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

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION



<PAGE>



                                  Exhibit 32.1



                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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  accompanying  Annual  Report  on Form  10-K of  Legacy
Technology Holdings, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2011, I, Redgie Green,
Chief  Executive  Officer  and Chief  Accounting  Officer  of Legacy  Technology
Holdings,  Inc., hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  to my  knowledge,
that:

a)   such Annual Report on Form 10-K of Legacy Technology Holdings, Inc. for the
     year ended  December 31, 2011,  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of
     section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

b)   the  information  contained  in such  Annual  Report on Form 10-K of Legacy
     Technology  Holdings,  Inc. for the year ended  December  31, 2009,  fairly
     presents, in all material respects,  the financial condition and results of
     operations of Legacy Technology Holdings, Inc.


Date:  December 18, 2012

            /s/Redgie Green
            -----------------------------
            Redgie Green, Chief Executive Officer
            & Acting Chief Accounting Officer
            (Principal Executive Officer & Acting Principal Accounting Officer)



This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
STATE of Louisiana v. Timothy MOLL

No. 2018-KK-1520

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

December 17, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE 23RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF ST. JAMES**

PER CURIAM

**Writ Granted** . Under the particular facts of this case, the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the August 9, 2012 Scientific Analysis Report issued by the Louisiana State Police Crime Lab as a sanction for the State's failure to produce the subpoenaed evidence. Importantly, the trial court's continuance of trial has cured any prejudice to defendant caused by the State's failure to timely produce the requested documentation, and the trial court has modified the defendant's pre-trial status to home incarceration. Since the State has once again failed to comply with its discovery obligations by not producing color copies of the requested documentation, we remand to the trial court to provide the State with the opportunity to fully comply with the trial court's order or risk imposition of sanctions. *See* La. C.Cr.P. art. 729.5(A).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4516

GEORGE WILSON MCGRAW,

Defendant-Appellant. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4517

GEORGE WILSON MCGRAW

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley.

Elizabeth V. Hallanan, Senior District Judge.

(CR-93-227)

Submitted: May 31, 2002

Decided: June 20, 2002

Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 
COUNSEL

Tracy Weese, Shepherdstown, West Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey

Warner, United States Attorney, Samuel D. Marsh, Assistant United

States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

George Wilson McGraw appeals the district court’s revocation of

his supervised release and related imposition of a twelve-month sentence. McGraw claims that there was insufficient evidence to support

a finding that he violated a condition of his supervised release and

that the district court erred in failing to specify in its order which state

law McGraw violated. We review these challenges for abuse of discretion. United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir. 1992).

After carefully reviewing the record and the district court’s order, we

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. 

The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, proved that McGraw placed a telephone call to his ex-wife,

Rebecca McCoy, reminding her of his prior threat to return from

prison and kill her. McCoy felt sufficiently threatened to call the

police to report the threat and request protection. The district court

explicitly stated that the issue amounted to a credibility determination

and credited the testimony of McCoy and the Government witnesses

over McGraw and his witnesses. Because the decision rests upon the

district court’s credibility determination, its decision may not be disturbed. United States v. Saunders, 886 F.2d 56, 60 (4th Cir. 1989). 

We also conclude that the district court did not err by referencing

the violation alleged in the petition for revocation of supervised

release instead of reciting the specific violation of state law alleged.

2 UNITED STATES v. MCGRAW
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

UNITED STATES v. MCGRAW 3
Vincent J. BRUNO v. Kenneth KNIGHT and 3rd Rock Solar Systems, LLC

NO. 2018-CC-1833

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

December 17, 2018

*345Stay denied. Writ denied.
| TO:  | Seabridge Gold Inc.United States Securities and Exchange Commission |
|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Re:  | Seabridge Gold Inc. (the "Company")Consent of Expert |
|-----------|------------------------------------------------------|

|   | · | 2012 KSM (Kerr-Sulphurets-Mitchell) Prefeasibility Study dated June 22, 2012 and amended November 11, 2014 (the "Report") |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 5. | consent to the public filing of the Report and the use of any extracts from or a summary of the Report in the 40-F and the Registration Statement; |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 6. | consent to the use of my name and Tetra Tech WEI Inc.'s name and references to the Report, or portions thereof, in the 40-F and the Registration Statement and to the inclusion or incorporation by reference of information derived from the Report in the 40-F and Registration Statement; |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 7. | confirm that I have read the 40-F and the Registration Statement and that they fairly and accurately represent the information in the sections of the Report for which I am responsible; and |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 8. | confirm that I have read the 40-F and the Registration Statement and have no reason to believe that there are any misrepresentations in the information contained therein that are derived from the Report or that are within my knowledge as a result of the services performed by me in connection with the Report. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|    |   | Yours truly,                |
|--------------|--------|-----------------------------|
|         |   |                        |
|         |   |                        |
|         |   | /s/ Hassan Ghaffari, P.Eng. |
|         |   | Hassan Ghaffari, P.Eng.     |
Matthew VOSILA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-922

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[November 29, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
Jason MALONE as Personal Representative of the Estate of Robina Malone, Appellant, v. James Burton SOUDER, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-613

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed December 11, 2018

Joseph C. Shoemaker, of Bogin, Munns & Munns, P.A., Leesburg, for Appellant.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

COHEN, C.J., TORPY and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
A.M., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3680

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 25, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 25 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 25

 Recognizing Linemen, the profession of Linemen, and the contributions 
 of these brave men and women to protect public safety, and expressing 
    support for designation of April 18, 2013, as National Lineman 
                           Appreciation Day.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 14, 2013

 Mr. Gingrey of Georgia submitted the following resolution; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Recognizing Linemen, the profession of Linemen, and the contributions 
 of these brave men and women to protect public safety, and expressing 
    support for designation of April 18, 2013, as National Lineman 
                           Appreciation Day.

Whereas the profession of Linemen is steeped in personal, family, and 
        professional tradition;
Whereas Linemen are often first responders during storms and other catastrophic 
        events where these brave men and women work to make the scene safe for 
        the other public safety heroes;
Whereas Linemen work with thousands of volts of electricity high atop power 
        lines 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, to keep electricity flowing;
Whereas Linemen must often work under dangerous conditions far from their 
        families to construct and maintain the Nation's energy infrastructure;
Whereas Linemen put their lives on the line every day with little recognition or 
        appreciation from the community regarding the danger of their work; and
Whereas April 18, 2013, would be an appropriate date to designate as National 
        Lineman Appreciation Day: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes the efforts of Linemen in keeping the power 
        on and protecting public safety; and
            (2) supports the designation of National Lineman 
        Appreciation Day.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.2.11
                             As of February 8, 2006

Globis Asia LLC
1239 Veeder Drive
Hewlett, NY  11557
Attn: Paul Packer

Gentlemen:

The undersigned hereby agrees to transfer to you 4,000 shares ("Shares") of
common stock, par value $.001 per share, of Asia Automotive Acquisition
Corporation ("Company"), a blank check company organized for the purpose of
effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition or other similar
business combination with an automotive operating business that has its primary
operating facilities located in Asia, in exchange for $100.

By agreeing to the foregoing transfer, you understand that the Shares have not
been registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities
Act"); that you are acquiring the Shares for your account for investment
purposes only; that you have no present intention of selling or otherwise
disposing of the Shares in violation of the Securities Act; that you are an
"accredited investor" as defined by Rule 501 of Regulation D promulgated under
the Securities Act; and that, based solely on a review of the Registration
Statement on Form S-1, as amended to date, filed with the SEC, you are familiar
with the proposed business, management, financial condition, and affairs of the
Company.

Very truly yours,

Chun Yi Hao


Agreed to:
Globis Asia LLC


By:
    ---------------
    Name:
    Title:
#### UNITED STATES v. STRICKLAND TRANSP. CO., Inc.

No. 14215.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

May 15, 1953.

*326Joseph Kovner, Edward H. Hickey, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., Warren E. Burger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frank B. Potter, U. S. Atty., Tom M. Shaw, Wm. Cantrell, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., Dallas, Tex., for appellant.

Ralph W. Currie, Dallas, Tex., for ap-pellee.

Before HOLMES, STRUM and RIVES, Circuit Judges.

STRUM, Circuit Judge.

Appellee, Strickland Transportation Company, recovered judgment below for sums alleged to be due it by appellant for transportation charges on internal combustion engines shipped by the United States, and billed as such. .

The United States claims that the applicable tariff is that prescribed' for internal combustion engines under the heading of “Automobile Parts,” or “Agricultural Implements,” while the carrier claims that since the engines are designed for use in airplanes they fall within the classification “Aircraft Parts NOIBN” (not otherwise indexed by name), the latter carrying a much higher freight rate than internal combustion engines in the National Motor Freight Classification Tariff.

The trial court sustained the carrier’s contentions, and awarded it a recovery for the difference in the two rates, as the United States, though originally paying at the higher rate, had made deductions from sums due for other shipments, which finally reduced the payment to the lower rate.

The determinative question here presented is precisely the same as in U. S. v. Strickland Transp. Co., 5 Cir., 200 F.2d 234, 235, decided after the judgment on appeal was rendered. It was there held by this court in a suit between these same parties, on facts precisely the same in principle, that engines such as these should be classified as “Engines, steam or internal combustion, NOI” (not otherwise indexed) under the general heading “Machinery, or Machines or Parts Named”, which take a low rate, and not as “Aircraft Parts,” which take a higher rate. This is because the term “internal combustion engines” more precisely describes the articles shipped, than the term “airplane parts,” and, being more specific, is the applicable rating. It was further held in the last cited case that articles shipped are to be classified according to their nature and essential character at the time of shipment, disregarding the future use to which *they might*be put, but if such articles could come under either of two- classifications the ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the shipper, and the lower rate applied. Compare U. S. v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co., 5 Cir., 194 F.2d 777.

As the United States has paid in full under the applicable (low) rate, the judgment awarding recovery under the higher rate must be, and is hereby, reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Reversed and remanded.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7348

MICHAEL S. GORBEY, 

 Plaintiff – Appellant, 

 v. 

STATE OF VIRGINIA, Commonwealth of Virginia, State Capital; 

COUNTY OF CULPEPER, VIRGINIA; CLERK’S OFFICE, General 

District Court, 

 Defendants – Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District 

Judge. (2:09-cv-00205-RAJ-JEB) 

Submitted: December 17, 2009 Decided: January 5, 2010 

Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Michael S. Gorbey, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 Michael S. Gorbey appeals the district court's order 

dismissing this action without prejudice because Gorbey failed 

to comply with a court order.* We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially 

on the reasoning of the district court. Gorbey v. Virginia, 

No. 2:09-cv-00205-RAJ-JEB (E.D. Va. June 25, 2009). We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

 *

 The district court ordered Gorbey to pay a filing fee and 

complete a questionnaire particularizing the factual allegations 

of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim or risk dismissal of the action.
Second Amendment to Amended and Restated Customer Business Agreement



 Exhibit 10.1 
 Execution Version 
 SECOND AMENDMENT 
 TO AMENDED AND RESTATED CUSTOMER BUSINESS AGREEMENT 
 This Second Amendment (the “Second
Amendment”) is made to that certain Amended and Restated Customer Business Agreement made as of December 27, 2006 (as previously amended, the “Agreement”), by and between MasterCard International Incorporated (together
with its Affiliates, “MasterCard”) and Bank of America, N.A. (together with its Affiliates, “BAC”). Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the
Agreement. Except as expressly modified herein, all terms of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect as stated in the Agreement and, in the event of a conflict between the terms of this Second Amendment and the Agreement, the terms of
this Second Amendment shall govern. 
  

	1.	MasterCard and BAC hereby agree to amend Section 4.9.A of the Agreement by deleting the second sentence therein in its entirety and replacing it with the following:


 “Notwithstanding the foregoing, the certain obligations and provisions within **** that are explicitly set forth in
Exhibits G1 and G2 attached hereto (the “****”) shall survive unaltered and shall operate in accordance with their terms only, for the term of the applicable agreement or as otherwise stated within such agreement.” 
  

	2.	MasterCard and BAC hereby agree to amend Exhibit G2 of the Agreement by adding the following two rows to the **** table ****: 

  

					
	 ****
  
	  	 ****
  
	  	 ****
  

	****	  	****	  	****

 ****. 








	3.	The provisions of this Second Amendment are hereby incorporated by reference into, and constitute an integral part of, the Agreement. MasterCard and BAC acknowledge and agree that
each shall be bound and obligated to perform all of its respective obligations under the Agreement as amended hereby, and that all references in the Agreement to “the Agreement” shall mean and include the Agreement, as amended by this
Second Amendment. Except as provided herein, the Agreement is ratified and reaffirmed upon the terms stated therein. 

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
parties have entered into this Amendment as of the last date written below. 
  

					
	BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Anish Shah

		 	Name:	  	Anish Shah
		 	Title:	  	SVP, Debit Executive
		 	Date:	  	6/19/08

 MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED 
  

					
	By:	 	 /s/ Chris McWilton

		 	Name:	  	Chris McWilton
		 	Title:	  	President, Global Accounts
		 	Date:	  	6/13/08

  

 2
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Earth

Filters

              - science_science(6)
              - products_publications(12)
              - (-)products_web_tools(1)
              - multimedia_video(2)
              - multimedia_video-149195(1)
              - multimedia_video-149196(1)
              - news_news-149245(2)
              - news_news-149248(1)
              - news_news-149249(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(1)
              - california(1)
              - hawaii(1)
              - montana(1)
              - (-)new mexico(1)
              - oregon(1)
              - south dakota(2)
              - virginia(1)
              - washington(2)

## By Year

Data Visualization        November 28, 2023        Restoration of the Sulphur Springs Geothermal Area, Valles Caldera National Preserve: Evaluation of surface water quality and geothermal resources before, during, and after restoration
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Transition to Aging Research for Predoctoral Students.                    

*Date:*                         March 12-13, 2025.                    

*Time:*                         9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Address:*                         National Institute on Aging, 5601 Fishers Lane, Suite 8B, Rockville, MD 20892.                    

*Meeting Format:*                         Virtual Meeting.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Catrina Sims Robinson, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, 5601 Fishers Lane, Suite 2E500, Rockville, MD 20814, (202) 815-0761,                         *catrina.robinson@nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: December 13, 2024.

Miguelina Perez,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2024-30116 Filed 12-18-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Joseph CANNISTRA, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Kevin RODRIGUEZ, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-3882

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 19, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.