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

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report of enherent Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Pamela Fredette, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, adopted as pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



/s/ Pamela FredettePamela FredetteChairman, Chief Executive Officer and PresidentNovember 14, 2008


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting, the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to enherent, Corp. and will be retained by enherent Corp. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# CE2012169EN.01019702.xml

| 15.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 169/197 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 169/197

---

Tuesday 14 December 2010Agreement between the EU and Georgia on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation ***

P7_TA(2010)0472

European Parliament legislative resolution of 14 December 2010 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and Georgia on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation (15507/2010 – C7-0392/2010 – 2010/0108(NLE))

2012/C 169 E/37

(Consent)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (15507/2010), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (15507/2010),

| — | having regard to the draft agreement between the European Union and Georgia on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation (14654/2010), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft agreement between the European Union and Georgia on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation (14654/2010),

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 79(3) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0392/2010), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 79(3) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0392/2010),

| — | having regard to Rules 81 and 90(8) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rules 81 and 90(8) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A7-0346/2010), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A7-0346/2010),

| 1. | Consents to conclusion of the agreement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Consents to conclusion of the agreement;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of Georgia. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of Georgia.

---
Priority

1=Law/reg/directive

2=Mission-critical

3=Frequently requested

4=Other

(Some inventory items 

may fall into more than 

one priority. Assign them 

the highest priority. )

Audience(s)

(May select >1)

All

Agribusiness

Conservationists

Consumers

Cooperatives

Educators/Students

Landowners

Media

Parents/Caregivers

Producers

Researchers

Rural Communities

USDA Employees

Subject Area(s)

(May select >1)

All

AG=Agriculture

EO=Education/Outreach

FN=Food/Nutrition

LR=Laws/Regulations

MT=Marketing/Trade

NRE=Natural Resources/Environment

RS=Research/Science

RCD=Rural/Community Development

TR=Travel/Recreation

UER=USDA Employee Resources

Content Description

(Include why it was selected for inclusion and any 

site analytics or audience feedback/usability results.)

Content S

A=Available 

I=In Proc

P=Plann

N/A=Not app

1 Cooperatives 

Consumers Researchers 

Parents/Caregivers 

USDA Employees

FN Federal register notices, congressional 

testimony, speeches, plans and policy memoranda to guide operation of USDA nutrition assistance programs

A 

2 Cooperatives 

Consumers Researchers 

USDA Employees

FN Monthly statistical information on USDA 

nutrition assistance programs

A 

2 Cooperatives 

Consumers Researchers 

Parents/Caregivers 

USDA Employees

FN Studies and analytical reports on USDA 

nutrition assistance and distribution program use

A 

2 Cooperatives 

Consumers Researchers 

Parents/Caregivers

FN State and regional contact information for 

USDA nutrition assistance programs

A 

2 Cooperatives 

Consumers Researchers 

Parents/Caregivers 

Media

FN Press releases detailing grant opportunities, 

program changes, and outreach efforts for USDA nutrition assistance and distribution programs

A 

2 Cooperatives 

Consumers Researchers 

Parents/Caregivers 

Media

FN Nutrition education and promotion guides and 

resources for parents, children and schools

A 

2 Cooperatives 

Consumers Researchers 

Parents/Caregivers 

USDA Employees 

Media

FN Regional and state training information for 

nutrition assistance programs

A 

3 Cooperatives 

Consumers 

Parents/Caregivers

FN Translation of key nutrition assistance and 

distribution program information into Spanish

A
**EXHIBIT 23.    1** **CONSENT    OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration    Statement    No.             (Form S-3)    (filed on April 21, 2008), Registration Statement    No. 333-124470(Form S-8)    and Registration Statement    No. 133-139903(Form S-3)    of Minrad International, Inc. and Subsidiaries of our report,    dated March 31, 2008 on the consolidated financial    statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007,    appearing in this Annual Report on    Form 10-KSB/A    of Minrad International, Inc. and Subsidiaries for the year    ended December 31, 2007.     /s/ Freed Maxick & Battaglia, CPAs, PC    Buffalo, New York     April 21, 2008
Search

Search

                            - All Images 
                            - 21st Century Sailor and Marine 
                            - Aircraft 
                            - Awards and Recognition 
                            - Biographies 
                            - Biographies 
                            - Chief of Naval Operations 
                            - Christening 
                            - Commissioning 
                            - Community Outreach 
                            - Current Readiness 
                            - Diversity 
                            - Energy Savings Initiative 
                            - Environmental Initiative 
                            - Environmental Stewardship 
                            - Family Readiness 
                            - Fleet of the Future 
                            - Future Readiness 
                            - Global Operations 
                            - Health and Fitness 
                            - Home Slideshow 
                            - Humanitarian Operations 
                            - Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy 
                            - Morale, Welfare and Recreation 
                            - Navy Casualty  
                            - Navy History and Heritage 
                            - Navy Medicine 
                            - Navy Reserve 
                            - Operation Enduring Freedom 
                            - Other 
                            - Pay and Benefits 
                            - Piracy 
                            - Ready, Relevant Learning 
                            - Research 
                            - Safety 
                            - SAPR 
                            - Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics 
                            - Sexual Assault Prevention and Response 
                            - Ships 
                            - STEM 
                            - Training and Education 
                            - Uniform Matters 
                            - Wounded Warrior 

                            - Upload Date
                            - Photo Date
                            - Title

210907-N-ON977-0001.JPGPhoto By: MCC Popejoy

Norfolk, Va.  - ADM Daryl Caudle, USFFC commanderDOWNLOAD PHOTO(1.27 MB)                This photograph is considered public domain and has been cleared for release. If you would like to republish please give the photographer appropriate credit. Further, any commercial or non-commercial use of this photograph or any                other DoD image must be made in compliance with guidance found at            http://www.dimoc.mil/resources/limitations.html                , which pertains to                intellectual property restrictions (e.g., copyright and trademark, including                the use of official emblems, insignia, names and slogans), warnings                regarding use of images of identifiable personnel, appearance of                endorsement, and related matters.            Back to Gallery
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robin Neil SNYDER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-6148.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 19, 2013.

Decided: May 2, 2013.

*221Robin Neil Snyder, Appellant Pro Se. Martin Joseph Clarke, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Robin Neil Snyder seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certifícate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Snyder has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
#### METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO., Respondent, v. MANHATTAN RY. CO. et al., Appellants.

(Superior Court of New York City, General Term.

July 2, 1894.)

Action by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company against the Manhattan Railway Company and others.

PER CURIAM.

The orders appealed from should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
# C_2009296EN.01003102.xml

| 5.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/31

---

Corrigendum to Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 275 of 14 November 2009
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 275 of 14 November 2009

2009/C 296/13

In the contents on the cover and the title on page 7:

for:

read:

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 28, 2014

d0324 

# Order

Clerk March 28, 2014

148369

MICHIGAN PRODUCTION MACHINING, INC.,

Petitioner

- Appellee,

v SC: 148369

COA: 312224

MTT: 00

- 409641

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,

Respondent

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 12, 2013

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### THE VIM. DENNIN v. C. F. STARITA & CO., Inc.

(District Court, S. D. New York.

March 18, 1923.)

Negligence <§=>134(11)— Evidence held to show leak in barge was caused by manner of discharging cargo.

Evidence *held*to show that the leak in libelant’s barge, which developed while a cargo of coal was being unloaded therefrom, was due to improper method of unloading, by removing the coal from each end, leaving the middle full, so as to produce heavy strain on the barge.

In Admiralty. Libel by Mary E. Dennin, owner of the barge Vim, against C. F. Starita & Co., Inc.

Decree rendered for libelant.

Macklin, Brown & Van Wyck and William Van Wyck, all of New. York City, for libelant.

Mengel & Conroy and Carl K. Mengel, all of New York City,- for respondent.

•^53»For othe^r cases see same topic *&*KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes

WARD, Circuit Judge.

The boat Vim, laden with 437 tons of anthracite coal, barley size, which is smaller than pea coal, was consigned to the steamer Ellenswonsdyk, Erie Basin. The coal was one continuous load through the whole hold, but the batch was divided by cross-beams some 12 feet apart, making seven divisions, which are incorrectly spoken of as hatches. The master signed the bill of lading for the cargo at Perth Amboy August 3, 1920. The boat arrived at Erie Basin the 4th, went alongside the steamer late on the afternoon of the 6th, when about 30 tons were discharged, by one gang, from the after end, and by noon of the next morning the cargo was discharged from each end, leaving about 100 tons amidships.

An inspector of the Board of Underwriters tested the coal for heat on the. afternoon of the 6th and again at noon of the 7th, and, finding that it was heating and that water was coming in, he forbade any more to be loaded on the steamer. The proper method of discharging the coal was to take it from between the second and third beams forward (described as hatch No. 6), and from between the fifth and sixth beams aft (described as hatch No. 2), so that the coal would fall in automatically from each, side and keep the cargo fairly even along the whole bottom.

The libelant says that, the leak was caused by discharging at either end and leaving the principal part of the cargo amidships. On the other hand, the respondent, the stevedore, who had charge of the unloading, attributes the leak to the age of the boat. She was some 18 years old, but was shown to have been in good condition and overhauled about four months before. The photograph taken the next day, as well as the nature of the injuries, as shown in the survey, corroborate the libelant’s account that the method of discharging strained her bottom and her bilges amidships, and caused her seams to open. I so find.

The libelant may take the usual interlocutory decree.
Exhibit (10)(a)

    

    

    

    

    

    

    Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

    

    

    

    

    We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in
      Post-Effective Amendment No. 40 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-141752) and Amendment No. 517 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-09763), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) April 1, 2019,
      with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York and (b) April 16, 2019, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln New York Account N For Variable Annuities for the registration of interests in a
      separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.

    

    

    

    

    /s/Ernst & Young, LLP

    

    

    

    

    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    December 20, 2019
**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 Reportof TE Products Pipeline Company, Limited Partnership (the “Company”), on Form10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the “Report”), as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Jerry E. Thompson, Presidentand Chief Executive Officer of TEPPCO GP, Inc., the general partner of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1. The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended; and

 

2. The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ JERRY E. THOMPSON                 |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
| Jerry E. Thompson                     |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |
| TEPPCO GP, Inc., General Partner      |
|                                  |
| May 3, 2006                           |

 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to TE Products Pipeline Company, LimitedPartnership and will be retained by TE Products Pipeline Company, LimitedPartnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

----
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 6020

JONATHAN JORDAN , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. TRAVIS BRAGG, Warden, FCI Bennettsville , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Beaufort

. Bruce H. Hendricks , District Judge. ( 9:16

- cv
- 02130

- BHH )

Submitted : May 10, 2017 Decided: May 22, 2017

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Jonathan Jordan , Appellant Pro Se

.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Jonathan Jordan , a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order dismissing h is 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Jordan v. Bragg , No. 9:16

- cv
- 02 130

- BHH (D.S.C. Dec. 7, 2016 ). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Case 1:07-cv-04511-AKH Document 54 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-04511-AKH Document 54 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### CITY OF CHICAGO v. POSTAL TELEGRAPH CABLE CO. OF ILLINOIS.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

April 18, 1923.)

No. 3122.

Telegraphs and telephones <§=»10(9)—Ordinance held not to require payment of fee for empty conduits.

A municipal ordinance, requiring telegraph companies to pay a fixed fee per lineal foot traversed under ground by any single duct containing wires, and to pay for a conduit, the number of ducts, multiplied by the preceding fee for a single duct, does not require the company to pay any fee on empty ducts in a conduit.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois.

Suit in equity between the City of Chicago and the Postal Telegraph Cable Company of Illinois, involving construction of a municipal ordinance. From a decree for the company, the City appeals.

Affirmed.

Frank W. Derby, of Chicago, 111., for appellant.

Jacob E. Dittus, of Chicago, 111., for appellee.

Before BAKER, ADSCHUEER, and EVANS, Circuit Judges.

<©=»For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes

BAKER, Circuit Judge.

Chicago has an ordinance requiring telegraph companies to obtain a permit before putting underground wires in the streets, and exacts certain compensation for the privilege.

This appeal involves the interpretation to be given to the following provision in the ordinance:

> “Nor such underground wires, cables, conduits, and appliances used in electrical or physical dispatch of telegraph messages, such companies shall pay annually seven-tenths of a cent per lineal foot, whether in main lines or laterals, traversed underground by any single duct containing wire, cable, or other appliances, and the amount of the fee to be paid for conduit shall be obtained by multiplying the number of ducts in such conduit by the preceding fee for single duct.”

Appellee had laid some stretches of conduit, containing several ducts, and not all of the ducts contained wire or other appliances for the dispatch of telegraph messages.

By the decree appealed from it was adjudged that appellee was not required to pay for empty ducts.

Appellant’s contention that the ordinance contemplated payment for the space occupied by a conduit, whether or not all of the ducts of the conduit contained wire or other appliances for the dispatch of telegraph messages, is contrary, in our view, to the plain redding of the ordinánce. The unit of' compensation is the lineal foot charge for any ■ single duct containing wire. When the charge for a conduit is di*255rected tó be obtained by multiplying the number of ducts in such conduit by the precedingly named fee for a single duct, it is clear that only ducts containing wire or other appliances customarily used or usable for the dispatch of telegraph messages can be counted and measured, because the unit of compensation applies to no duct unless it contains wire or other usable appliance.

The decree is affirmed.
Order entered May 16 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 15

- 01479

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J .R.W., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 469

- 56410

- 2010



### O R DER

We GRANT appellee’s May 12, 2016 opposed motion for extension of time to file brief

. Appellee’s brief is DUE June 6, 2016.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE