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


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


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




In
connection with the quarterly report of International Development and
Environmental Holdings (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
November 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates
indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his
knowledge:





(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 results of operations of the Company.





Date:
January 12,2010




/s/ Bernard J. Tanenbaum
  IIIName:
              Bernard
      J. Tanenbaum IIITitle:
              President,
      Chief Executive Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
International Development and Environmental Holdings and will be retained by
International Development and Environmental Holdings and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.2


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Empire Sports & Entertainment Holdings Co. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Adam Wasserman, chief financial officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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 results of operations of the Company.














Date: May 13, 2011
By:
/s/ Adam WassermanAdam Wasserman

Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)





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 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.
NIOSH 10-Year Program Review

Implementation

Stuart Hinnefeld

Director 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Division of Compensation Analysis and Support

December 2011

Tampa, FL
Five Review Reports 

 Reports focus on the following topic areas:

• Dose Reconstruction

• Quality of Service

• Timeliness of Program Products

• SEC Petitions

• Quality of Science

 Summary of the reports and recommendations are 

available on the NIOSH Web site at: 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docket/review/

docket194/default.html) 
Quality of Service

 Issues related to customer-supplied information

• Develop system(s) for collecting all customer comments 

along with disposition action

 Issues related to understandability of information

• Improve understandability and quality of communication 

vehicles: Web site, information sheets, letters to 

claimants or petitioners, etc.

 Issues related to access to information

• Ensure Board and Work Group work products are posted 

on the Web site as soon as practical
Timeliness

 Give higher priority to claims returned by DOL for 

new dose reconstruction

 Continue to adopt aggressive timeliness objectives 

for dose reconstruction

 Adopt aggressive time limits for the completion of 

the review of SEC petitions
SEC Petitions

 Separate “policy” issues from “science” issues

• Include more detail on the evolution of a science decision 

in SEC Evaluation Reports (e.g., thorium exposures)

• Develop a policy memo with each Evaluation Report that 

identifies policy decision and the thought process behind 

the decisions 

 Work to define “sufficient accuracy”

 Utilize staff “other than health physicists” when 

appropriate to guard against “professional 

orientation” toward accepting adequacy of 

techniques 
Quality of Science

 Consider subjecting program documents to formal 

peer review

• NIOSH is developing an implementation guide to identify 

levels of review of program documents

 Assess validity of indirect exposure methods

• NIOSH is conducting trial-run validation using Savannah 

River Site data
Quality of Science—cont. 

 Characterize degree of claimant-favorability in current 

methods

• Compare “claimant-favorable” approaches to assessment 

methods commonly used in other applications

 Evaluate utility of EPA surrogate data protocol

 NIOSH review of EPA protocol indicates its 

recommendations are similar to information in “The 

Use of Data from Other Facilities in the Completion of 

Dose Reconstructions Under EEOICPA” (DCAS-IG-004) 

• Non-NIOSH reviewers will review EPA protocol against 

methods used by NIOSH
Dose Reconstruction

 Work with Subcommittee on Dose Reconstruction 

Reviews on QA/QC evaluation

• Develop duplicate analysis program in order to identify potential 

issues with dose reconstruction process

• Review recent dose reconstruction review findings to determine 

cause of findings

 Prioritize elimination of overestimating dose 

reconstructions relative to implementation of other 

program review actions

• Analyze cost of eliminating overestimating dose reconstructions

• Consider impact on long-range budget planning
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 7720** 

MARION LEON BEA , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. GENE JOHNSON , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of V irginia , at Alexandria
. T. S. Ellis, III , Senior District Judge. ( 1:09

- cv - 00907

- TSE

- TCB )

Submitted : March 16, 2010 Decided: March 22, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Marion Leon Bea, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Marion Leon Bea filed motions in the district court challenging his Virginia state court convictions that he characterized as seeking relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). He seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his motion s collectively as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition, and d enying relief on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issue s a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006) ; Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253( c)(2) (2006) . A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

co urt is likewise debatable. Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);
Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683

- 84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bea has not made th e requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Bea’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive3 petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factf inder would have found the petitioner guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) (2006)
. Bea’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition. We dispense with oral argument becau se the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
| 1. | I      have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Liberty Lane      Acquisition Corp.; |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| 3. | Based      on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information      included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the      financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the      registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this      report; |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 4. | The      registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for      establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as      defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant      and have: |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 5. | The      registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our      most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to      the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of      directors (or persons performing the equivalent  functions): |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:     July 3,      2008 | By:    | /s/      Kevin P. Clark                                              |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                      |   | Name:      Kevin P. Clark                                            |
|                                                      |   | Title:   Vice      President, Secretary and Treasurer |
AGENDA

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

Meeting of the

Subcommittee on Dose Reconstruction Review

February 4, 2013 

Cincinnati Airport Marriott 

2395 Progress Dr. 

Hebron, KY 41048 

859-586-0166

Conference Call Number: 1-866-659-0537

Participant Pass Code: 9933701

8:30 a.m. Eastern Time

Welcome and roll-call 

Discussion

Items related to NIOSH 10-year review

• Update on DCAS “blind” dose reconstruction quality control case reviews 

Case Reviews Issue Resolution

• Sets 8–9 

• Sets 10-13, Savannah River Site

• Sets 10-13, Rocky Flats Plant 

• Sets 10-13, Los Alamos National Laboratory 

• Identification of next sites for issue resolution from review sets 10-13 

5:00 p.m. Adjourn
Executive Order 13425

# Trial of Alien Unlawful Enemy Combatants by Military 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-366), the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40), and section 948b(b) of title 10, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:

**Section 1.***Establishment of Military Commissions.*                     There are hereby established military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants for offenses triable by military commission as provided in chapter 47A of title 10.                

**Sec. 2.***Definitions.*                     As used in this order:                

(a) “unlawful enemy combatant” has the meaning provided for that term in section 948a(1) of title 10; and

(b) “alien” means a person who is not a citizen of the United States.

**Sec. 3.***Supersedure.*                     This order supersedes any provision of the President's Military Order of November 13, 2001 (66                     *Fed. Reg.*                     57,833), that relates to trial by military commission, specifically including:                

(a) section 4 of the Military Order; and

(b) any requirement in section 2 of the Military Order, as it relates to trial by military commission, for a determination of:

(i) reason to believe specified matters; or

(ii) the interest of the United States.

**Sec. 4.***General Provisions.*                     (a) This order shall be implemented in accordance with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.                

(b) The heads of executive departments and agencies shall provide such information and assistance to the Secretary of Defense as may be necessary to implement this order and chapter 47A of title 10.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

[FR Doc. 07-780

Billing code 3195-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.1




Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,




as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2002







In connection with the accompanying Form 10-K of ZAP for the year ended December 31, 2009, Steven M. Schneider, Director and Chief Executive Officer of ZAP, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:




(1)           such Form 10-K of ZAP for the year ended December 31, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange of 1934; and




(2)           the information contained in such Form 10-K of ZAP for the year ended December 31, 2009, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of ZAP .




Date:  November 12, 2010
By:
/s/ Steve SchneiderSteve SchneiderDirector and Chief Executive Officer
AGENDA

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

Grand Junction Group

Teleconference: August 7, 2017

1:00 p.m. Eastern Time

Conference Phone: 1-866-659-0537; Participant Code: 9933701#

Welcome and roll call

1. NIOSH Response to SC&A SEC Review concern – Post 1990 monitoring. 

(July 27, 2017 DCAS Memo)

2. Petitioner Comments (optional)

3. WG SEC Recommendation for August Board Meeting (1986-2010) and/or Path 

forward

4. PER 47: SC&A June 22 Memo on Finding 3.

5. Remaining issues? 

Adjourn
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 40967 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JOSE ZELAYA

- MEMBRENO , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:19

- CR

- 310

- 1

Before CLEMENT, GRAVES, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Zelaya

Membreno has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Zelaya

- Membreno h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief an d the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 30, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-40967 Document: 00515471585 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/30/2020No. 19

- 40967

2 nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from furt her responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 19-40967 Document: 00515471585 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/30/2020
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 26, 2010 

0519 

Order 

 

May 26, 2010 

140376 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140376 

 COA: 294380 

Kent CC: 09-002703-FH 

DARYL JACK BIEREMA, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 18, 2009 

order 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.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 35 (Thursday, February 22, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7928-7929]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-777]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2006-25941; Airspace Docket No. 06-ACE-11]


Modification of Class E Airspace; Creston, IA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: This document confirms the effective date of the direct final 
rule which revises Class E airspace at Creston, IA.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, March 15, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Grant Nichols, System Support, DOT

[[Page 7929]]

Regional Headquarters Building, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 
Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: (816) 329-2522.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA published this direct final rule 
with a request for comments in the Federal Register on December 28, 
2006 (71 FR 78054). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure 
for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be 
no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public 
that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written 
adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an 
adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the 
regulation would become effective on March 15, 2007. No adverse 
comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that this direct 
final rule will become effective on that date.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on February 6, 2007.
Ronnie Uhlenhaker,
Manager, System Support Group, ATO Central Service Area.
[FR Doc. 07-777 Filed 2-21-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Order issued November 24, 2014

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

________________________________________ 

No. 05-13-00306-CR 

________________________________________ 

KAREN PATRICIA BOWIE, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 

O R D E R 

Before Justices Bridges, Lang-Miers, and Myers 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we GRANT the April 9, 2014 motion of Jessie 

R. Allen for leave to withdraw as appointed counsel on appeal. We DIRECT the Clerk of the 

Court to remove Jessie R. Allen as counsel of record for appellant. We DIRECT the Clerk of 

the Court to send a copy of this order and all future correspondence to Karen Patricia Bowie, 

TDCJ No. 1839441, Crain Unit, 1401 State School Road, Gatesville, Texas, 76599-2999. 

 

/David L. Bridges/ 

DAVID L. BRIDGES 

JUSTICE
Exhibit 10.44


 


July 14, 2014


 


VIA HAND DELIVERY


 


Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus


721 Route 202-206, Suite 200


P.O. Box 1018


Somerville, New Jersey 08876-1018


Attention: John J. Eagan, Esq.


 


		Re:	Sublease dated as of May 16, 2011 by and between Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A. and Senesco Technologies, Inc.



 


Dear Mr. Eagan:


 


Reference is hereby made to that certain Sublease dated as of
May 16, 2011, as amended on April 11, 2014 by and between Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A. and Senesco Technologies, Inc.
(the “Sublease”). Pursuant to Section 2 of the Sublease, as amended, please consider this letter our formal written
election to exercise our right to extend the term of the Sublease through November 30, 2014. Following the delivery of this notice,
the definition of “Termination Date” in the Sublease shall mean November 30, 2014.


 


Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please
feel free to contact me at (908) 864-4444. This letter shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of New Jersey.


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 
	 	SENESCO TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Joel Brooks
	 	Name:	Joel Brooks
	 	Title:	CFO
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED
STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to
Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as Chief Executive Officer of GigOptix, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify
that to the undersigneds knowledge:

1) the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the three months ended April 3, 2011 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 such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.



|                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    Dr. Avi S. Katz                                 
|Dr. Avi S. Katz                                        
|Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive Officer

Dated: May 16, 2011