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

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, David Johnson, the Chief Executive Officer, and Tom Mayenknecht, Secretary and Treasurer, of Park Place Energy Corp. (the "Company"), each 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, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, as amended, fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| | /s/ David JohnsonDavid JohnsonPresident, Chief Executive Officer and a director
(Principal Executive Officer)
Date:  August 14, 2009
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ Tom MayenknechtTom MayenknechtSecretary, Treasurer and a director 
(Principal Financial Officer)
Date:  August 14, 2009         

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Park Place Energy Corp. and will be retained by Park Place Energy Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

__________
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 110 (Thursday, June 10, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 31004]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12119]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Tax Forms and 
Publications Project Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Tax Forms and 
Publications Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy 
Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on 
improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Thursday, July 8, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Smith at 1-888-912-1227 or (202) 
317-3087.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Tax Forms and 
Publications Project Committee will be held Thursday, July 8, 2021 at 
2:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The public is invited to make oral comments or 
submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited time and 
structure of meeting, notification of intent to participate must be 
made with Fred Smith. For more information please contact Fred Smith at 
1-888-912-1227 or (202) 317-3087, or write TAP Office, 1111 
Constitution Ave. NW, Room 1509, Washington, DC 20224 or contact us at 
the website: http://www.improveirs.org.

    Dated: June 4, 2021.
Kevin Brown,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2021-12119 Filed 6-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Martin Tuchman,  Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Interpool,  Inc. (the "Company"),  pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, do hereby certify as follows:

|1. | The report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2003 as amended by Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A 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 such 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, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Interpool, Inc. and will be
retained by Interpool, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this Certification this 6th day of June, 2005.

| | /s/ Martin Tuchman
     Martin Tuchman
     Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer,
     President, Chief Operating Officer and Director
     (Principal Executive Officer)
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Joseph A. CORNEJO, Appellant. Joseph A. CORNEJO, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. WD 44552, WD 46141.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

April 6, 1993.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied June 1, 1993.

Application to Transfer Denied June 29, 1993.

Laura G. Martin, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Rudolph R. Rhodes IV, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before KENNEDY, P.J., and BERREY and SPINDEN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Consolidated appeal from a conviction of robbery in the second degree, § 569.030, RSMo 1986, and from the denial of a Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief.

Affirmed. Rule 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, James F. Walsh, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
Interpool, Inc. (the "Company"), pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, do hereby certify as follows:

|1. | The report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2003 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 such 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, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Interpool, Inc. and will be
retained by Interpool, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this Certification this 16th
day of August, 2004.

| | /s/ James F. Walsh
          James F. Walsh
          Executive Vice President,
          and Chief Financial Officer
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Selective Service System

# AGENCY:

Selective Service System.

# ACTION:

Notice.

The following form has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for extension of clearance without change in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35):

## SSS Form 1

*Title:* The Selective Service System Registration Form.

*Purpose:* Is used to register men and establish a data base for use in identifying manpower to the military services during a national emergency.

*Respondents:* All 18-year-old males who are United States citizens and those male immigrants residing in the United States at the time of their 18th birthday are required to register with the Selective Service System.

*Frequency:* Registration with the Selective Service System is a one-time occurrence.

*Burden:* A burden of two minutes or less on the individual respondent.

Copies of the above identified form can be obtained upon written request to the Selective Service System, Operations Directorate, 1515 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22209-2425.

Written comments and recommendations for the proposed extension of clearance with change of the form should be sent within 60 days of the publication of this notice to the Selective Service System, Operations Directorate, 1515 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22209-2425.

A copy of the comments should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer, Selective Service System, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 3235, Washington, DC 20503.

Thomas T. Devine,

Deputy Associate Director for Operations.

[FR Doc. 2021-11322 Filed 5-27-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8015-01-P
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Perry FORREST, Jr., Defendant/Respondent. Perry FORREST, Jr., Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 59226, 61567.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

Dec. 22, 1992.

Laura E. O’Sullivan, St. Louis, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Joan F. Gummels, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted under § 195.-202.2, RSMo Cum.Supp.1991, of illegal possession of cocaine, a controlled substance. The trial court sentenced defendant to five years in the Department of Corrections. He appeals from that judgment.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The judgment and sentence are affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25.

In addition, defendant filed a Rule 29.15 motion. An evidentiary hearing was conducted. The motion court filed extensive findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order, and denied the motion.

The judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value. The order of the motion court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Bennett, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bianchi, J.), rendered May 24, 1988, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by vacating the sentence imposed and the adjudication that the defendant is a second violent felony offender and substituting an adjudication that the defendant is a second felony offender; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for resentencing.

The defendant’s challenge to the trial court’s instructions to the jury regarding his failure to testify is unpreserved for appellate review *(see, People v Autry,*75 NY2d 836, 839). In any event, we find that in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt there was no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the defendant’s conviction, rendering the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, People v Vereen,*45 NY2d 856; *People v Baker,*153 AD2d 865).

We further find that the defendant failed to raise an objec*695tion to the adjudication that he is a second violent felony offender at the time of sentencing or in a motion for resentencing. Therefore, his claim is not preserved for appellate review *(see, People v Lemon,*62 NY2d 745, 746; *People v Wolmart,*140 AD2d 733). However, we reach this issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Although the transcript of the stenographic minutes of sentencing is somewhat ambiguous, it appears that the defendant was adjudicated and sentenced as a second violent felony offender rather than a second felony offender. Since the defendant was convicted of robbery in the third degree, a class D nonviolent felony *(see,*Penal Law § 70.02 [1] [c]), the matter should be remitted for resentencing *(see, People v Smith,*129 AD2d 517). Mangano, P. J., Kunzeman, Rubin and Balletta, JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Donal DONALDSON, Appellant. Donal DONALDSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 58919, 61376.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Dec. 15, 1992.

*577S.Paige Canfield, St. Louis, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth L. Ziegler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Donal Donaldson (Defendant) appeals from his conviction for second degree robbery and from the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief after a hearing. We affirm per Rule 84.16(b). There is sufficient evidence to support the jury verdict, and the judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. Also, no error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Danny KREIDER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 55494.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

May 16, 1989.

Lew Kollias, Columbia, for defendant-appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Breck K. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.

REINHARD, Judge.

Defendant appeals from his conviction by a jury for manufacturing marijuana, § 195.020.1, RSMo 1986, for which he was sentenced, in accordance with the jury’s assessment, to five years’ imprisonment. We affirm.

Defendant confessed to growing several marijuana plants on or near property owned by his girl friend. The evidence established that over fifty marijuana plants were growing in a secluded man-made clearing in a wooded area on the property and that the ground near the plants was free of debris, had been freshly turned and contained granules of fertilizer. Paths, *493fertilizer bags, water jugs and potting containers were found in the area.

Movant’s only point on appeal is that the verdict directing instruction given by the court is erroneous “because the instruction did not adequately advise the jury of all of the elements of the charged offense of manufacturing marijuana in that the instruction should have required [defendant] acted knowingly with respect to the manufacture of marijuana.”

The pertinent part of the instruction given follows:

> If you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt:

> First, that on or about the 11th day of August, 1986, in the County of St. Francois, State of Missouri, the defendant manufactured by cultivation, marijuana, and

> Second, that defendant was aware of the nature and character of the substance,

> then you will find the defendant guilty of manufacturing marijuana.1

The elements of manufacturing marijuana are: 1) manufacture of marijuana with 2) awareness that it is marijuana. *See State v. Netzer,*579 S.W.2d 170, 175-76 (Mo.App.1979); *State v. Brown,*750 S.W. 2d 715, 717 (Mo.App.1988).

Defendant’s point is without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

CRANDALL, P.J., and CRIST, J., concur.

1

. We note the Supreme Court, by order dated March 9, 1989, has approved and adopted a pattern instruction for the manufacture (grow-mg) of marijuana. This instruction, MAI-CR3d 332.18, must be used and followed on and after July 1, 1989.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

OF INSPRO TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION REQUIRED

BY RULE 13a-14(b) UNDER THE EXCHANGE ACT



In connection with the Quarterly Report of InsPro Technologies
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony R. Verdi, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, based on my knowledge:



(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.



November 14, 2012



| | /s/ ANTHONY R. VERDI                                | 
| | --------------------------------------------------- | 
| | Anthony R. Verdi                                    | 
| | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer |
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 BioForce Nanosciences Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the
period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gregory D. Brown, 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
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.







/s/ Gregory D.
Brown


Gregory
D. Brown


Chief
Financial Officer


May 15,
2008







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.  The
foregoing certifications are accompanying the Company's Form 10-QSB solely
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and are not
being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure
document.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONA L ASSOCIATION, NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, BUT SOLELY AS TRUSTEE OF LSF10 MASTER
PARTICIPATION TRUST
, Appellant,

v.

ADRIA SEELEY and ERIC ESPICH , Appellee s

.

No. 4D2023

- 1868

[ July 17, 2024 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County ; Janet C. Croom , Judge; L.T. Case No.
2022CA000132

.

Steven J

. Brotman of Locke Lord LLP, West Palm Beach , for appellant.

Leo W

. Desmond of Desmond Law Firm, P.C., Vero Beach , for appellee s

.

P ER C URIAM

.

The bank appeals an order denying its request for mortgage foreclosure due to lack of standing. The bank argues that it proved standing to
foreclose based on its status as holder of the note. We agree. “[S]tanding may be established from a plaintiff’s s tatus as the note holder, regardless of any recorded assignments.” McLean v. JP Morgan Chase Bank Nat ’l
Ass’n , 79 So. 3d 170, 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). “[U]nder the Uniform Commercial Code, a plaintiff is not required to be both the owner and
holder of th e note in order to have standing to foreclos e.

. . . Instead, the plaintiff may establish standing by showing that it owns or holds the note,
or is otherwise entitled to enforce the note.” Aquasol Condo. Ass’n v. HSBC Bank USA, Nat’l Ass’n , 312 So. 3d 10 5, 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (emphasis added) ( citations omitted). “[T]he mortgage security follow[s] the note.” Am. Central Ins. Co. of St. Louis, Mo. v . Whitlock , 165 So. 380, 382 (Fla. 1936). Thus, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consisten t with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded

.2 C IKLIN
, L EVINE and C ONNER
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5627 

To require a report relating to the Special Presidential Envoy for Climate. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 21, 2023 

Mr. BURCHETT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To require a report relating to the Special Presidential Envoy 

for Climate. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SPECIAL PRESIDENTIAL ENVOY FOR CLIMATE 

4 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the 

6 date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State 

7 shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees 

8 a report on the following: 

9 (1) Budget information detailing expenditures 

10 of the Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, dur11 ing fiscal years 2021 and 2022. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5627 IH

1 (2) The number of temporary and full-time em2 ployees currently working in the Office of the Spe3 cial Presidential Envoy for Climate, including the 

4 names of all such full-time employees. 

5 (3) Information on the Special Presidential 

6 Envoy for Climate’s foreign travel, including— 

7 (A) carbon emissions from air travel, as re8 quired by Executive Order 14057; and 

9 (B) the dates, attendees, and discussion 

10 topics from all meetings with foreign leaders. 

11 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section— 

12 (1) the term ‘‘appropriate congressional com13 mittees’’ means the Committee on Foreign Affairs of 

14 the House of Representatives and the Committee on 

15 Foreign Relations of the Senate; and 

16 (2) the term ‘‘Office of the Special Presidential 

17 Envoy for Climate’’ means the staff, full-time em18 ployees, temporary employees, and contractors, sup19 porting the Special Presidential Envoy for Climate. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB