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



Statement
Pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



The
undersigned, Jacob D. Cohen, Chief Executive Officer, President, and Director of American International Holdings Corp., a Nevada
corporation, hereby makes the following certification as required by Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, with respect
to the following of this report filed pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: Quarterly Report of Form
10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2019.



The
undersigned certifies that the above annual report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and information contained in the above annual report fairly presents, in all respects, the financial condition of
American International Holdings Corp. and results of its operations.



|Date:
    November 19, 2019                         | 
|--------------------------------------------------- | 
|                                                    | 
|/s/
    Jacob D. Cohen                              | 
|Jacob
    D. Cohen                                  | 
|Chief
    Executive Officer, President and Director | 



A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to American International Holdings Corp.,
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, John Chieffo,  Chief Financial Officer of
Pruco Life Insurance Company of New Jersey (the "Company"),  hereby certify that
the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the quarter ended December 31, 2004
(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and that the  information  contained in the
Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial  condition and
results of operations of the Company.

Dated: March 30, 2005

                                                /s/ John Chieffo
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Name: John Chieffo
                                                Title:  Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing  certification  is being  furnished  solely  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section  1350 and is not  being  filed as part of the  Report  or as a  separate
disclosure document.


                                       28
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 172 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 172

  To prohibit Federal funds for any State, local, Tribal, or private 
 entity that operates or controls an injection center in violation of 
 section 416 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 856; commonly 
              referred to as the ``Crack House Statute'').

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2025

 Ms. Malliotakis introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
            the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit Federal funds for any State, local, Tribal, or private 
 entity that operates or controls an injection center in violation of 
 section 416 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 856; commonly 
              referred to as the ``Crack House Statute'').

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Defund Heroin Injection Centers Act 
of 2025''.

SEC. 2. NO FEDERAL FUNDS FOR ENTITIES OPERATING UNLAWFUL INJECTION 
              CENTERS.

    No Federal funds may be made available to any State, local, Tribal, 
or private entity that operates or controls an injection center in 
violation of section 416 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
856; commonly referred to as the ``Crack House Statute'').
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 77 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 77

 To amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide for en 
    bloc consideration in resolutions of disapproval for ``midnight 
                    rules'', and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2025

   Mr. Biggs of Arizona (for himself, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Grothman, Mr. 
   Brecheen, and Mr. Ogles) introduced the following bill; which was 
  referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the 
 Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide for en 
    bloc consideration in resolutions of disapproval for ``midnight 
                    rules'', and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Midnight Rules Relief Act''.

SEC. 2. EN BLOC CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS OF DISAPPROVAL PERTAINING 
              TO ``MIDNIGHT RULES''.

    (a) In General.--Section 801(d) of title 5, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(4) In applying section 802 to rules described under paragraph 
(1), a joint resolution of disapproval may contain one or more such 
rules if the report under subsection (a)(1)(A) for each such rule was 
submitted during the final year of a President's term.''.
    (b) Text of Resolving Clause.--Section 802(a) of title 5, United 
States Code, is amended--
            (1) by inserting after ``resolving clause of which is'' the 
        following: ``(except as otherwise provided in this 
        subsection)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following: ``In the case of a 
        joint resolution under section 801(d)(4), the matter after the 
        resolving clause of such resolution shall be as follows: `That 
        Congress disapproves the following rules: the rule submitted by 
        the __ relating to __; and the rule submitted by the __ 
        relating to __. Such rules shall have no force or effect.' (The 
        blank spaces being appropriately filled in and additional 
        clauses describing additional rules to be included as 
        necessary).''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, B. Steven Springrose, certify that:


1.
        I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Biotel Inc.;


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;


3.
        Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;


4.
        The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:


(a)
        Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;


(b)
        Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and


(c)
        Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely, to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and


5.
        The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):


(a)
        All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and


(b)
        Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.


Date:  February 11, 2008
        By:
        /s/ B. Steven SpringroseChief Executive Officer and President




---
#### N. E. Jones, *Appellant,*v. Roberta Rice, a Widow, *Appellee.*

Division B.

Decision Filed November 7, 1927.

*880
      *W. G. Bamseur,*for Appellant;

*V. S. Parham,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

-This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the- transcript of the record of the order herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said order; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said order of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Order entered September 9 , 2016

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 16

- 00473

- CV

TIMOTHY JOHN WHALEN AND THE WHALEN LAW F IRM, PLLC, Appellant s

V.

CHARLES WILLIAM JOHN SON, Appellee

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 14

- 04182



### O RDER

We GRANT appellee’s September 8, 2016 third motion to extend time to file his brief

and ORDER appellee’s brief filed no later than October 11, 2016

.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART

JUSTICE
A98A0951.

#### DAVIS v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF GEORGIA, INC.

(525 SE2d 161)

Andrews, Presiding Judge.

The Supreme Court, in *Davis v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan &c.,*271 Ga. 508 (521 SE2d 815) (1999), reversed our decision in *Davis v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan &c.,*235 Ga. App. 13 (508 SE2d 431) (1998), in which we affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Accordingly, our opinion is vacated, the judgment of the Supreme Court is made the judgment of this Court, and the judgment of the trial court is reversed.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Johnson, C. J., and Smith, J., concur.*

*774Decided November 12, 1999.

*Larry R. Wight, Patrick J. Gibbs,*for appellant.

*Dennis, Corry, Porter & Gray, Grant B. Smith, John D. Dixon, Thomas C. MacDiarmid,*for appellee.

*Reynolds & McArthur, Charles M. Cork III,*amicus curiae.
Case 3:04-cr-00289-O Document 198 Filed 07/05/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 1409
Exhibit 4.1


 


BADGER METER, INC.


 


CERTIFICATE OF ADJUSTMENT


 


I, Richard E. Johnson, Senior Vice President-Finance, and Chief Financial Officer of Badger Meter, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation (the “Company”), in accordance with Section 12 of the Rights Agreement, dated as of February 15, 2008 (the “Rights Agreement”), between the Company and American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, a New York corporation (the “Rights Agent”), DO HEREBY CERTIFY:


 


1.  That on August 12, 2016 the Board of Directors of the Company approved a stock split to be effected in the form of a 100% stock dividend on all of the issued and outstanding shares of common stock of the Company (the “Common Stock”), payable on September 15, 2016 to holders of record as of the close of business on August 31, 2016 (the “Record Date”).


 


2.  That Section 11(a) of the Rights Agreement provides that the Purchase Price (as defined in the Rights Agreement) shall be proportionally adjusted as set forth in such Section in the event the Company subdivides the outstanding shares of Common Stock.


 


3.  That, pursuant to said Section 11(a) of the Rights Agreement, the Purchase Price for each share of Common Stock pursuant to the exercise of Rights (as defined in the Rights Agreement) shall be $100.00 effective as of the Record Date, subject to further adjustment as set forth in the Rights Agreement.


 


4.  That Section 11(i) of the Rights Agreement provides that the number of Rights associated with each share of Common Stock may be adjusted in lieu of any adjustment in the number of Common Stock purchasable upon the exercise of a Right in the event the Company declares a dividend on the Common Stock payable in Common Stock prior to the Distribution Date or Shares Acquisition Date (both, as defined in the Rights Agreement).


 


5.  That neither the Distribution Date nor the Shares Acquisition Date has occurred.


 


6.  That, pursuant to Section 11(i) of the Rights Agreement, the number of Rights associated with each share of Common Stock outstanding on the Record Date, or issued or delivered thereafter prior to the Distribution Date, shall remain the same so that on and after the Payment Date, one Right is associated with each share of Common Stock issued and outstanding.


 


7.  That this Certificate is being delivered to the Rights Agent and being filed with each transfer agent for the Common Stock in accordance with Section 12 of the Rights Agreement.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this Certificate on behalf of the Company and do affirm the foregoing as true as of the 25th day of August, 2016.


 



	
 

	
              /s/ Richard E. Johnson


	
 

	
Richard E. Johnson


	
 

	
Senior Vice President-Finance, Chief Financial Officer









 


2
EXHIBIT 32.1






Statement Pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002






The undersigned, Sherry Couturier, CFO of Hammonds Industries, Inc., a Nevada corporation, hereby makes the following certification as required by Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, with respect to the following of this report filed pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: Quarterly Report
of Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009.






The undersigned certifies that the above annual report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and information contained in the above quarterly report fairly presents, in all respects, the financial condition of Hammonds Industries, Inc. and results of its operations.






Date:  February 23, 2010


Sherry Couturier


CFO


/s/ Sherry Couturier
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 U.S. Shipping Partners L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Paul B. Gridley, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of US Shipping General Partner LLC, the general partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

          (i) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

|   | /s/ PAUL B.   GRIDLEY             |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   |                                        |
|   | Paul B.   Gridley                      |
|   | Chairman and   Chief Executive Officer |
|   | November 10,   2005                    |

          A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to U.S. Shipping Partners L.P. and will be retained by U.S. Shipping Partners L.P. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-40553

(Summary Calendar)

 

DANNY RENE SMITH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BILL SKINNER, SHERIFF OF WOOD COUNTY, 

WILLIAM “BILL” COHEN, JAIL ADMINISTRATOR, 

JAMES ROBERTS, DEPUTY, NOEL MARTIN, DEPUTY,

JAMES TURNER, DEPUTY, CHUCK HOUGHTON, 

DEPUTY AND JAILER,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

(USDC No. 6:96-CV-463)

- - - - - - - - - -

December 17, 1997

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Danny Rene Smith, Texas prisoner number 708840, appeals the

dismissal of his § 1983 action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915. Smith alleged confiscation of personal property, that the

prison food was inadequate, and that he was kept in “isolationsegregation” in violation of his due process rights as a pretrial

detainee. He also requests appointment of appellate counsel. The
2

request for appointment of appellate counsel is DENIED.

Smith’s motion for a “special monitor” is frivolous. It is

therefore DENIED. 

A pretrial detainee’s claims that conditions of confinement

are unconstitutional is reviewed under the Due Process Clause of

the Fourteenth Amendment. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535-

37 (1979); Hare v. City of Corinth, Miss., 74 F.3d 633, 639 (5th

Cir. 1996)(en banc). Smith had no due process right to be assigned

to the general prison population. Mitchell v. Sheriff Dept.,

Lubbock County, Tex., 995 F.2d 60, 62-63 (5th Cir. 1993). 

Smith’s claim regarding the prison food is equally meritless.

He has not shown that the food was not reasonably adequate and

consisting of sufficient nutritional value, or that he was not

regularly fed. Green v. Ferrell, 801 F.2d 765, 770-71 and n.5 (5th

Cir. 1986). 

Smith’s confiscation-of-property claim was adjudicated in his

prior § 1983 action; he does not argue that res judicata does not

apply, and he has not alleged that another confiscation occurred

subsequent to that adjudication. 

Smith’s appeal is without arguable merit, and it is thus

frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.

1983). It is therefore DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

The district court’s dismissal of Smith’s complaint and this

court’s dismissal of the appeal count as two “strikes” under the
3

Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS DENIED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

VS. ) CASE NO.: 3:04-CR-272-M (04)

)

ENRIQUE MANTEROLA-MUEDANO )

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

After reviewing all relevant matters of record, including the Notice Regarding Entry of a

Plea of Guilty, the consent of the defendant, and the Report and Recommendation Concerning

Plea of Guilty of the United States Magistrate Judge, and no objections thereto having been filed

within ten days of service in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the undersigned District

Judge is of the opinion that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge Concerning

Plea of Guilty is correct, and it is hereby accepted by the Court. Accordingly, the Court accepts

the plea of guilty, and also acceptsthe plea agreement, and the Defendant is hereby adjudged guilty.

Sentence will be imposed in accordance with the Court’s scheduling order.

SIGNED this 12th day of January, 2009.

_________________________________

BARBARA M. G. LYNN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
I 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 234 

To allow certain veterans to use high occupancy vehicle lanes, including 

toll lanes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 7, 2025 

Ms. MALLIOTAKIS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To allow certain veterans to use high occupancy vehicle lanes, 

including toll lanes. 

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 ‘‘HOV Lanes for Heroes 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. HOV FACILITIES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 166(b) of title 23, United 

8 States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the fol9 lowing: 

10 ‘‘(7) DISABLED VETERANS.— 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 234 IH

1 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The public authority 

2 may allow a disabled veteran to use the HOV 

3 facility if such veteran has a license plate that 

4 clearly identifies the vehicle, a registered trans5 ponder, or other method of identification the 

6 public authority considers necessary for quali7 fication. 

8 ‘‘(B) DEFINITION OF DISABLED VET9 ERAN.—For purposes of this paragraph, the 

10 term ‘disabled veteran’ means a veteran (as 

11 such term is defined in section 101 of title 38) 

12 who the Secretary of Veterans Affairs has de13 termined has a service-connected (as such term 

14 is defined in such section) disability rated at or 

15 above a percentage determined to be qualifying 

16 by the public authority. 

17 ‘‘(C) OCCUPANCY EXCEPTION.—Notwith18 standing the occupancy requirement of sub19 section (a)(2), 1 occupant described in subpara20 graph (B) of this paragraph may be permitted 

21 to use a HOV facility. 

22 ‘‘(D) NO CHARGE FOR TOLLS.—Under this 

23 paragraph, a public authority may charge no 

24 toll.’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 234 IH

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 166 of 

2 such title is further amended— 

3 (1) in subsection (b)(1) by striking ‘‘through 

4 (5)’’ and inserting ‘‘through (7)’’; and 

5 (2) in subsection (d)(1) by striking ‘‘paragraph 

6 (4) or (5)’’ and inserting ‘‘paragraph (4), (5), (6), 

7 or (7)’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS