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


     In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Sierra Resource Group,
Inc. (the  "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended  December 31, 2004, as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, Sandra J. Andre,  President  and Chief  Executive  Officer of the
Company,  hereby  certifies for the purpose of complying  with Rule 13a-14(b) or
Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange  Act") and
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, that:

     1.   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

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




Dated: June 30, 2005                      By: /s/ SANDRA J. ANDRE
                                          _____________________________________
                                          Sandra J. Andre
                                          President, Chief Executive Officer
                                          and Director



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 SIERRA RESOURCE  GROUP,  INC., AND
WILL BE RETAINED BY SIERRA RESOURCE GROUP, INC., AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SIR GIORGIO SANFORD CLARDY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

JONES; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-36056 

D.C. No. 2:15-cv-01241-CL 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Marco A. Hernandez, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 12, 2021**

Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Oregon state prisoner Sir Giorgio Sanford Clardy appeals pro se from the 

district court’s summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in 

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force and equal protection claims. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Williams v. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

OCT 20 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-36056 

Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Clardy failed 

to exhaust administrative remedies and he failed to raise a genuine dispute of 

material fact as to whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to 

him. See Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1856, 1858-60 (2016) (setting forth 

circumstances when administrative remedies are effectively unavailable); 

Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006) (proper exhaustion requires “using all 

steps that the agency holds out, and doing so properly (so that the agency addresses 

the issues on the merits)” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Clardy’s motion to correct the current status of the case (Docket Entry No. 

18) is denied.

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3770 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3770

To require the chief election officials of the States to provide voter 
registration forms at certain naturalization proceedings, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 16, 2019

Mr. Brendan F. Boyle of Pennsylvania (for himself, Ms. Schakowsky, Ms. 
Norton, and Mr. Swalwell of California) introduced the following bill; 
      which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the chief election officials of the States to provide voter 
registration forms at certain naturalization proceedings, 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 ``Citizenship Empowerment Act''.

SEC. 2. VOTER REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT.

    (a) In General.--Section 6(b) of the National Voter Registration 
Act of 1993 (52 U.S.C. 20505(b)) is amended by striking ``programs.'' 
and inserting ``programs, and shall distribute such forms to each 
person who becomes a citizen of the United States at a naturalization 
ceremony in that State, at the conclusion of the ceremony.''.
    (b) Federal Cooperation.--Section 9 of the National Voter 
Registration Act of 1993 (52 U.S.C. 20508) is amended by adding at the 
end the following new subsection:
    ``(c) Special Procedures for Department of Homeland Security.--
            ``(1) In general.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
        implement such procedures as may be necessary to enable the 
        chief election officers of the States to carry out the 
        requirement under section 6(b) to provide mail voter 
        registration forms at an administrative naturalization 
        ceremony, pursuant to section 332(d) of the Immigration and 
        Nationality Act, or a judicial naturalization ceremony, 
        pursuant to section 310(b) of the Immigration and Nationality 
        Act.
            ``(2) Permission to place exhibits.--The Secretary of 
        Homeland Security shall implement procedures to allow the chief 
        election officer of a State to provide information about voter 
        registration, including through a display or exhibit, after the 
        conclusion of an administrative naturalization ceremony in that 
        State.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to 
administrative and judicial naturalization ceremonies conducted on or 
after the date that is 90 days after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
Ronen NAHMANI, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-1350.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 30, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
# L_2006112EN.01001201.xml

| 26.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 112/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 112/12

---

Information concerning the entry into force of the Protocol to the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in a Member State or in Iceland or Norway

The aforementioned Protocol to the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway, which the Council concluded on 21 February 2006, will enter into force on 1 May 2006, the notifications concerning the completion of the procedures in accordance with Article 5 of the Protocol having been carried out on 27 March 2006.

---
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3896 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to provide that only citizens or 

nationals of the United States may operate trains within the United 

States that originate in Mexico. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 23, 2019 

Mr. LIPINSKI (for himself and Mr. FITZPATRICK) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to provide that 

only citizens or nationals of the United States may operate trains within the United States that originate in 

Mexico. 

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 ‘‘Protection of American 

5 Jobs in Cross-Border Rail Operations With Mexico Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds the following: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 3896 IH

1 (1) The country of Mexico prohibits Americans 

2 from serving as crews on railroad trains in Mexico. 

3 (2) The rail safety laws and regulations of Mex4 ico, and the requirements for certification of Mexi5 can railroad operating crews, are far less stringent 

6 than those of the United States. 

7 (3) A reciprocal restriction on Mexican nation8 als crewing trains in the United States will protect 

9 the work and jobs of American rail workers, protect 

10 the safety of Americans living and working in prox11 imity to railroad tracks in the United States that 

12 are used for cross-border rail operations with Mex13 ico, and promote otherwise fair and equitable labor 

14 conditions. 

15 SEC. 3. CREW REQUIREMENTS FOR TRAINS ORIGINATING 

16 IN MEXICO. 

17 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 201 of 

18 title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 

19 end the following: 

20 ‘‘§ 20169. Crew requirements for trains originating in 

21 Mexico 

22 ‘‘Trains originating in Mexico may only be operated 

23 in the United States by crews comprised entirely of citi24 zens or nationals of the United States.’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 3896 IH

1 (b) REGULATIONS REQUIRED.—Not later than 180 

2 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary 

3 of Transportation shall issue such regulations as are nec4 essary to carry out the amendments made by this Act. 

5 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of sec6 tions for subchapter II of chapter 201 of title 49, United 

7 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol8 lowing: 

‘‘20169. Crew requirements for trains originating in Mexico.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
# C_2012098EN.01000801.xml

| 31.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/8

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 February 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Alicante — Spain) — Celaya Emparanza y Galdos Internacional SA v Proyectos Integrales de Balizamientos SL

(Case C-488/10) (1)

1

(Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Article 19(1) - Community designs - Infringement or threatened infringement - Definition of ‘third parties’)

2012/C 98/09

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Alicante

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Celaya Emparanza y Galdos Internacional SA

Applicant:

Defendant: Proyectos Integrales de Balizamiento SL

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Alicante — Interpretation of Article 19(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1) — Infringement or threatened infringement — Concept of third parties

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 19(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs must be interpreted as meaning that, in a dispute relating to infringement of the exclusive right conferred by a registered Community design, the right to prevent use by third parties of the design extends to any third party who uses a design that does not produce on informed users a different overall impression, including the third party holder of a later registered Community design. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 19(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs must be interpreted as meaning that, in a dispute relating to infringement of the exclusive right conferred by a registered Community design, the right to prevent use by third parties of the design extends to any third party who uses a design that does not produce on informed users a different overall impression, including the third party holder of a later registered Community design.

| 2. | The answer to the first question is unconnected with the intention or conduct of the third party. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The answer to the first question is unconnected with the intention or conduct of the third party.

---

(1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.

1

---
Richard Harley GREENWAY, petitioner, v. Charles L. RYAN, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections.

No. 17-8369.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 11, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4052 

To prohibit the imposition of the death penalty for any violation of Federal 

law, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 25, 2019 

Ms. PRESSLEY (for herself, Mr. CUMMINGS, Ms. BASS, Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. AMASH, Ms. NORTON, Mr. CLAY, Ms. LEE of 

California, Ms. TLAIB, Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ, Ms. OMAR, and Mr. MCGOVERN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To prohibit the imposition of the death penalty for any 

violation of Federal law, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON IMPOSITION OF DEATH SEN4 TENCE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi6 sion of law, no person may be sentenced to death or put 

7 to death on or after the date of enactment of this Act 

8 for any violation of Federal law. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 4052 IH

1 (b) PERSONS SENTENCED BEFORE DATE OF ENACT2 MENT.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 

3 person sentenced to death before the date of enactment 

4 of this Act for any violation of Federal law shall be resen5 tenced. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL MARKETS ADVISORY COMMITTEE 

FEBRUARY 28, 2023 AGENDA 

 

9:30 a.m. Opening Remarks 

• Commissioner Summer Mersinger

• Chairman Rostin Behnam 

• Commissioner Kristin Johnson

• Commissioner Christy Goldsmith-Romero

• Commissioner Caroline Pham 

 

10:00 a.m. Panel 1: Financial Transmission Rights

A discussion around how electrification and increased renewable and intermittent 

energy production could affect the electric grid and the FTR market. 

Lead Participants:

• Jaqueline Roberts, West Virginia Public Service Commission

• Joe Bowring, Monitoring Analytics 

• Demetri Karousos, Nodal Exchange, LLC 

12:00 p.m. Break for Lunch

12:30 p.m. Panel 2: Electric Vehicles and the Effect on Metals Markets 

A discussion exploring how CFTC-regulated metals markets could grow and may 

experience stress due to increases in electric vehicle production. 

Lead Participants:

• Dan Bowerson, Alliance for Automotive Innovation

• George Pullen, CFTC Division of Market Oversight 

2:30 p.m. Closing Remarks

3:00 p.m. Adjourn Meeting
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          27,817
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,817
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  27,817
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,135
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        44,225
<OTHER-SE>                                     (18,018)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    27,817
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                33,926
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (33,926)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (33,926)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (33,926)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.001)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.001)



</TABLE>
Thomas Edward NESBITT, petitioner, v. NEBRASKA.

No. 17-5159.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Nebraska denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4089 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4089

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to authorize certain students 
      to retain financial aid eligibility while completing a drug 
                        rehabilitation program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 26, 2019

Mr. Foster (for himself, Ms. Moore, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Ms. Norton, 
 and Mr. Moulton) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                  the Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to authorize certain students 
      to retain financial aid eligibility while completing a drug 
                        rehabilitation program.

    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 ``Second Chance for Students Act''.

SEC. 2. EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN CONVICTIONS.

    Section 484(r) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
1091(r)) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4);
            (2) in paragraph (1), by striking ``A student'' and 
        inserting ``Subject to paragraph (3), a student''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(3) Exception.--A student whose eligibility has been 
        suspended under paragraph (1), or whose eligibility, in the 
        absence of this paragraph, would have been suspended under 
        paragraph (1), due to a conviction of an offense involving the 
        possession of marijuana, without the intent to distribute, may 
        resume or retain eligibility before the end of the 
        ineligibility period (or the period that would have been the 
        ineligibility period) determined under such paragraph during 
        the period of completion of a drug rehabilitation program 
        described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (2), except 
        that such period of completion shall not exceed 6 months.''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.1

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

         I, Holcombe T. Green, Jr., as Chief Executive Officer of WestPoint
Stevens Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as
adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

         (1) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 2003 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


Dated: August 14, 2003




                                                 -----------------------
                                                 Holcombe T. Green, Jr.
                                                 Chief Executive Officer

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.