alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Solar Energy Limited (Registrant) for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (Report), I, Andrew Wallace, chief executive officer and chief financial officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1)     This Report complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in this Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition of Registrant

| | at the end of the period covered by this Report and results of operations of Registrant for the period covered by this Report.
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 20, 2006

/s/ Andrew Wallace

Andrew Wallace, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by Registrant for the purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

A signed original of this written statement required by §906 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 29 (Friday, February 12, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7594-7595]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02934]


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

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION

Information Security Oversight Office

[NARA-2016-015]


National Industrial Security Program Policy Advisory Committee 
(NISPPAC)

AGENCY: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 
U.S.C. app 2) and implementing regulation 41 CFR 101-6, NARA announces 
the following committee meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be March 16, 2016, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 
p.m. EST.

ADDRESSES: National Archives and Records Administration, 700 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Archivist's Reception Room, Room 105, 
Washington, DC 20408.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Tringali, Program Analyst, by 
mail at ISOO, National Archives Building; 700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20408, by telephone at (202) 357-5335, or by email at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#22504d404750560c56504b4c45434e4b624c4350430c454d54"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="aedcc1cccbdcda80dadcc7c0c9cfc2c7eec0cfdccf80c9c1d8">[email protected]</span></a>. Contact ISOO at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#69203a26262907081b08470e061f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6b223824242b050a190a450c041d">[email protected]</span></a> and the NISPPAC 
at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cc82859f9c9c8d8f8ca2adbeade2aba3ba"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ade3e4fefdfdeceeedc3ccdfcc83cac2db">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of this meeting is to discuss 
National Industrial Security Program

[[Page 7595]]

policy matters. The meeting will be open to the public. However, due to 
space limitations and access procedures, you must submit the name and 
telephone number of individuals planning to attend to the Information 
Security Oversight Office (ISOO) no later than Friday, March 11, 2016. 
ISOO will provide additional instructions for accessing the meeting's 
location.

    Dated: February 8, 2016.
Patrice Little Murray,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2016-02934 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7515-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**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

 

Inconnection with the quarterly report of bebe stores, inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended October 1, 2005, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gregory Scott, ChiefExecutive 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, based on my knowledge:

 

(1)          The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a)  or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated: November 10,  2005 | /s/ Gregory  Scott       |   |
|--------------------------------|--------------------------|--------|
|                           | Gregory Scott            |
|                           | Chief Executive  Officer |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6650

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JULIUS WILLIAM HILL, JR., a/k/a Butch Hill, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Salisbury. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-92-83-S, CR-92-84-S, CA-97-489-4) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 15, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Julius William Hill, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Julius William Hill, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Hill , Nos. CR-92-83-S; CR-92-84-S; CA-97- 489-4 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 17, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                              26
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,840
<PP&E>                                         170,496
<DEPRECIATION>                                      37
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 413,047
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           36,709
<BONDS>                                        392,972
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (21,736)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   413,047
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,297
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,127
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,876)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,876)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,876)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Norman Seabrook et al., Appellants, v Bernard C. Kerik et al., Respondents.

[772 NYS2d 822]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered July 5, 2001, which, in an action by correction officers who, pursuant to Administrative Code of the City of New York § 9-112, were suspended from their employment with defendant New York City Department of Correction without pay for more than 30 days pending resolution of criminal charges against them, seeking a declaration that section 9-112 is in conflict with Civil Service Law § 75 (3) and therefore invalid, and related monetary and injunctive relief, denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granted defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Administrative Code § 9-112, insofar as pertinent, provides that correction officers charged with crimes are to be suspended without pay for as long as the charges remain pending. This conflicts with the earlier enacted Civil Service Law § 75 (3), which, insofar as pertinent, provides that a civil servant may not be suspended without pay for more than 30 days pending the hearing and determination of charges of incompetency or misconduct *(Matter of Meringolo v Jacobson,*173 Misc 2d 650 [1997], *affd*256 AD2d 20 [1998], *lv dismissed and denied*93 *224NY2d 948 [1999]). Indeed, the precise intent of section 9-112 was to circumvent section 75 (3) (173 Misc 2d at 653). Such conflict would render section 9-112 invalid but for Civil Service Law § 76 (4) and § 201 (12), which, read together, permit a public employer, such as defendants, and an employee organization, such as plaintiff Correction Officers’ Benevolent Association (COBA), to supplement, modify or replace section 75 (3) by agreement negotiated in collective bargaining, provided such agreement is ultimately approved by the Legislature *(see id.).*The motion court correctly held that such an agreement was established here as a matter of law by, inter alia, the October 25, 1974 side letter signed by COBA’s then president acknowledging agreement with the City of New York to jointly recommend certain language to the City Council that in all essential respects ultimately became section 9-112, and the numerous references in section 9-112’s Bill Jacket to a negotiation and agreement between the City and COBA in connection with their 1974-1976 contract *(see Ballentine v Koch,*89 NY2d 51, 57-58 [1996]). We note that *Meringolo*involved correction captains, not officers, and that the Correction Captains Association, unlike COBA, never agreed to the enactment of section 9-112 *(see Meringolo,*173 Misc 2d at 654).

We have considered plaintiffs’ other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Williams, Lerner, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.
Order filed January 19 , 20 12

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 11

- 00 602

- CV

____________ CHRISTINE E. REULE , Appellant

V.

COLONY INSURANCE COMPANY , Appellee

On Appeal from the 80th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2007

- 46357A



### ORDER This is an appeal from a summary judgment signed April 6 , 2011. The trial court denied a contest to appellant’s affidavit of indigence and determined that appellant is entitled to preparation of the record without the advance payment of costs by order signed July 22, 2011. On August 11, 2011, appellant requested preparation of the reporter’s records from hearings conducted on February 11, 20 11, March 11, 2011, and March 23,
2011. The reporter’ s re cord in this case was due August 4, 2011. See Tex. R. App. P.
35.1. Michelle Tucker, the official court reporter, requested an extension of time to file
the record and advised this court that two additional substitute reporters, Arlene Webb and2

Tony Baiamonte, reported hearings in this case. This court granted an extension of time to file the record until November 16, 2011. The record has not been filed and no further requests for an extension of time to file the record have been received. Accordingly, we issue the following order.

We order Michelle Tucker, Arlene Webb, and Tony Baiamonte, court reporter s , to file the record s from the hearings conducted on February 11, 2011, March 11, 2011, and March 23, 2011, with the clerk of this court on or before February 21 , 20 12

. If any court reporter named above does not timely file the record as ordered, the court may issue a show cause order directing him or her to appear before this court on a date c ertain to show cause why he or she should not be held in contempt for failing to file the record as ordered. Contempt of court is punishable by a fine and/or confinement in jail.

PER CURIAM
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-07-00036-CV

Mohammad Hadi Gharbi, aka M. H. Gharbi and Mike Gharbi, Appellant//

Majid Hemmasi, Cross-Appellant

v.

Majid Hemmasi, Appellee// Mohammad Hadi Gharbi, aka M. H. Gharbi and 

Mike Gharbi, Cross-Appellee 

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. 279,045, HONORABLE ORLINDA NARANJO, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellee/cross-appellant Majid Hemmasi has notified this Court that appellant/crossappellee Mohammad Hadi Gharbi has filed for bankruptcy protection (United States Bankruptcy

Court, W.D. Texas, case number 08-11023-cag). Accordingly, the appeal is stayed. See 11 U.S.C.

§ 362; Tex. R. App. P. 8. Any party may file a motion to reinstate upon the occurrence of an event

that would allow the appeal to proceed. See Tex. R. App. P. 8.3. Failure to notify this Court of a

lift of the automatic stay or the conclusion of the bankruptcy proceeding will result in the dismissal

of the case for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).
2

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Pemberton

Bankruptcy

Filed: May 27, 2010
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 7096

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. JOTHAM RAFAEL SIMMONS, a/k/a Johnathan Rashad Simmons , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence

. R. Bryan Harwell , District Judge. ( 4:12

- cr - 00910

- RBH

- 1; 4:17

- cv - 00562

- RBH )

Submitted : November 21, 2017 Decided: November 28, 2017

Before WYNN and THACKER , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Jotham Simmons, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina; Stanley D. Ragsdale, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jotham Simmons seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a con stitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional clai ms is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

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

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at
484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Simmons has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 38 (Monday, February 27, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 10629]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4776]



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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee Meeting on Air Carrier 
Operations

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 
meeting of the Federal Aviation Administration Aviation Rulemaking 
Advisory Committee to discuss air carrier operations issues.

DATES: The meeting will be held on March 7, 1995, at 9:00 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Air Transport Association, 
1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mrs. Marlene Vermillion, Flight Standards Service, Air Transportation 
Division (AFS-200), 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, 
telephone (202) 267-8166.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C. App II), notice is 
hereby given of a meeting of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee 
to be held on March 7, 1995, at the Air Transport Association, 1301 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The agenda for this meeting 
will include status reports on the All Weather Operations Working Group 
and the Single Engine Operations Working Group and a discussion of a 
new working group on Fatigue Countermeasures and Alertness Management 
Techniques. Attendance is open to the interested public but may be 
limited to the space available. The public must make arrangements in 
advance to present oral statements at the meeting or may present 
written statements to the committee at any time. Arrangements may be 
made by contacting the person listed under the heading ``FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.''
    Sign and oral interpretation can be made available at the meeting, 
as well as an assistive listening device, if requested 10 calendar days 
before the meeting.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 17, 1995.
Quentin J. Smith, Jr.,
Assistant Executive Director for Air Carrier Operations, Aviation 
Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 95-4776 Filed 2-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual Balance 

in 75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

-2.00% -4.34% -0.04% 0.00% -2.04% -4.34%

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2009 Trustees Report Office of the Chief Actuary, Social Security

August 26, 2009

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Level of Monthly Benefits (PIA)

Proposed Provision: Increase the PIA to a level such that a worker with 30 years of earnings at the 

minimum wage level would receive an adjusted PIA equal to 120 percent of the Federal poverty level for 

an aged individual. This provision would take full effect for all newly eligible OASDI workers in 2026, and 

would be phased in for new eligible in 2017 through 2025. The percentage increase in PIA would be 

lowered proportionately for those with fewer than 30 years of earnings, down to no enhancement for 

workers with 20 or fewer years of earnings. (Year-of-work requirements are scaled for disabled workers 

based on their years of potential work from age 22 to benefit eligibility). The benefit enhancement 

percentage would be reduced proportionately for workers with higher average indexed monthly earnings 

(AIME), down to no enhancement for those with AIME at least twice that of a 35-year steady minimum 

wage earner.

Present Law Change From Present Law in Results with this provision

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Year

Percent

Cost rates with this provision

Cost rates under present law

Income rates with this provision

Income rates under present law

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

 (assets as a percentage of annual expenditures)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Year

Percent

Present law With this provision