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

                                                                    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 Alpha Technologies Group,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending January 25, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("Report"),
Lawrence Butler, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and James J.
Polakiewicz, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each 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:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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.

Date:  March 10, 2004             By: /s/ Lawrence Butler
                                      ----------------------
                                      Lawrence Butler
                                             Chief Executive Officer
                                             (Principal Executive Officer)

Date:  March 10, 2004             By: /s/ James J. Polakiewicz
                                      ------------------------
                                      James J. Polakiewicz
                                             Chief Financial Officer
                                             (Principal Financial and Accounting
                                             Officer)

         The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed
as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.

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

                                       20
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Jonathan I. Schwartz, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Sun Microsystems, Inc. on Form 10-Q
for the period ended March 29, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material
respects the financial condition and results of operations of Sun Microsystems, Inc.



|                  |  |        |  |                         
|----------------- |  | ------ |  | ------------------------
|Date: May 7, 2009 |  | By:    |  | /s/ JONATHAN I. SCHWARTZ
|                  |  | Name:  |  | Jonathan I. Schwartz    
|                  |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer
**
**EXHIBIT 32**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT**

**TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sabine Royalty Trust (the “Trust”) onForm 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, not in its individual capacitybut solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge: 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended; and 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Trust. 

 

SIMMONS BANK, TRUSTEE FOR

SABINE ROYALTYTRUST
By: /s/ Ron E. Hooper
Ron E. Hooper

SVP, Royalty Trust Management

Date: May 7, 2020 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Sabine Royalty Trust and will be retained by Sabine Royalty Trust and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 
**
EXHIBIT  4.1

MARK  SHERMAN,  CPA  PROFESSIONAL  CORPORATION
                             601 SOUTH RANCHO DRIVE
                                    SUITE D32
                          LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89107-4827

<PAGE>


PHONE:  (702)  645-6318
FAX:  (702)  645-1604
<PAGE>

                                                                          MEMBER
                              AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                                  NEVADA SOCIETY OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

<PAGE>


November  19,  2003

Board  of  Directors
Astir,  Inc.
1855  East  Valley  Parkway  211E
Escondido,  CA  92027

To  Whom  It  May  Concern:

This  letter  shall  serve as my resignation as independent public accountant of
Astir,  Inc.  as  of today; however, no work has been performed since August 14,
2003 by my firm and I disclaim any opinion with respect to any information since
that  time.  No  issues  existed  with  regard  to  fees and no disagreements or
conflicts  with  regard  to  Generally  Accepted  Accounting  Principles.


Very  Truly  Yours,


Mark  Sherman
Carl Allen NAKAGAWA, petitioner, v. NORTH RANGE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH.

No. 12M127.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
Cathy M. SPRIGGS, petitioner, v. SENIOR SERVICES OF SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA, et al.

No. 12-8902.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2013.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied. Petitioner allowed until May, 13, 2013, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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

I, James J. Polakiewicz, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Alpha Technologies Group, 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 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) (Intentionally left blank)

c) 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

d) 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 (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
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 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 registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

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.

/s/ James J. Polakiewicz
------------------------
James J. Polakiewicz
Chief Financial Officer
March 10, 2004

                                       19
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 3, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 102-103]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-32244]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Project No. 1267-002, Project No. 2406-002, Project No. 2465-000, 
South Carolina]


Greenwood County and Duke Power Company; Notice of Availability 
of Draft Environmental Assessment

December 27, 1994.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission's) 
regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office 
of Hydropower Licensing has reviewed the applications for new licenses 
for the following three existing hydroelectric projects, all of which 
are located on the Saluda River in South Carolina: (1) The Saluda 
Station Project (No. 2406-002), located in Greenville and Pickens 
Counties, near Greenville, SC; (2) the Hollidays Bridge Project (No. 
2465-003), located in Greenville and Anderson Counties near Greenville, 
SC; and (3) the Buzzards Roost Project (No. 1267-000), located in 
Newberry, Laurens, and Greenwood Counties near Greenwood, SC. The 
Commission has prepared a Draft Multiple Project Environmental 
Assessment (Draft EA) covering all three projects. In the Draft EA, the 
Commission's staff has analyzed the existing and potential future 
environmental impacts of the projects and has concluded that licensing 
the projects, with appropriate [[Page 103]] environmental protective or 
enhancement measures, would not constitute a major federal action that 
would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
    Copies of the Draft EA are available for review in the Public 
Reference Branch, Room 3104, of the Commission's offices at 941 North 
Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    Any comments should be filed within 45 days from the date of this 
notice and should be addressed to Lois D. Cashell, Secretary, Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426. For further information, contact Charles R. Hall, 
Environmental Coordinator, at (202) 219-2853.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-32244 Filed 12-30-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Jerry Bernard JACKSON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Kelly MILLER, prosecutor at Mecklenburg County courts; Sean F. Perrin, prosecutor at Mecklenburg County courts; Kathleen K. Lucchesi, prosecutor at Mecklenburg County courts, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 04-6491.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 13, 2004.

Decided: May 20, 2004.

Jerry Bernard Jackson, Appellant pro se.

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Jerry Bernard Jackson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the district court’s reasoning that Defendants were entitled to absolute immunity. *See Jackson v. Miller,*No. CA-04-12-3 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 17, 2004). 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*
(포스터) 당신의 주방에서 이런 사람을 

찾고 있습니까?

설사 구토

피부와 눈자위가 노랗게 

열을 동반한 인후통 변하는 현상(황달)

어디서든 사람의 건강을 보호하십시오. 

질병에 걸리면 집에서 쉬십시오.

도대체 왜 질병에 걸린 상태에서 출근하십니까?
(포스터) 당신의 주방에서 이런 사람을 

찾고 있습니까?

설사 구토

피부와 눈자위가 노랗게 

열을 동반한 인후통 변하는 현상(황달)

어디서든 사람의 건강을 보호하십시오. 

질병에 걸리면 집에서 쉬십시오.

도대체 왜 질병에 걸린 상태에서 출근하십니까?
(포스터) 당신의 주방에서 이런 사람을 

찾고 있습니까?

설사 구토

피부와 눈자위가 노랗게 

열을 동반한 인후통 변하는 현상(황달)

어디서든 사람의 건강을 보호하십시오.

질병에 걸리면 집에서 쉬십시오.

도대체 왜 질병에 걸린 상태에서 출근하십니까?
(포스터) 당신의 주방에서 이런 사람을 

찾고 있습니까?

설사 구토

피부와 눈자위가 노랗게 

열을 동반한 인후통 변하는 현상(황달)

어디서든 사람의 건강을 보호하십시오.

질병에 걸리면 집에서 쉬십시오.

도대체 왜 질병에 걸린 상태에서 출근하십니까?
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA * DOCKET NO. 17-CR-93

 

VERSUS *

 

MARCUS ETIENNE AND * JUDGE WILLIAM ALSUP

ELIZABETH GOBERT

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

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY

ELIZABETH GOBERT, defendant herein, hereby requests that the United States disclose all 

matters listed below: 

1) Any relevant written or recorded statements made by defendant. 

2) That portion of any written record containing the substance of any relevant oral statement 

made by the defendant. 

3) Recorded grand jury testimony of the defendant relating to the offenses charged. 

4) The substance of any other relevant oral statement made by the defendant whether before 

or after arrest in response to interrogation by any person then known by the defendant to 

be a government agent if the government intends to use the statement at trial. 

5) The arrest and conviction record of defendant and Mr. Etienne. 

6) The general nature of any Rule 404(b) evidence, the content and specific nature of the 

evidence, to which defendant the evidence relates, and the purpose for which the evidence 

will be offered at trial. 

Case 3:17-cr-00093-WHA Document 28 Filed 04/10/17 Page 1 of 2
Respectfully submitted:

DORAN & CAWTHORNE, P.L.L.C.

 /s/ Pride J. Doran, #25035

 pride@doranlawfirm.com

 521 E. Landry Street

 P.O. Box 2119

 Opelousas, LA 70571

 Phone: (337) 948-8008

Fax: (337) 948-0098

Attorney for Elizabeth Gobert 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of this pleading was filed electronically with the Clerk of Court 

using the CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing will be sent to all counsel of record by operation of 

the Court’s electronic filing system this 10th day of April, 2017.

/s/ Pride J. Doran

Case 3:17-cr-00093-WHA Document 28 Filed 04/10/17 Page 2 of 2
Edward H. FLINT, petitioner, v. COACH HOUSE, INC., et al.

No. 12-1215.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Kentucky denied.
Woodrow CHAPMAN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9029.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
James Clinton McCORVEY, Jr., petitioner, v. J.P. YOUNG, Warden.

No. 12-7559.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

*2794Petition for rehearing denied.

Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION RE RESPONSE TO ORDER RE SCHEDULING DEPOSITIONS

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 

 Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151) 

 charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com 

 David A. Perlson (Bar No. 209502) 

 davidperlson@quinnemanuel.com 

 Melissa Baily (Bar No. 237649) 

 melissabaily@quinnemanuel.com 

 John Neukom (Bar No. 275887) 

 johnneukom@quinnemanuel.com 

 Jordan Jaffe (Bar No. 254886) 

 jordanjaffe@quinnemanuel.com 

50 California Street, 22nd Floor 

San Francisco, California 94111-4788 

Telephone: (415) 875-6600 

Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 

Attorneys for WAYMO LLC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

WAYMO LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; 

OTTOMOTTO LLC; OTTO TRUCKING 

LLC, 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 

PLAINTIFF WAYMO’S 

SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION IN 

CONNECTION WITH ITS RESPONSE 

TO SECOND ORDER RE SCHEDULING 

OF DEPOSITIONS (DKT. 679) 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-1- CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

RESPONSE TO ORDER RE SCHEDULING DEPOSITIONS

Below, Waymo respectfully provides dates of availability for each of the Waymo witnesses 

that Defendants included in their list of top ten list of deponents. (Dkt., 698.) Waymo could not 

provide availability for all of these witnesses in its Response to Second Order re Scheduling of 

Depositions because, as Waymo explained in its Response, Defendants failed and refused to provide 

their list of top ten deponents to Waymo in advance of their filing at 4:45 PM. (Dkt. 699.) 

Name Proposed Deposition Date 

Drew Ulrich July 13 

Zachary Morris July 14 

Larry Page1 July 17 

William McCann July 28 

John Krafcik August 2 

Pierre-Yves Droz August 4 

Sam Lenius [no known conflict dates as of this 

filing] 

Waymo respectfully requests that the Court take under consideration the available dates above and 

existing scheduling conflicts of its witnesses before assigning deposition dates. 

DATED: June 22, 2017 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, 

LLP 

By /s/ Charles K. Verhoeven 

Charles K. Verhoeven 

Attorneys for WAYMO LLC 

 

1

 Defendants previously sought Mr. Pages’s deposition during the PI Phase expedited discovery, and 

Magistrate Judge Corley granted Waymo’s protective order motion under the apex doctrine. (Dkt. 

276.) Waymo provides a proposed deposition date for Mr. Page here but intends to promptly seek a 

protective order now that Defendants have renewed their request for this apex deposition. Waymo 

will work with the Special Master and Defendants to try to resolve this issue but, if necessary, will 

seek relief from Magistrate Judge Corley through her established procedures.
John SINGLETARY, et ux., petitioners, v. CITY OF NORTH CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA, et al.

No. 12-1088.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
How to Spot a Scam...

Just because a product is called

“natural” does not mean it is safe.

Don’t believe promises like “lose

weight while you sleep.” If it sounds

too easy, it might be a scam.

It’s Called Health Fraud

• Lots of people are fooled into buying health products that 

sound great, but are really fakes. 

• Some products may cause serious problems like pain, 

suffering, or even death. 

• Some products may not mix well with your other medicines. 

• You may also lose your money on scam products that 

don’t work.

Watch out for these claims. It might be a scam

It’s Natural It’s So Easy!
Generally, one pill will not treat or

cure many different illnesses like

cancer, diabetes, AIDS, or arthritis.

Don’t feel pressured to buy. Take

time to get the facts about the

product first.

BEFORE AFTER!

Always feel free to ask your doctor,

nurse, or pharmacist what is best

for your health.

Pay Now and Save

Miracle Cure!

They Don’t Want You To Know 

Personal success stories by “real

people” or doctors are easy to

make up.

It Worked For Me
Protect yourself and your family

•	 Talk to a doctor, nurse, or pharmacist or call the Food and Drug 	 	

Administration (FDA) at 1-888-463-6332 before you use any

	 health product

•	 Get the facts about health fraud at: www.fda.gov/healthfraud

•	 Report a problem with a product to the Food and Drug Administration

	 (FDA) www.fda.gov/medwatch or 1-800-332-1088

•	 Report false advertising to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

www.ftc.gov or 1-877-382-4357

Health Fraud... 

Don’t take the risk with your health or your money.

You might see ads on TV or the Internet that make a lot of promises 

about a new health product. However, you don’t know if it can really 

help you. It may even hurt you. 

This brochure is made available by the:

This information was produced in collaboration between FDA’s

Office of Women’s Health and Office of Enforcement.

www.fda.gov/womens

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) defines health fraud as the 

deceptive promotion, advertising, distribution, or sale of a product 

represented as being effective to prevent, diagnose, treat, cure, or 

lessen an illness or condition, or provide another beneficial effect on 

health, but that has not been scientifically proven safe and effective 

for such purposes.
Susan D. BELL, Appellant, v. FREMONT INVESTMENT & LOAN, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1364

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 14, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 130

To amend the General Education Provisions Act to clarify the definition 

of a student regarding family educational and privacy rights. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2005

Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL

To amend the General Education Provisions Act to clarify 

the definition of a student regarding family educational 

and privacy rights.

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

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO GENERAL EDUCATION PROVI4 SIONS ACT. 

5 Paragraph (6) of subsection (a) of section 444 of the 

6 General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g; also 

7 known as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act 

8 of 1974) is amended by inserting ‘‘(other than a person 

9 educated at a home school, whether or not a home school 
2

HR 130 IH 

1 is treated as a home school or a private school under State 

2 law)’’ after ‘‘does not include a person’’.

Æ