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

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.01

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
           AS ENACTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2004 of Hartford Life, Inc. (the "Company"), filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 as enacted by
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         1)       The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
                  13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                  and

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

                        /s/ Thomas M. Marra
                        --------------------------------------
                        Name: Thomas M. Marra
                        Title: President and Chief Operating Officer
                        Date: May 11, 2004

                                       44
# Official Journal C 177/2020

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 177 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6327 May 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 177

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6327 May 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 177/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9785 – EFL/DBK/Hama Polska) (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2020/C 177/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9785 – EFL/DBK/Hama Polska) (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 177/02 | Euro exchange rates — 26 May 2020 | 2 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2020/C 177/02

Euro exchange rates — 26 May 2020

2

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 177/03 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9825 – CPPIB/Téthys Invest/Galileo Global Education) Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 3 |
| 2020/C 177/04 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9677 – DIC/BASF Colors & Effects) (
  1
  ) | 5 |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 177/05 | Notice for the attention of AMIR MUHAMMAD SA’ID ABDAL-RAHMAN AL-MAWLA, whose name was added to the list referred to in Articles 2, 3 and 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida organisations, by virtue of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/706 | 6 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2020/C 177/03

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9825 – CPPIB/Téthys Invest/Galileo Global Education) Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

3

2020/C 177/04

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9677 – DIC/BASF Colors & Effects) (
  1
  )

1

5

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2020/C 177/05

Notice for the attention of AMIR MUHAMMAD SA’ID ABDAL-RAHMAN AL-MAWLA, whose name was added to the list referred to in Articles 2, 3 and 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida organisations, by virtue of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/706

6

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

June 05, 2009

Mr. Charles R. Watson Jr.

Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP

100 Congress Ave., Suite 300

Austin, TX 78701-4042

Mr. Darrin M. Walker

Law Office of Darrin Walker

2054 Parkdale Drive 

Kingwood, TX 77339

Mr. Mike A. Hatchell

Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell, LLP

100 Congress Avenue, Suite 300

Austin, TX 78701-4042

RE:Case Number:  06-0372

Court of Appeals Number:  13-03-00427-CV

Trial Court Number:  C-393-02-B

Style:COLUMBIA RIO GRANDE HEALTHCARE, L.P. D/B/A RIO GRANDE REGIONAL HOSPITAL

v.

ALICE H. HAWLEY AND JAMES A. HAWLEY

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed opinion and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 06-0372Page 1**
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a), AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Mark C. Roualet, certify that:

 

1.              I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Force Protection, Inc.; and

 

2.              Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 

 
| Date: February 25, 2013 | /s/ Mark C. Roualet                                            |
|-------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|
|                    | Mark C. Roualet 

*President    (Principal Executive Officer)* |

 

----
#### POPKIN et al. v. WM. BARR DRYGOODS CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

January 31, 1896.)

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. See 34 N. Y. Supp. 454.
#### City of New York v Goldman.

—Motion for modification of this court’s order, entered on December 19, 1985 (115 AD2d 424), granted insofar as to delete its last sentence and to substitute therefor the following: "We direct that discovery be completed expeditiously and that a trial follow forthwith.” Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan, Asch and Kassal, JJ.
(15 Misc. Rep. 42.)

#### In re HAEBLER.

(Superior Court of New York City,

General Term.

December 18, 1895.)

Exchanges—Suspension of Member.

An exchange cannot suspend a member, under a by-law authorizing it, for nonfulfillment of a contract, before the rights of the parties to the contract Jiave been settled by an action, such by-law being contrary to public policy; nor under a by-law providing therefor in case a member is accused of a proceeding inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade, the exchange having taken no steps to carry out its purpose, recited in its charter, “to inculcate just and equitable principles of trade.” People v. New York Produce Exchange (Super. N. Y.) 29 N. Y. Supp. 307, followed.

Appeal from special term.

Application by Ernest T. Haebler for a writ of mandamus against the New York Produce Exchange. The application was granted, and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

*428The opinion of GILDERSLEEVE, J., at special term, is as follows:

The law as laid down in the prevailing opinion in the case of People ex rel. Johnson v. New York Produce Exchange, 8 Mise. Rep. 552, 29 N. Y. Supp. S07, must control the special term of this court until it shall have been disapproved by a higher tribunal. The complaint and proceedings in that case were practically the same as in the one before me; and the facts so nearly approach those herein disclosed that I feel constrained to regard it as a controlling authority in the matter of this application. In both cases the complaint charged “proceedings inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade,”—in the one case, by “breach of” a specified contract; in the ether, by failure to comply with “the terms of” a specified contract. In both cases the board of managers proceeded, in regular conformity with the by-laws, to investigate the matter; and in both cases they concluded that the accused party had, in their opinion, been guilty of conduct inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade; and in both cases the accused was suspended, in perfect accordance with the by-laws. The two cases, therefore, being practically identical, and the general term of this court, having decided, in the Johnson Case, that the Exchange was without jurisdiction to suspend the accused, I have no other alternative than to grant the application herein asked for. The application granted, with $50 costs and disbursements to the applicant.

Argued before FREEDMAN and McADAM, JJ.

Baldwin & Blackmar (Abel E. Blackmar, of counsel), for appellant.

Shiland & Honeyman (Robert B. Honeyman, of counsel), for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs, upon the opinion at special term.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 149 (Friday, August 6, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 43260]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16866]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) 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 Center for Advancing Translational 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; Rare Diseases.
    Date: September 14, 2021.
    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, 
National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Room 1037, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Alumit Ishai, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Office of Grants Management and Scientific Review, National Center 
for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 
6701 Democracy Boulevard, Room 1037, Bethesda, MD 20817, 301-827-
5819, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5839342d35312c76312b30393118363130763f372e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a4c5c8d1c9cdd08acdd7ccc5cde4cacdcc8ac3cbd2">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.859, 
Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.350, 
B--Cooperative Agreements; 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research 
Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

David W. Freeman,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-16866 Filed 8-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
2

'

concluded that although Luckey's petition was timely-mailed, he nevertheless failed to demonstrate that its untimely filing was the result of official interference. See Gonzales v. State, 118 Nev. 590, 595, 53 P.3d 901, 904 (2002). As a result, the district court determined that Luckey failed to demonstrate good cause sufficient to overcome the procedural bar and denied his petition. See NRS 34.726(1)(a). The district court did not address Luckey's allegation of prejudice. See NRS 34.726(1)(b).

We conclude the district court erred by finding that Luckey failed to demonstrate good cause because an impediment external to the defense prevented his petition from being timely-filed. See Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 252, 71 P.3d 503, 506 (2003). We also conclude, however, that Luckey failed to demonstrate prejudice because his claim that he was improperly advised about the consequences of his guilty plea is belied by the record. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687- 88 (1984); Kirksey v State, 112 Nev. 980, 987-88, 923 P.2d 1102, 1107 (1996). Therefore, Luckey is not entitled to relief, and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Parraguirre i

— Ltot , J. Hardesty

cc: Hon. Linda Marie Bell, District Judge Kristina M. Wildeveld Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A r

4W0
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Daniel Wayne Curtis v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-15-01017-CR

Trial court case number: 1960764

Trial court: County Criminal Court at Law No. 11 of Harris County

This case was abated and remanded to the trial court based on the court reporter’s 

failure to file the reporter’s record in this appeal. On July 20, 2016, the court reporter, 

Elizabeth Cordova, filed the reporter’s record with exhibits. Accordingly, we withdraw 

our July 19, 2016 abatement order, and reinstate this case on the Court’s active docket.

Appellant’s brief is due to be filed within 30 days of the date of this order. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd

  Acting individually 

Date: August 2, 2016
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1010

To suspend the rate of duty with respect to certain chemicals.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 11, 1997

Mr. THURMOND introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To suspend the rate of duty with respect to certain

chemicals.

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

3 SECTION 1. DUTY SUSPENSIONS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Harmonized Tariff Schedule

5 of the United States is amended—

6 (1) in subheading 2906.11.00 (relating to dl

7 menthol), by striking ‘‘2.1%’’ and inserting ‘‘Free’’;

8 and

9 (2) in subheading 2906.21.00 (relating to

10 benzyl alcohol), by striking ‘‘5.9%’’ and inserting

11 ‘‘Free’’.
2

•S 1010 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

2 this section shall apply to goods entered, or withdrawn

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the date that

4 is 15 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
#### In the Matter of Susan Schultz, Respondent, v David Schultz, Appellant.

—In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the husband appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Pearce, J.), dated September 12, 1984, which dismissed that branch of his motion which sought to modify so much of a prior order of the same court as directed him to pay $100 biweekly toward arrears in support payments which were set at $800, and which purportedly denied the branch of his motion which was to set a schedule of child visitation.

*738Appeal dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The husband’s obligation to make biweekly support payments of $100 and an additional $100 biweekly toward arrears which were set at $800, was fixed by order of the Family Court, Queens County (Pearce, J.), dated May 29, 1984. That order was admittedly made upon consent and was unappealable. The order under review, dated September 12, 1984, dismissed the branch of the husband’s motion which was to modify that prior order. Such an order is not appealable as of right (Family Ct Act § 1112 [a]; *Matter of Brenner v Brenner,*57 AD2d 813, *appeal dismissed*48 NY2d 713, *lv denied*51 NY2d 766; *Matter of Lance S.,*51 AD2d 1057; *Gauquie v Gauquie,*17 AD2d 611; *Giuliano v Giuliano,*278 App Div 850). The husband’s interpretation of the order under review as one which also denied the branch of his motion which was to set a schedule of child visitation is erroneous. The order merely notes that that branch of the motion had previously been denied in another part of the court. However, even if it had denied the branch of the motion concerning visitation, that portion of the order would also not have been appealable as of right *(Rizzo v Rizzo,*31 AD2d 1001; *Klein v Klein,*8 AD2d 844). No timely motion for leave to appeal has been made, and we decline to exercise our discretionary power to deem the notice of appeal to be such an application.

Were the appeal properly before us, we would have affirmed. Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Fiber and Kooper, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 14.1

LOGO





Code of Ethics for Senior Financial Officers

INTRODUCTION





Northwest Pipe Company maintains a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics applicable to all employees, officers and directors of the Company, including the Senior Financial Officers. In addition to the Code
of Business Conduct and Ethics, the Board of Directors of the Company has adopted this Code of Ethics for Senior Financial Officers, who are subject to the additional specific polices set forth in this Code. Senior Financial Officers are not only
responsible for adhering to the standards laid out in the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, but have a heightened responsibility to provide leadership by example, to create a culture of the highest ethical standards, to create a commitment to
compliance, and to follow-up on any ethical or compliance issues raised.

SCOPE





This Code of Ethics applies to our Senior Financial Officers. Our Senior Financial Officers are the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer.

ETHICAL CODE





Each Senior Financial Officer shall, in the
performance of duties for the Company, to the best of the Officers knowledge and ability:



| |  |  | Act with honesty and ethical conduct, and ethically handle any actual or apparent conflicts of interest between personal and professional
relationships.
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Provide, or cause to be provided, full, fair, accurate, timely and understandable disclosure in reports and documents that the Company files with, or
submits to, the Securities and Exchange Commission and in other public communications made by the Company.
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Comply with applicable governmental laws and regulations.
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------

WAIVERS OF THE CODE OF BUSINESS CONDUCT AND ETHICS





Any request for waiver of this Code must be in
writing and addressed to the Nominating and Governance Committee. Waivers are not taken lightly and are not standard. Any waiver granted to an officer will be promptly disclosed as required by law or regulation.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6138
KENNETH M. DUKES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FRANKLIN FREEMAN, Secretary of State; LYNNPHILLIPS, Director of Prisons; PHILE HOLESHOUSER, Hearing Officer; J. R. MULLINAX, Office Administrator; JACK WARD, Superintendent; BOBBY INVESTIGATING OFFICER; JUANITA H. BAKER, Parole Chairman; ELBERT T. BUCK, JR., WILLIAM A. LOWRY; CHARLES L. MANN; PEGGY STAMEY; RICKEY DALE BROCK, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Salisbury. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-573-4) Submitted: September 20, 1996 Decided: October 3, 1996 Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth M. Dukes, Appellant Pro Se. Jacob Leonard Safron, Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).23 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Dukes v. Freeman , No. CA-94-573-4 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 13, 1995).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
#### Wood *v.*Stubbs.

Atkinson, J.

1. Where, under Civil Code § 5335 (commonly known as the “blind-tiger” law), a verified petition was presented to the presiding judge, sufficiently alleging that the nuisance was existing and continuing, and praying that the defendant be enjoined from selling spirituous, malt, or intoxicating liquors at a certain place, and the judge *70set a time for the hearing of such application and granted a temporary restraining order to operate in the meantime, and where after service thereof the defendant violated such restraining order and a rule was issued against him to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt, the restraining order was not void, so as to furnish no basis for the contempt proceeding, on the ground that the original petition did not allege facts which would authorize the court to take jurisdiction, or contain a specific prayer for such a temporary order. There was no error in refusing to set aside the restraining order on the grounds mentioned.

January 18, 1915.

Buie for contempt. Before Judge Charlton. Chatham superior court. January 10, 1914.

*Osborne & Lawrence,*for plaintiff in error.

*Walter 0. Hartridge, solicitor-general,*and *George H. Richter,*contra.

2. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the judgment finding the respondent to be in contempt.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, O..J., absent.*