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

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

The undersigned, Kenneth Hicks, of Argentex Mining Corporation,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A of Argentex Mining
Corporation for the interim period ended July 31, 2007 (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
Argentex Mining Corporation

Dated: April 8, 2008

|/s/
      Kenneth Hicks       | 
|----------------------------- | 
|Kenneth Hicks                 | 
|President and Director        | 
|(Principal Executive Officer) | 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Argentex Mining
Corporation and will be retained by Argentex Mining Corporation and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 494 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 494

  To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to expand the 
        authority of non-Federal interests to levy harbor fees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 1, 2005

 Mr. Rohrabacher introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
           the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to expand the 
        authority of non-Federal interests to levy harbor fees.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 208(a) of 
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2236(a)) is 
amended--
            (1) by inserting ``or container fees'' after ``tonnage 
        duties or fees'';
            (2) in paragraph (1)(A)--
                    (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (i);
                    (B) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (ii) 
                and inserting ``or''; and
                    (C) by inserting after clause (ii) the following:
                    ``(iii) to finance the cost of construction and 
                operation and maintenance of any infrastructure project 
                for a harbor, including an infrastructure project 
                outside the boundaries of the harbor if the project is 
                for transportation to, from, or through the harbor; 
                and''; and
            (3) in paragraph (1)(B) by inserting ``and security'' after 
        ``emergency response''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 09-9997.

#### Riviera Marshall, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1115, 130 S. Ct. 2426,

176 L. Ed. 2d 939,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3792.

May 3, 2010.

Petition for writ of certio-rari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 360 Fed. Appx. 24.
No. 09-8329.

#### Joshua B. Shapiro, Petitioner v. Nolan L. Agner.

559 U.S. 993, 130 S. Ct. 1738,

176 L. Ed. 2d 215,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2316,

March 8, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia denied.
No. 09-498.

No. 09-499.

#### Ismael John, et al., Petitioners v. United States. People of Bikini, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1048, 130 S. Ct. 2340,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2937.

176 L. Ed. 2d 560,

April 5, 2010.

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

Same cases below, 554 F.3d 996.
SCPW-14-00000567

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent,

vs.

ROY ALAN COSTA, Petitioner.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(CR. NO. 00-1-0253)

ORDER DENYING “MOTION RULE 16. GOVERNMENT DISCOVERY

INSPECTION AND DISCLOSURE . . , MOTION TO DISAGREE

DECISION’S APPEAL FROM THE SECOND CIRCUIT COURT’S JUDGMENT

FROM WHICH THE APPEAL IS TAKEN, SHOULD NOT BE AFFIRMED”

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ., and

Circuit Judge Nakasone, assigned by reason of vacancy)

Upon consideration of petitioner Roy Costa’s document

entitled “Motion Rule 16. Government Discovery Inspection and

Disclosure . . , Motion to Disagree Decision’s Appeal from the

Second Circuit Court’s Judgment from which the Appeal is Taken,

Should not be Affirmed”, which was filed as a petition for a writ

of mandamus on March 18, 2014, and the record, it appears that

petitioner fails to demonstrate that he has a clear and

indisputable right to the requested relief and that he lacks

alternative means to seek relief. An extraordinary writ,

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-14-0000567

08-APR-2014

11:13 AM
therefore, is not warranted. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200,

204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (a writ of mandamus is an

extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner

demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack

of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or

obtain the requested action); Honolulu Advertiser, Inc. v. Takao,

59 Haw. 237, 241, 580 P.2d 58, 62 (1978) (a writ of mandamus is

not intended to supersede the legal discretionary authority of

the trial courts, cure a mere legal error, or serve as a legal

remedy in lieu of normal appellate procedure). Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate

court shall process the petition for a writ of mandamus without

payment of the filing fee.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the petition is

denied. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, April 8, 2014.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-1655

___________ Roselyn Daniels, * * Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the District * of South Dakota. Wyodak Resources Development; * Black Hills Corporation, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: October 22, 1999

Filed: October 28, 1999

___________ Before McMILLIAN, LAY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Roselyn Daniels appeals the district court's denial of Daniels's motion to amend her complaint to add claims of sexual harassment and pregnancy discrimination. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties' arguments, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow Daniels to amend her complaint. See Bell v. Allstate Life Ins. Co. , 160 F.3d 452, 454 (8th Cir. 1998) ("Proper justification for denying [a motion to amend] includes: 'undue delay [or] futility of amendment.'"). As the district court stated, the motion to amend was untimely, having been made almost four months after the court-extended deadline for-2-

motions had passed and more than five months after the discovery deadline had expired, and would have prejudiced Wyodak Resources Development (Wyodak) and Black Hills Corporation (Black Hills) because the proposed amendment involved different factual and legal issues than those alleged in the original complaint and would have required additional discovery. See id. As the district court also concluded, the motion to amend would have been futile because Daniels did not properly present her proposed claims of sexual harassment and pregnancy discrimination to the EEOC before filing this action in the district court. See Shempert v. Harwick Chem. Corp. , 151 F.3d 793, 796-97 (8th Cir. 1998) (employer entitled to summary judgment because employee did not present her Title VII claims in valid administrative charge to EEOC), cert. denied , 119 S. Ct. 1028 (1999). Daniels also appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment to Wyodak and Black Hills on Daniels's gender discrimination claim. Having made a thorough inquiry, we conclude the district court is correct and the record supports the district court's ruling. Because the parties' submissions show they are familiar with the issues before this court and the law that controls our decision, we believe an extended discussion would serve no useful purpose. We thus affirm for the reasons set out in the district court's order. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**Exhibit
      32.2**




**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 Cirracor, Inc. a Nevada corporation
      (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2006, as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Reed
      Fisher, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his
      knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Cirracor, Inc., and will be retained by Cirracor, Inc. and furnished to the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




Date: August
              14, 2006
            By:
            /s/ Reed
              FisherReed Fisher
              Chief Financial
                Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4702 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4702

  To amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate the time 
 limitation for corrections to wage and self-employment income records.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 7, 2006

  Mr. Frank of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate the time 
 limitation for corrections to wage and self-employment income records.

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

SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF TIME LIMITATION FOR CORRECTIONS TO WAGE AND 
              SELF-EMPLOYMENT INCOME RECORDS.

    (a) In General.--Section 205(c)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 405(c)(4)) is amended to read as follows:
    ``(4) If it is brought to the Commissioner's attention that any 
entry of wages or self-employment income in the Commissioner's records 
is erroneous or that any item of wages or self-employment income has 
been omitted from such records, the Commissioner may correct such entry 
or include such omitted item in such records, as the case may be.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 205(c) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
405(c)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking subparagraph (B) and 
        redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) as subparagraphs (B) 
        and (C), respectively; and
            (2) by striking paragraphs (5) and (6) and redesignating 
        paragraphs (7), (8), and (9) as paragraphs (5), (6), and (7), 
        respectively.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to errors 
or omissions occurring before, on, or after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
### SERVED: September 16,2013

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTEROF 

### MESA AIRLINES, INC. FAA DOCKETNo. [TO BEASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Case) DMS No. FAA-2013-0614
ORDER OF DISMISSAL OnJuly 10, 2013, the Federal Aviation Administration ("Complainant") filed a Complaint. Respondent MesaAirlines, Inc. ("Respondent") had onJuly 3, 2013 requested a hearing. On September 13, 2013, Respondent withdrew its Request for Hearing, citing settlement. 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.215 states: "At any time before or during a hearing, an agency attorney may withdraw a complaint orpartymay withdraw a request for a hearing withoutthe consent ofthe administrative lawjudge. Ifan agency attorney withdraws the complaint or a party withdraws the request for a hearing and the answer, the administrative lawjudge shall dismiss the proceedings under this subpart withprejudice." WHEREFORE, the within filed Withdrawal ofRequest for Hearing, having beenread and considered, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. Respondent's Withdrawal ofRequest for Hearing be and is hereby granted; and

### 2
2. This proceeding be and is hereby dismissed withprejudice.

# rflMC~JJ Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative Law Judge Attachment

- Service List3

SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2Wl000 1
Christopher Pappaioanou, Vice President

and General Counsel MesaAir Group 410 N. 44th Street, Suite 100 Phoenix, AZ 85008 TEL: 602-685-4000 FAX: 602-685-4350 Robert C. Cohn, Respondent's Counsel Patrick R. Rizzi, Respondent 's Counsel Hogan Lovells US LLP Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20004 TEL: 202-637-4999/5659 FAX: 202-637-5910 robert.cohn@hoganlovells.com patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com ONE COPY

Theodore P. Byrne, Complainant's Counsel Attorney, Office ofRegional Counsel Western-Pacific Region, AWP-7 Federal Aviation Administration P.O. Box 92007 Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 TEL: 310-725-7112 FAX: 310-725-6816 FDMS No. FAA-2013-0614 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.4

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536
No. 09-9823.

#### Anthony A. Thomas, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1100, 130 S. Ct. 2392,

176 L. Ed. 2d 782,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3593.

April 26, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 349 Fed. Appx. 829.
DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES

SAFETY BOARD

Washington, DC 20004-2901

October 10, 2023

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

DIVERSITY POLICY STATEMENT

The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) is committed to fostering, cultivating, 

and preserving a culture of diversity, inclusion, and respect. Workforce diversity is a collection 

of individual attributes that together are the cornerstones of high organizational performance. 

All individuals are welcome at DNFSB, and all individuals, regardless of race, skin color, 

religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age, 

disability, genetic information, political affiliation, marital or parental status, or participation in 

prior equal employment opportunity (EEO) activity, will be treated with respect and dignity. 

Workforce diversity also encompasses differences of thought and life experiences. By fostering 

an atmosphere of inclusion and respect, we can continue to value and appreciate the strengths 

afforded by differences in the styles, ideas, and organizational contributions of each person.

DNFSB’s diversity initiatives apply across the spectrum from recruitment to retirement, from 

compensation to education, and from professional development to personal improvement. Our 

diversity initiatives do not stop there, and we are striving to continue developing a work 

environment built on core values of excellence, respect, and integrity.

It is the policy of DNFSB to develop and maintain workforce diversity. Ensuring diversity helps 

create a positive work environment to actively embrace these principles in all that we do to 

deliver the best services and to make DNFSB a best place to work based on principles of 

diversity.

___________________________________

Joyce L. Connery

Chair
NUMBERS 13-09-00412-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

______________________________________________________________

UVALDO CANTU, JR. AND RUBEN M. TORRES, JR., Appellants,

v.

FROST NATIONAL BANK, Appellee.

_____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 404th District Court 

of Cameron County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellants, Uvaldo Cantu, Jr. and Ruben Torres, Jr., perfected an appeal from a

judgment entered by the 404th District Court of Cameron County, Texas, in cause number

2007-07-3680-G (Ed Carey Development, L.P., et. al. v. Frost National Bank appellate

cause number 13-09-00081-CV). This cause is presently before the Court on an
2

unopposed motion to partially dismiss the appeal filed by appellants, Uvaldo Cantu, Jr. and

Ruben M. Torres, Jr. Appellants, Uvaldo Cantu, Jr. and Ruben M. Torres, Jr., request that

this Court dismiss their appeal because they have settled their portion of the case and no

longer wish to pursue the appeal. 

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellants’ motion to

dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.1(a). Appellants’ motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

In accordance with the agreement of the parties, costs are taxed against the party incurring

same. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d). Having dismissed the appeal at appellants’ request,

no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this 6th day of August, 2009.
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 Zaldiva, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB-A2 for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly Report"), we, Nicole Leigh van Coller, President, and Christopher R. Ebersole, CFO 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:  (1) The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.   Dated: 7-11-07                         /s/Nicole Leigh van Coller ----------                       -------------------------- Nicole Leigh van Coller President  Dated: 7-11-07                         /s/Christopher R. Ebersole ----------                       -------------------------- Christopher R. Ebersole CFO
No. 11-621.

#### Michael Howard, et al., Petitioners v. Criminal Information Services, Inc., et al.; and Dawn Rodriguez, et al., Petitioners v. AMPCO Parking Systems, et al.

565 U.S. 1178, 132 S. Ct. 1144,

181 L. Ed. 2d 1019,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 1056.

January 23, 2012.

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

Same case below, 654 F.3d 887.
No. 09-5728.

#### Darren Hollis, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 964, 130 S. Ct. 1572,

176 L. Ed. 2d 155,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1082.

February 22, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 558 U.S. 1051, 130 S. Ct. 740, 175 L. Ed. 2d 521, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 8626.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

April 13, 2022

N o. 04

- 22

- 00068

- CV

IN RE STATE OF TEXAS

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

On February 3, 2022, r elator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. On March 21, 2022, relator filed a motion to withdraw its mandamus petition based on the trial court’s entry of a final judgment disposing of relator’s forfeiture suit. Accordingly, relator’s motion to withdraw its petition is GRANTED and this original mandamus procee ding is DISMISSED AS MOOT.

It is so ORDERED on April 13, 2022

.

_________________________________ Liza A. Rodriguez , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 13th day of April, 2022

.

_____________________________ Michael A. Cruz , Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 20

- 04

- 38777

- MCVAJA, styled State of Texas v. Six Hundred Eight Thousand One Hundred Seventy

- Seven Dollars and No Cents in United States Currency and 2007 Chevrolet G

- 3500 Van VIN#

1GAHG39U971127428

, pending in the 36 5th Judicial District Court, Maverick County, Texas , the Honorable Amado J. Abascal, III presiding.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

IAN XAVIER MAUTE, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 251 MAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 29th day of October, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

is DENIED.