coursesplus icon
General Best Practice Guidelines for Immunization
Surveillance Trainings & Videos
Vaccine Communication Coursesplus icon
Foster a Culture of Immunization
Continuing Education
Immunization MMWRs
Pink Book Webinars
Patient Education
Provider Education Resources
Quality Improvement Projects
Workforce Improvement Projects Vaccines & ImmunizationsVISACIP RecommendationsSchedules


About CDC
					Contact Us
					800-232-4636
 Facebook Twitter Instagram LinkedIn Youtube Pinterest Snapchat
 CONTACT CDC
				Contact Us
							Call 800-232-4636
							Email Us
			ABOUT CDC
				About CDC
							Jobs
							Funding
			POLICIES
				Accessibility
							External Links
							Privacy
							Policies
							No Fear Act
							FOIA
							OIG
							Nondiscrimination
							Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
			CONNECT WITH US
				Facebook
								Twitter
								Instagram
								LinkedIn
							Youtube
								Pinterest
								Snapchat
								Email
			LANGUAGES
				Español
							繁體中文
							Tiếng Việt
							한국어
							Tagalog
							Русский
							العربية
							Kreyòl Ayisyen
							Français
							Polski
							Português
							Italiano
							Deutsch
							日本語
							فارسی
							English


U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
			Accessibility
			External Links
			Privacy
			Policies
			No Fear Act
			FOIA
			Nondiscrimination
			OIG
			Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
			USA.gov


Exit Notification / Disclaimer Policy Close
 Links with this icon  indicate that you are leaving the CDC website. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot attest to the accuracy of a non-federal website.
				Linking to a non-federal website does not constitute an endorsement by CDC or any of its employees of the sponsors or the information and products presented on the website.
				You will be subject to the destination website's privacy policy when you follow the link.
				CDC is not responsible for Section 508 compliance (accessibility) on other federal or private website. Website Disclaimers
 Cancel Continue
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6990

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DERRELL LAMONT GILCHRIST,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:02-cr-00245-DKC-1)

Submitted: December 11, 2020 Decided: December 15, 2020

Before WILKINSON and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derrell Lamont Gilchrist, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Derrell Lamont Gilchrist seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. 

Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 

Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gilchrist has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the motion for a certificate of 

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
No. 11-6860.

#### Emiliano Ramirez-Garcia, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1043, 132 S. Ct. 595,

181 L. Ed. 2d 436,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8271.

November 14, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 646 F.3d 778.