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





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(18 U.S.C.


§1350)





In
connection with the Annual Report of Karat Platinum Inc. (Formerly Sentra
Consulting Corp.), a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for
the period ended March 31, 2008 (the “Report”) as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, the undersigned, David Neuberg,
Chief Executive Officer and President 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:





The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.




By:
      /s/  David
      Neuberg

              Name:
      David Neuberg
              Title:
      Chief Executive Officer and President
              (Principal
      Executive Officer)
              June
      26, 2008




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Karat Platinum Inc. (Formerly Sentra Consulting Corp.) and will be
retained by Karat Platinum Inc and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5207 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study 

to determine the suitability and feasibility of establishing the John P. 

Parker House in Ripley, Ohio, as a unit of the National Park System. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 25, 2014 

Mrs. BEATTY (for herself, Ms. KAPTUR, and Mr. STIVERS) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special 

resource study to determine the suitability and feasibility 

of establishing the John P. Parker House in Ripley, 

Ohio, as a unit of the National Park System. 

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 ‘‘John P. Parker House 

5 Study Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

7 In this Act: 


jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5207 IH

1 (1) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

2 the Secretary of the Interior. 

3 (2) STUDY AREA.—The term ‘‘study area’’ 

4 means the John P. Parker House in Ripley, Ohio, 

5 which was recognized as a National Historic Land6 mark in 1997. 

7 SEC. 3. SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY OF JOHN P. PARKER 

8 HOUSE. 

9 (a) STUDY.—The Secretary shall conduct a special 

10 resource study of the study area to determine the suit11 ability and feasibility of establishing the John P. Parker 

12 House in Ripley, Ohio, as a unit of the National Park Sys13 tem. 

14 (b) STUDY REQUIREMENTS.—The Secretary shall 

15 conduct the study in accordance with section 8 of the Na16 tional Park System General Authorities Act (16 U.S.C. 

17 1a–5). 

18 (c) REPORT.—Not later than 3 years after the date 

19 on which funds are made available to carry out this Act, 

20 the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Natural 

21 Resources of the House of Representatives and the Com22 mittee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate 

23 a report that describes— 

24 (1) the results of the study; and 


jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5207 IH

1 (2) any recommendations of the Secretary. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
|Exhibit 23.1Schwartz Levitsky Feldman llpCHARTERED ACCOUNTANTSLICENSED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTSTORONTO ·MONTREALCONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


The undersigned, Schwartz Levitsky Feldman llp, hereby consent to the use of our name and the use of our opinion dated January 21, 2009, except for note 18 which is as of May 4, 2009, on the consolidated financial statements of Pacific Copper Corp. (the"Company") included in its Annual Report on Form 10-K (Amendment No. 1) being filed by the Company, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2008."SCHWARTZ LEVITSKY FELDMAN LLP"
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Toronto, Ontario, Canada
May 4, 2009                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
|
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 8, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 7584]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3053]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Modified Consent Decree Pursuant to the 
Ocean Dumping Ban Act

    In accordance with Departmental policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is 
hereby given that a Supplemental Order on Consent Modifying the Consent 
Decree Entered on September 12, 1989, between the United States, the 
State of New Jersey and the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners 
(``modified Consent Decree'') in United States and the State of New 
Jersey v. Joint Meeting of Essex and Union Counties, et al., (D.N.J.) 
89 Civ. 3339 (HAA), was lodged on January 31, 1995, with the United 
States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
    The proposed modified Consent Decree requires that Passaic Valley 
Sewerage Commissioners (``PVSC'') implement beneficial use of 100% of 
its sludge product no later than June 31, 2001. However, the modified 
Consent Decree could require PVSC to implement beneficial use of 100% 
of its sludge product at earlier dates, depending upon the contractors 
PVSC procures to implement its beneficial use program. The United 
States, New Jersey and PVSC entered into the original Consent Decree on 
September 12, 1989. The Original Consent Decree and its modification 
enforce the Ocean Dumping Ban Act, 33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. (``ODBA'').
    The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the 
proposed modified Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the 
Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources 
Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530, and should 
refer to United States and the State of New Jersey v. Joint Meeting of 
Essex and Union Counties, et al., DOJ Ref. # 90-5-1-1-3505.
    The proposed modified Consent Decree may be examined at the United 
States Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey, Federal 
Building, Room 502, 970 Broad Street, Newark, NJ 07102; the Region II 
Office of the Environmental Protection Agency, 26 Federal Plaza, New 
York, NY 10278; and the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street, N.W., 
4th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005, (202) 624-0892. A copy of the 
proposed modified Consent Decree may be obtained in person or by mail 
from the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street, N.W., 4th Floor, 
Washington, D.C. 20005. In requesting a copy please refer to the 
referenced case and enclose a check in the amount of $3.50 (25 cents 
per page reproduction costs), payable to the Consent Decree Library.
Bruce Gelber,
Acting Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and 
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 95-3053 Filed 2-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          19,157
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   74,035
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     31,324
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               128,356
<PP&E>                                         200,208
<DEPRECIATION>                                  28,618
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 648,123
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          106,641
<BONDS>                                        331,002
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    189,778
<COMMON>                                         9,314
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   648,123
<SALES>                                        549,673
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               549,673
<CGS>                                          413,568
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  413,568
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (912)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,892
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,089
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,089
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,089
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

United States Space Command

USSPACECOM

                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  About    -  Mission         
  -  Warfighting Units         
  -  Frequently Asked Questions         
  -  Strategic Vision         
  -  Emblem 
-  Leaders    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Command Senior Enlisted Leader         
  -  Chief of Staff 
-  Support    -  Inspector General         
  -  FOIA      -  Making a FOIA Request         
    -  Reading Room 
  -  Equal Opportunity Coordinator         
  -  Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Victim Advocate         
  -  Command Chaplain         
  -  Commandant         
  -  Resilience Program 
-  Newsroom    -  News      -  FY2025 Testimony 
  -  Photos and Videos         
  -  Speeches         
  -  Publications 
-  Contact		 
-  Partnerships and Outreach    -  Academic Engagement Enterprise      -  AEE Articles of Interest         
    -  AEE Members         
    -  AEE Multimedia         
    -  AEE Research Library 
  -  Careers      -  Civilians         
    -  Internships 
  -  Industry Engagement Portal 
-  Newcomers    -  Newcomer Information         
  -  Checking In 

# PHOTOS ANDVIDEOS

Search

Search

                                - All Images 
                                - Other 
                                - Space Shuttle 

                                - Upload Date
                                - Photo Date
                                - Title

Clear Search3 results found.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6395
CURTIS R. DAVY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-01-4033-6-13AK) Submitted: October 28, 2002 Decided: November 7, 2002 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis R. Davy, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Frank McDonald, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES AT TORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Curtis R. Davy appeals the district court’s order granting the Respondents’ motion to dismiss his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court, see Davy v. INS , No. CA-01-4033-6- 13AK (D.S.C. filed Jan. 4, 2002 & entered Jan. 8, 2002), and on the reasoning of our recent decision in Chambers v. Reno , F.3d , 2002 WL 31301183 (4th Cir. Oct. 15, 2002). 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.

AFFIRMED
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, 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 April 1, 2013

p0325 

# Order

April 1, 2013

146258 & (9)

RAYMOND LANE,

Plaintiff,

v SC: 146258

AGC: 2186

- 12

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the complaint for superintending control is considered, and

relief is DENIED, because the Court is not persuaded that it should grant the requested

relief. The motion for miscellaneous relief is DENIED.
#### George B. Colyer, Respondent, v. Charles S. Colyer Administrator, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

Opinion by

Dykman, J.
Skip to main content

# Social Security

Search
Menu
Español
Sign in

## Fee for Services Performed as a Representative Payee
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5681 

AN ACT 

To provide for the approval of the Amendment to the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of 

America and the Government of the United Kingdom 

of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for Cooperation 

on the Uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Defense Purposes. 
2 

•HR 5681 EH

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

3 SECTION 1. APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE 

4 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT 

5 OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND 

6 THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KING7 DOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN 

8 IRELAND FOR COOPERATION ON THE USES 

9 OF ATOMIC ENERGY FOR MUTUAL DEFENSE 

10 PURPOSES. 

11 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the provisions 

12 for congressional consideration of a proposed agreement 

13 for cooperation in subsection d. of section 123 of the 

14 Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2153), the amend15 ments to the Agreement Between the Government of the 

16 United States of America and the Government of the 

17 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 

18 for Cooperation on the Uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual 

19 Defense Purposes, done at Washington, July 22, 2014, 

20 and transmitted to Congress on July 24, 2014, including 

21 all portions thereof (hereinafter in this section referred to 

22 as the ‘‘Amendment’’), may be brought into effect on or 

23 after the date of the enactment of this Act as if all the 

24 requirements in such section 123 for consideration of the 
3 

•HR 5681 EH

1 Amendment had been satisfied, subject to subsection (b) 

2 of this section. 

3 (b) APPLICABILITY OF ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF

4 1954 AND OTHER PROVISIONS OF LAW.—Upon coming 

5 into effect, the Amendment shall be subject to the provi6 sions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 

7 et seq.) and any other applicable United States law as if 

8 the Amendment had come into effect in accordance with 

9 the requirements of section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act 

10 of 1954. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 19, 

2014. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5681 

AN ACT 

To provide for the approval of the Amendment to 

ic Energy for Mutual Defense Purposes. ern Ireland for Cooperation on the Uses of Atomthe United Kingdom of Great Britain and NorthUnited States of America and the Government of the Agreement Between the Government of the
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-1269

DENNIS J. SOLOMON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,

Defendant-Appellee,

and

EVANS & SUTHERLAND,

Defendant-Appellee,

and

JOHN J. DOLL, Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office,

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,

and TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

MICHAEL MACEDONIA, SCOTT EDELMAN, MR. QUINN,

MR. HAIRSTON, and MR. HOLTZMAN,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in

case no. 07-CV-1811, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.

ON MOTION

Before LINN, Circuit Judge.
ORDER 

The court considers whether this appeal should be transferred to the United

States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Dennis J. Solomon appeals from a decision of the United States District Court for

the District of Columbia dismissing Solomon's complaint regarding a previous

trademark application. This court is a court of limited jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1295.

Based only upon our review of the papers transmitted by the district court, it does not

appear that this court has jurisdiction over this appeal.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

Absent a response received by this court within 21 days of the date of filing of

this order, this appeal will be transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.

FOR THE COURT

APR 2 0 2009

/s/ Jan Horbalv

Date Jan Horbaly

Clerk FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

cc:	Dennis J. Solomon

Brian W. Craver, Esq.

Raymond T. Chen, Esq.

Howard Hogan, Esq.

s19

APR 2 0 2009

iun:oruu

CLERK

2009-1269	 2
#### William Sirrine, administrator, *et al.,*plaintiffs in error, *vs.*The Southwestern Railroad Company, defendant in error.

(Montgomery, Judge, was providentially prevented from presiding in this ease.)

Under the provisions of the Act of 1871, the Superior Court is authorized to appoint an auditor to investigate the matters of account, if in its discretion the case shall require it. (R.)

Appointment of auditor. Before Judge Clark. Sumter Superior Court. November Term, 1872.

The Southwestern Railroad Company brought complaint against William Sirrine, as administrator upon the estate of Hawkins H. Nunn, deceased, as principal, and William W. Barlow and Wade J. Barlow, securities, on a bond made by said Nunn, on June 14th, 1857, in the sum of $10,000 00, conditioned for the faithful discharge of his duties, as agent of said railroad company at Americus, and for a full account of all property, moneys, etc., received by him as such agent. Pending the litigation the plaintiff petitioned for the appointment of an auditor, upon the ground that the suit involved the account of Nunn, as agent as aforesaid, for a number of years, of a large and complicated nature.

The Court appointed Philip Cook auditor, in accordance with the prayer of the petition. Whereupon defendants excepted and assign said ruling as error.

C. T. Goode ; W. A. Hawkins, for plaintiffs in error.

R. F. Lyon ; N. A. Smith, for defendant.

Warner, Chief Justice.

The error complained of in this case is the appointment of an auditor to audit the accounts of the defendant’s intestate, who, and his securities, were sued on the bond of the intestate as the agent of the plaintiff, alleging as a breach thereof, that the defepdant’s intestate had received divers sums of money *587as such agent, which he had not accounted for and paid over to the plaintiff. Under the provisions of the Act of 1871, the Court is authorized to appoint an auditor to investigate matters of account, if in its discretion the case shall require it.

Let the judgment of the Court below be affirmed.
#### MARY DAVIS v. SOUTHEASTERN FINANCE COMPANY, G. H. BAUD, R. H. NICHOLS and S. W. PORTER.

(Filed 4 May, 1955.)

Master and Servant § 22—

Evidence in tliis case *held,*sufficient to he submitted to the jury under the principle of *respondeat superior*on the issue of the liability of the employer for an assault committed by the employee.

Baenhill, C. J., tools no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Hubbard, S. J.,*at October Civil Term 1954, of WaKe.

Civil action to recover damages, punitive and compensatory, arising out of alleged assaults, false arrest and false imprisonment.

Plaintiff alleges in her complaint, summarily stated, substantially these facts: That on 20 August, 1953, defendants Ball and Nichols assaulted her and falsely imprisoned her, while attempting to collect from her a debt which she owed defendant Southeastern Finance Company, and that these alleged wrongs were done while Ball was acting for, and in the course and scope of his employment by Southeastern Finance Company, to her great damage.

And upon trial in Superior Court, plaintiff offered evidence which she contends tends to support the allegations of her complaint, and sufficient to take the case to the jury. But at the close of plaintiff’s evidence *234motion of defendant Southeastern Finance Company for judgment as of nonsuit was sustained, to which ruling plaintiff objected and excepted. The case was submitted to the jury only as to defendants Ball and Nichols. The jury, having failed to agree upon a verdict, the court withdrew a juror and declared a mistrial.

From the judgment as of nonsuit as to defendant Southeastern Finance Company, plaintiff appeals to Supreme Court and assigns error.

*Taylor & Mitchell for -plaintiff, appellant.*

*Dupree & Weaver for defendant Finance Company, appellee.*

Per Curiam.

Considering the evidence offered by plaintiff upon the trial in Superior Court, in the light most favorable to her, and giving to her the benefit of every reasonable inference, as must be done in considering a motion for judgment as of nonsuit, it would seem that the evidence is sufficient to take the case to the jury as against defendant Southeastern Finance Company in respect to the alleged assault, under the principle of *respondeat superior.*

Therefore the judgment from which appeal is taken must be reversed. In view of this decision the Court refrains from a discussion of the •evidence shown in the case on appeal.

Reversed.

Barnhill, C. J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
null

367.41937