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

EXHIBIT 32.01

                    CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

         I, Bruce Cleland, the Chief Executive Officer of Campbell & Company,
Inc. as general partner of Campbell Strategic Allocation Fund, L.P., certify
that (i) the Form 10Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 of Campbell
Strategic Allocation Fund, L.P. fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information
contained in the Form 10Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Campbell Strategic Allocation Fund, L.P.

                                        CAMPBELL STRATEGIC ALLOCATION FUND, L.P.
                                        By: Campbell & Company, Inc., general
                                            partner

                                        By: /s/ Bruce L. Cleland
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Bruce L. Cleland
                                            Chief Executive Officer
                                            November 13, 2003

                                      -E 6-
Sherman WASHINGTON, aka Sherman Lance Washington, petitioner, v. Carmen Denise PALMER, Warden.

No. 18-6124.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 3, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
CALIFORNIA SEA URCHIN COMMISSION, et al., petitioners, v. Susan COMBS, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, et al.

No. 17-1636.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Alberto Julio GUILLEN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-8928.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Pedro GARCIA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5762.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

*792Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Exhibit
32.1




Certification
of Periodic Financial Report
 Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
 
 In
connection with the Annual Report of Extensions, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Crawford Shaw, the
chief executive officer and chief financial officer of the company hereby
certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of 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:
 
 (i)
              the
      Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31,
      2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on
      the date hereof (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
      section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
      and
 
 (ii)
              the  information  contained
      in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.
 
 Date:July 18,
2008
 
 /s/
Crawford Shaw
 Crawford
Shaw
 Principal
Executive Officer and Director
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2070 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2070

  To provide for development and implementation of a single, unified 
      prospective payment system for post-care hospital services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 8, 1999

  Mr. Stark introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
   Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on 
Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 
   each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide for development and implementation of a single, unified 
      prospective payment system for post-care hospital services.

    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 ``Medicare Post-Acute Care Payment 
Reform Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. MEDICARE SINGLE, UNIFIED PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT SYSTEM FOR POST-
              CARE HOSPITAL SERVICES.

    (a) Development of Payment System.--
            (1) In general.--By not later than January 1, 2008, the 
        Secretary of Health and Human Services shall develop and 
        transmit to Congress a plan to provide for a single, unified 
        system for the payment under a prospective payment system for 
        post-acute care hospital services (including professional 
        services) within a course of treatment under the Medicare 
        Program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act.
            (2) Adjustments for area variations in costs and 
        outliers.--Such a system shall provide for appropriate 
        adjustments to take into account--
                    (A) appropriate variations in the costs of wages 
                and such other input costs as the Secretary finds 
                appropriate; and
                    (B) outliers that reflect bona fide variations in 
                the case mix and severity of patients being served.
    (b) Implementation.--Unless Congress provides otherwise, the 
Secretary shall implement the system developed under subsection (a) for 
items and services furnished on or after January 1, 2010.
    (c) Relation to Current Payment Methodologies.--The system under 
this section shall be designed and implemented so as to supersede the 
various different prospective payment system for such services, which 
use different payment, risk adjustment, and other criteria, under the 
Medicare Program.
                                 <all>
```
Craig CUNNINGHAM, petitioner, v. GENERAL DYNAMICS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, INC.

No. 18-206.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Dale Allen HAMER, petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 18-7932.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Charlette Dufray JOHNSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-9311.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 19, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Jessie Jesus MARQUEZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6618.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 10, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Bumgardner, Kelsey and Senior Judge Hodges

CHARLES FRANCIS CARTER MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 1260-04-4 PER CURIAM SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 COUNTY OF ARLINGTO N FIRE DEPARTMENT AND THE SCHAFFER COMPANIES, LTD.

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

(Charles F. Carter, pro se , on briefs).

(Susan A. Evans; Siciliano, Ellis , Dyer & Boccarosse , on brief), for appellees.

Charles Francis Carter (claimant) appeal s a decision of the Workers’ Compensation

Commission denying his request fo r a new panel of physicians ba sed upon its finding that the

panel of physicians offered by County of Arlington Fire Department (employer) to claimant was

not defective. 1 We have reviewed the record an d the commission’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final

opinion. See Carter v. County of Ar lington Fire Department , VWC File Nos. 658-327,

150-32-83, 151-94-68 (April 23, 2004). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.

1 Claimant also argues on a ppeal that employer improperly refused to provide claimant with copies of his medical records as request ed. That issue was not before the deputy commissioner at the July 29, 2003 hearing. Consequently, neither the deputy commissioner nor the full commission addressed it in their respective opinions. Accordingly, we will not consider it for the first time on appeal. See Rule 5A:18.- 2- because the facts and legal contentions are adequate ly presented in the materials before the Court

and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 2

Affirmed.

2 Because we summarily affirm the comm ission’s decision, we decline to address employer’s motion to dismiss.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 17, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29858-29859]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10551]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

[[Page 29859]]

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP22-864-001.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Cashout Surcharge 2022 Amendment to 
be effective 6/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/10/22.
    Accession Number: 20220510-5178.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/23/22.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must 
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified 
comment date.

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP22-919-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--Castleton 
808116 Releases eff 5-10-22 to be effective 5/10/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/10/22.
    Accession Number: 20220510-5167.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/23/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-920-000.
    Applicants: Elba Express Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: Annual Cashout True-up 2022 to be 
effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 5/11/22.
    Accession Number: 20220511-5026.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/23/22.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be 
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the 
proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system 
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying 
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at:http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: May 11, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-10551 Filed 5-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Brent Douglas COLE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6283.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 13, 2018.

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

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2004

To provide that for taxable years beginning before 1980 the Federal income

tax deductibility of flight training expenses shall be determined without

regard to whether such expenses were reimbursed through certain veterans educational assistance allowances.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 27, 1999

Mrs. TAUSCHER (for herself, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. BILBRAY, Mrs. BONO,

Mr. BROWN of California, Mr. DIXON, Mr. DREIER, Mr. EVANS, Mr.

FROST, Mr. HALL of Ohio, Mr. INSLEE, Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island,

Ms. KILPATRICK, Mr. KUYKENDALL, Mr. LAMPSON, Mr. LANTOS, Ms.

LOFGREN, Mr. MASCARA, Mr. MATSUI, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. MCKEON,

Mr. METCALF, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. GARY MILLER of

California, Mrs. MINK of Hawaii, Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota, Mr.

ROHRABACHER, Mr. STARK, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. TRAFICANT, Mr. WEINER,

and Mr. WYNN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To provide that for taxable years beginning before 1980

the Federal income tax deductibility of flight training

expenses shall be determined without regard to whether

such expenses were reimbursed through certain veterans

educational assistance allowances.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 2004 IH

1 SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN REIMBURSED FLIGHT

2 TRAINING EXPENSES.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a taxable year be4 ginning before January 1, 1980, the determination of

5 whether a deduction is allowable under section 162(a) of

6 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for flight training ex7 penses shall be made without regard to whether the tax8 payer was reimbursed for any portion of such expenses

9 under section 1677(b) of title 38, United States Code (as

10 in effect before its repeal by Public Law 97–35).

11 (b) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.—If refund or credit

12 of any overpayment of tax resulting from the application

13 of subsection (a) is prevented at any time before the close

14 of the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enact15 ment of this Act by the operation of any law or rule of

16 law (including res judicata), refund or credit of such over17 payment (to the extent attributable to the application of

18 subsection (a)) may, nevertheless, be made or allowed if

19 claim therefor is filed before the close of such 1-year pe20 riod.

Æ
II

Calendar No. 669

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 1787

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 11, 2000

Received; read twice and placed on the calendar

AN ACT

To reauthorize the participation of the Bureau of Reclamation in the Deschutes Resources Conservancy, 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,
2

HR 1787 PCS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Deschutes Resources

3 Conservancy Reauthorization Act of 2000’’.

4 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PARTICIPATION OF BUREAU OF

5 RECLAMATION IN DESCHUTES RESOURCES

6 CONSERVANCY.

7 Section 301 of the Oregon Resource Conservation Act

8 of 1996 (division B of Public Law 104–208; 110 Stat.

9 3009–534) is amended—

10 (1) in subsection (b)(3), by inserting before the

11 period at the end the following: ‘‘, and up to a total

12 amount of $2,000,000 during each of fiscal years

13 2002 through 2006’’; and

14 (2) in subsection (h), by inserting before the pe15 riod at the end the following: ‘‘and $2,000,000 for

16 each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006’’.

Passed the House of Representatives July 10, 2000.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.

Calendar No. 669

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 1787

AN ACT

To reauthorize the participation of the Bureau of

Reclamation in the Deschutes Resources Conservancy, and for other purposes.

JULY 11, 2000

Received; read twice and placed on the calendar
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0643

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JENNIFER RENEE SKAW,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including February 6, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 20 2022

12/20/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0643
Melissa MAHER, petitioner, v. IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY.

No. 18-1463.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.02

                    CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

      I, Theresa D. Becks, the Chief Financial Officer of Campbell & Company,
Inc. as general partner, of Campbell Strategic Allocation Fund, L.P., certify
that (i) the Form 10Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 of Campbell Strategic
Allocation Fund, L.P. fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained
in the Form 10Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Campbell
Strategic Allocation Fund, L.P.

                                   CAMPBELL STRATEGIC ALLOCATION FUND, L.P.
                                   By: Campbell & Company, Inc., general partner

                                   By: /s/ Theresa D. Becks
                                       -----------------------------------
                                       Theresa D. Becks
                                       Chief Financial Officer
                                       May 14, 2004

                                     -E 7-
Alfred DeGENNARO, petitioner, v. AMERICAN BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, et al.

No. 18-289.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 5, 2018.

*460Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Damian O'Neil TOWNE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6141.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 12.1




CERTIFICATION
 
 I, Shaike Orbach, certify that:
 
 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Silicom Ltd.;
  2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;
  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;
  4. The Company’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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15(d)-15(f)) for the Company 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 Company, including its consolidated subsidiary, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;
  (b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
  (c) evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’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 Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and
  
  5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of Company’s board of directors:
  (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 Company’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 Company’s internal control over financial reporting.
  Date: March 17, 2010
  /S/ Shaike Orbach

Shaike Orbach, Chief Executive Officer
Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 174 Filed 06/27/24 Page 1 of 36 PageID #: 3078
Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 174 Filed 06/27/24 Page 2 of 36 PageID #: 3079
Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 174 Filed 06/27/24 Page 3 of 36 PageID #: 3080
Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 174 Filed 06/27/24 Page 4 of 36 PageID #: 3081
Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 174 Filed 06/27/24 Page 5 of 36 PageID #: 3082
Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 174 Filed 06/27/24 Page 6 of 36 PageID #: 3083
Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 174 Filed 06/27/24 Page 7 of 36 PageID #: 3084
Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 174 Filed 06/27/24 Page 8 of 36 PageID #: 3085
Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 174 Filed 06/27/24 Page 9 of 36 PageID #: 3086
Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 174 Filed 06/27/24 Page 10 of 36 PageID #: 3087
Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 174 Filed 06/27/24 Page 11 of 36 PageID #: 3088
Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 174 Filed 06/27/24 Page 12 of 36 PageID #: 3089
Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 174 Filed 06/27/24 Page 13 of 36 PageID #: 3090
Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 174 Filed 06/27/24 Page 14 of 36 PageID #: 3091
Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 174 Filed 06/27/24 Page 15 of 36 PageID #: 3092
Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 174 Filed 06/27/24 Page 16 of 36 PageID #: 3093
Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 174 Filed 06/27/24 Page 17 of 36 PageID #: 3094
Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 174 Filed 06/27/24 Page 18 of 36 PageID #: 3095
Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 174 Filed 06/27/24 Page 19 of 36 PageID #: 3096
Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 174 Filed 06/27/24 Page 20 of 36 PageID #: 3097
Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 174 Filed 06/27/24 Page 21 of 36 PageID #: 3098
Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 174 Filed 06/27/24 Page 22 of 36 PageID #: 3099
Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 174 Filed 06/27/24 Page 23 of 36 PageID #: 3100
Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 174 Filed 06/27/24 Page 24 of 36 PageID #: 3101
Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 174 Filed 06/27/24 Page 25 of 36 PageID #: 3102
Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 174 Filed 06/27/24 Page 26 of 36 PageID #: 3103
Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 174 Filed 06/27/24 Page 27 of 36 PageID #: 3104
Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 174 Filed 06/27/24 Page 28 of 36 PageID #: 3105
Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 174 Filed 06/27/24 Page 29 of 36 PageID #: 3106
Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 174 Filed 06/27/24 Page 30 of 36 PageID #: 3107
Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 174 Filed 06/27/24 Page 31 of 36 PageID #: 3108
Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 174 Filed 06/27/24 Page 32 of 36 PageID #: 3109
Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 174 Filed 06/27/24 Page 33 of 36 PageID #: 3110
Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 174 Filed 06/27/24 Page 34 of 36 PageID #: 3111
Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 174 Filed 06/27/24 Page 35 of 36 PageID #: 3112
Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 174 Filed 06/27/24 Page 36 of 36 PageID #: 3113