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 Annual Report of SIGA Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dr. Eric A. Rose, M.D., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my 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.




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.




/s/Eric A. Rose, M.D.Dr. Eric A. Rose, M.D.Chief Executive OfficerOctober 19, 2010


---
Order entered June 25, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 13

- 00378

- CV

TODD D. PRUETT , Appellant

V.
MARK STOLZ, ET AL. , Appellee s
On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court C ause No. DC

- 12

- 07463



### O RDER
On April 16, 2013, the trial court granted the motion to sever filed by appellees. As of today’s date, a new trial court cause number has not been assigned to the severed cause. Accordingly, we ORDER Gary Fitzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk, to assign a new
cause number to the severed cause. We further ORDER Gary Fitzsimmons, to file, within twenty days of the date of this order , a supplemental clerk’s record containing documentation notifying this Court , appellant and the parties of the new trial court cause number.
We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order, by electronic transmission, to Gary Fitzsimmons, the Honorable Carl Ginsberg, Judge of the 19 3 rd Judicial District Court, and counsel for appel lees. We further DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this letter by first

- class mail to appellant.
/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2425 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.2425

                       One Hundred Sixth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
             the twenty-fourth day of January, two thousand

                                 An Act

 
 To authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to participate in the planning, 
   design, and construction of the Bend Feed Canal Pipeline Project, 
                     Oregon, 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 ``Bend Feed Canal Pipeline Project Act 
of 2000''.

SEC. 2. FEDERAL PARTICIPATION.

    (a) The Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with the Tumalo 
Irrigation District (referred to in this section as the ``District''), 
is authorized to participate in the planning, design, and construction 
of the Bend Feed Canal Pipeline Project, Oregon.
    (b) The Federal share of the costs of the project shall not exceed 
50 percent of the total, and shall be nonreimbursable. The District 
shall receive credit from the Secretary toward the District's share of 
the project for any funds the District has provided toward the design, 
planning or construction prior to the enactment of this Act.
    (c) Funds received under this Act shall not be considered a 
supplemental or additional benefit under the Act of June 17, 1902 (82 
Stat. 388) and all Acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto.
    (d) Title to facilities constructed under this Act will be held by 
the District.
    (e) Operations and maintenance of the facilities will be the 
responsibility of the District.
    (f) There are authorized to be appropriated $2,500,000 for the 
Federal share of the activities authorized under this Act.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Opinion issued December 16, 2014 .

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 14 - 00765 - CV

——————————— IN RE SUNBELT RENTAL S, INC. , Relator

O riginal Proceeding o n Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. , has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus,
c hallenging the trial court’s orders requiring relator to respond to discovery requests and ordering the deposition of relator’s claims and insurance manager . 1 Re al party in interest, Julie Rogers as next friend for Dalton Rogers, a minor, has

1 The underlying case i s Julie Rogers, as Next Friend of Dalton Rogers, a Minor v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. and Cody Fox, Individually , Cause No. 2013

- 65334 , in the 151st District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Michael Engelhart presiding.2

filed a motion to dismiss the petition as moot . On November 17 , 2014, the trial court signed an order va cating the orders underlying this mandamus proceeding. Accordingly, the petition is moot. See In re Becker , No. 01

- 10

- 00917

- CV, 2011 WL 1588520, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 21, 2011, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (citing In re Campbell , 106 S. W.3d 788, 788 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2003, orig. proceeding))
. We grant the motion to dismiss and dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus as moot . We dismiss all other pending motions as moot. Finally, we vacate our stay order, issued on September 16, 201 4
.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Sharp, and Massengale.
EXHIBIT 32.2





SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350




I, Scott A. Oboy, the Chief Financial Officer of Commercial Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”), certify that (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Company for the year ended December 31, 2010 (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.





/s/ Scott A. OboyChief Financial OfficerDated:  March 29, 2011





79.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 18, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27783-27784]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11875]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


Decision To Evaluate a Petition To Designate a Class of Employees 
From the Mound Site in Miamisburg, OH, To Be Included in the Special 
Exposure Cohort

AGENCY: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: HHS gives notice as required by 42 CFR 83.12(e) of a decision 
to evaluate a petition to designate a class of employees from the Mound 
site in Miamisburg, Ohio, to be included in the Special Exposure Cohort 
under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program 
Act of 2000. The initial proposed definition for the class being 
evaluated, subject to revision as warranted by the evaluation, is as 
follows:
    Facility: Mound site.
    Location: Miamisburg, Ohio.
    Job Titles and/or Job Duties: All employees of the Department of 
Energy, its predecessor agencies, and their contractors and 
subcontractors who worked in the R and SW Buildings.
    Period of Employment: March 1, 1959 through March 5, 1980.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Interim Director, 
Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, 
Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 877-222-7570. Information requests can

[[Page 27784]]

also be submitted by e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4f0b0c0e1c0f0c0b0c61080019"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4f0b0c0e1c0f0c0b0c61080019">[email protected]</span></a>.

John Howard,
Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2010-11875 Filed 5-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-19-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# Public Laws Granting Honorary U. S. Citizenship

**

----

Updated January 2015

        -  Bills, Acts, & Laws 
        -  Nominations 
        -  Treaties 
        -  Votes 
        -  Floor Proceedings 
        -  Rules & Procedure 
        -  Landmark Legislation 
        -  Sessions of Congress 
        -  Senate Archives 
        -  Public Disclosure
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of - )

)

G2 Global Solutions, LLC ) ASBCA No. 63415

)

Under Contract No. HHM402-17-C-0113 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Isaias Cy Alba, IV, Esq.

Kevin T. Barnett, Esq.

 PilieroMazza PLLC

 Washington, DC

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Scott N. Flesch, Esq.

 Army Chief Trial Attorney

CPT Dmitrius R. McGruder, JA

Robert B. Neill, Esq.

 Trial Attorneys

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: September 14, 2023

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the 

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 63415, Appeal of G2 

Global Solutions, LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: September 14, 2023

JOHN J. THRASHER

Administrative Judge

Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-16525) pertaining to the
Physiometrix, Inc. 1991 Stock Plan, 1996 Director Option Plan, and 1996 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and (Form S-8 No. 333-69106) pertaining to the
Physiometrix, Inc. 2000 Supplemental Stock Plan and the 2001 Stock Option Plan, of our report dated February 5, 2004, with respect to the financial statements of
Physiometrix, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2003.



Boston,
Massachusetts
March 24, 2004

---

QuickLinks
Appeal Reinstated; Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed; and Memo randum

Opinion filed November 13 , 2018 .

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 17 -00284- CV JOSEPH FRIED, Appellant

V. PAUL HARLAN & ROBERT COLLINS, Appellees On Appeal from the 234th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2016-12069

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N This is an interlocutory appeal from an order signed March 23, 2017

. We abated the appeal on the parties’ motion on June 21, 2018, for the parties to pursue settlement. On November 8, 2018, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. We reinstate the appeal, grant the motion, and dismiss the appeal. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Jamison, and Brown
#### Martha J. Andrus, Appellant, v. Silver Lake Railway Company, Respondent, Impleaded with Buffalo, Rochester and Pittsburgh Railway Company.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

All concurred.
Applied Signal Technology, Inc.
  Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial 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 Report of Applied Signal Technology, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 29, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James E. Doyle, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); 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/ James E. Doyle
        James E. Doyle
        Vice President and Chief Financial Officer | March 8, 2010
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-1834

In Re: MICHAEL EUGENE YOUNG, 

 Petitioner. 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:04-cr-00318-RJC-CH-1) 

Submitted: October 19, 2009 Decided: November 5, 2009 

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Michael Eugene Young, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Michael Eugene Young petitions for a writ of mandamus, 

alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 

motion for return of property pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 

41(g). He seeks an order from this court directing the district 

court to act. Our review of the docket sheet reveals that the 

district court has scheduled a hearing on Young’s motion. 

Accordingly, because the district court has recently acted in 

Young’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED
Exhibit 15





Alfa Corporation


Birmingham, Alabama





Ladies and Gentlemen:





|Re: |  | Registration Statement No. 33-83134 on Form S-3 and 33-77916 and 33-76460 on Form S-8
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




With respect to the subject registration statements, we acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of our report dated May 6, 2002, related to our review of interim financial information.





Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, our report dated October 24, 2001 related to our review of interim financial information is not considered part of a
registration statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of section 7 and 11 of the Act.





/s/ KPMG LLP


Birmingham, Alabama


May 6, 2002
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

The undersigned, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Gales Industries
Incorporated (the "Company"), does hereby certify under the standards set forth
and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of
the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and information contained in that Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: March 30, 2007                      /s/ Peter D. Rettaliata
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Peter D. Rettaliata
                                           President and 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.
EXHIBIT 32.1**Certification**     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Bowater Incorporated (the “Company”),hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q forthe quarter ended September 30, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.   Dated: November 14, 2006 /s/ David J. Paterson     Name: David J. Paterson
#### Stapleton, appellant, *v.*Pease, respondent.

UNDERTAKING our appeal. Tlie undertaking on appeal must comply substantially with tie statute.

*Same*— excess *in penalty.*An undertaking on appeal, which is executed in the penal sum of $500 when the statute fixes the same at $800, is valid.

*Appeal from Second District, Bemerhead County.*

ChuMAsero *&*Chadwiok, for the motion to dismiss the appeal.

JoHNSTON & Toole, contra.

BlaKE, J.

The respondent moves to dismiss this appeal because the proper undertaking has not been filed. The statute *509requires that the undertaking on appeal shall be executed *“*to the effect that the appellant will prosecute his appeal with effect, and will pay all damages and costs which may be awarded against him on the dismissal or trial of the appeal, not exceeding $300.” Sts. 8th Sess. 50, § 5. The undertaking in this case contains the following condition: “ The said plaintiffs will prosecute their appeal with effect, and pay all costs and damages which may be awarded against-plaintiffs and in favor of defendants on said appeal, either by the dismissal or the trial of said appeal, not exceeding the sum of $500.” The undertaking recites that the judgment has been recovered -for the possession of a certain quartz lode, and costs ($182.50); that plaintiffs are desirous of appealing from the judgment to the supreme court, and that the court has ordered that an undertaking be given in the sum of $500, as security for the costs and damages on the appeal, and a stay of proceedings in the land office. It appears that the court made an order that all proceedings be stayed upon the filing of a bond in the sum of $500. The respondent contends that the undertaking has been given according to this order, and that there is no undertaking to render this appeal effectual.

It is not necessary for us to determine the sufficiency of the undertaking under the order of the court below. ¥e are satisfied that it sustains this appeal. The undertaking complies substantially with the statute, and secures to the respondent all that the law designed for him. Yoorhies’ Code (10th ed.), 541 *c ; Zoller*v. McDonald, 23 Cal. 136.

The execution of the undertaking in a sum which exceeds that fixed by the statute does not affect its validity. *Ex parte Eastabrooks,*5 Cow. 27; *Zoller v. McDonald, supra.*

The motion is overruled.

*Motion overruled.*
**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 B&D Food Corp. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on May 20, 2009 (the “Report”), I,
      Daniel Ollech, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted 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, 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.




By:
            /s/ Daniel Ollech**Daniel Ollech**
              **Chief Financial Officer**




November 19, 2009
Exhibit 10.61
 CONFORMED COPY
  
   Retention Bonus
  Retention Bonuses
 1




---



##### 



Effect of Certain Terminations following a Sale
   2




---



##### 



Effect of Certain Terminations Absent a Porex Change of Control
  
  Effect on HLTH Equity
   No Sale Obligation
  3




---



##### 



Section 409A
  Effect on Employment Agreement
   SNTC HOLDING, INC.By:
    /s/ Frank J. FaillaFrank J. FaillaAssistant TreasurerPOREX CORPORATIONBy:
    /s/ Charles A. MeleCharles A. MeleExecutive Vice President Acknowledged and Agreed/s/ William MidgetteWILLIAM MIDGETTEAcknowledged
HLTH CORPORATIONBy:
    /s/ Charles A. MeleCharles A. MeleExecutive Vice President 4
Case 4 —Mandamus

March 10.

#### Stone, Auditor, v. Craft.

APPEAL PROM FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT.

Amount in Controversy Less Than $2uu — Right of Appeal Prom Judgment of Mandamus.

OLI'PTON J. PRATT, Attorney-General, and M. H. THATCHER for appellant.

1. tt has always been held by this court, that an appeal will lie from the judgment of the circuit court, awarding a mandamus regardless of the amount in controversy. 'See Barbour’s Digest, division 111, “Mlandamus,” County of Warren v. Daniel, 2 Bibb, 573; also Justice of (Spencer Counity v. Harcourt, 4 B. Mon., 499.

2. The language of the statute regulating appeals to this court, after enumerating judgments for the recovery of personal property or money, of the value or am'ount of $200 and the like, is as follows: “In all other civil cases the court of appeals shall have appellate jurisdiction over the final orders and judgments of .all courts.”

An order or judgment awarding a mandamus is certainly a final order in such other cases contemplated by the statute.

C. P. CHEN AULT fob appellee.

1. The last Legislature enacted that tihe jurisdiction of the court of appeals should not he exercised in cases where the amount in controversy was under $200.

2. The amount in Controversy in this case is $173.15.

*21Helds, A judgment for a mandamus not being a judgment for the recovery of money -or personal property, an appeal lies therefrom, regardless of the amount in controversy.

Opinion op the court by

JUDGE DuRELLE

Reversing.

This case is exactly similar to the case of Stone v. Mayo (this day decided, the opinion in which is here referred to), 55 S. W., 700, except that the question is raised of the jurisdiction of this court on the appeal, the amount involved being less than $200. But a judgment for mandamus is not a judgment for the recovery of money or personal property, and this court, therefore, under the statute, has. jurisdiction, the case not being within the ex ceptions of the statute. See Warren Co. Court v. Daniel, 2 Bibb, 573. The judgment is accordingly reversed for further proceedings consistent with the opinion in that case.