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

**Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18****of the United States Code**

I, Thomas M. O’Flynn, Chief Financial Officer of Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated, to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 (the “Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated.

 

|   |   |   |                                                                                                    |
|--------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|        |   |   | /s/ Thomas M. O’Flynn                                                                              |
|   |   |   |                                                                                                         |
|   |   |   | Thomas M. O’FlynnPublic Service Enterprise Group IncorporatedChief Financial OfficerAugust 1, 2003 |

 

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Shawn Kierstead

v. No. 05-fp-432

Northern NH Correctional

Facility, Warden, et al.

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby

granted, but only for the purpose of waiving the filing fee. 

This case has been assigned civil number 05-cv-432-JD. 

SO ORDERED.

_________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge 

Date: December 14, 2005

cc: Shawn Kierstead, pro se

Case 1:05-cv-00432-JD Document 3 Filed 12/14/2005 Page 1 of 1

Kierstead v. Northern NH Correctional Facility, Warden Doc. 3

Dockets.Justia.com
Exhibit 32.1  SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION  In connection with the quarterly report of StemGen, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2019 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Simon Dawson, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 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; and2.The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  Date: June 6, 2019BY: /s/ Simon DawsonSimon DawsonCEO and Chairman of the Board  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.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 178 (Friday, September 12, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 53066]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21266]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11425]


Louisiana Disaster Number LA-00020

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 1.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Louisiana 
(FEMA-1786-DR), dated 09/02/2008.
    Incident: Hurricane Gustav.
    Incident Period: 09/01/2008 and continuing.
    Effective Date: 09/06/2008.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 11/03/2008.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 06/02/2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of 
Louisiana, dated 09/02/2008, is hereby amended to include the following 
areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

Primary Parishes:
    Bienville, Bossier, Caddo, Calcasieu, Caldwell, Catahoula, 
Claiborne, Concordia, De Soto, East Carroll, Franklin, Grant, Jackson, 
La Salle, Lincoln, Madison, Morehouse, Natchitoches, Ouachita, Red 
River, Richland, Saint Helena, Saint Tammany, Tangipahoa, Tensas, 
Union, Washington, Webster, West Carroll, Winn.
Contiguous Counties: (Economic Injury Loans Only):
    Arkansas: Ashley, Chicot, Columbia, Lafayette, Miller, Union.
    Mississippi: Adams, Claiborne, Hancock, Issaquena, Jefferson, 
Marion, Pearl River, Pike, Walthal, Warren.
    Texas: Cass, Harrison, Marion, Panola.

    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

Herbert L. Mitchell,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-21266 Filed 9-11-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 7112

TUNZY A. SANDERS , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. WARDEN OF ALLENDALE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION , Respondent

- Appellee

.

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

. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 2:17

- cv - 01819

- HMH )

Submitted : February 26, 2019 Decided: March 1, 2019

Before KING, THACKER , and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Tunzy A. Sanders , Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Senior Assistant Attorney General , OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA , Columbia, South Carolina, for Appel lee

. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Tunzy A. Sanders seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit just ice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (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 claims 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 petition states a debatable claim o f the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Sanders has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We d ispense 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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-92-PB

Samuel Ogot, et al.

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

November 6, 2007 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to negotiate a plea agreement or prepare for

trial. The government and co-defendant, Derrick Jennings, do not

object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reasons and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from November 6, 2007 to December 4, 2007. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy

trial.

Case 1:06-cr-00092-PB Document 40 Filed 11/02/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The court will hold a final pretrial conference on November

26, 2007 at 3:45 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

November 2, 2007

cc: Michael Iacopino, Esq.

Donald Kennedy, Esq.

Terry Ollila, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00092-PB Document 40 Filed 11/02/07 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         568,600
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  106,563
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (4,000)
<INVENTORY>                                     61,194
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               882,667
<PP&E>                                      15,299,174
<DEPRECIATION>                            (13,127,433)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,054,411
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          234,199
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,071,610
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,054,411
<SALES>                                        252,780
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               264,205
<CGS>                                          319,718
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  418,593
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,473
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,117
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (156,978)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,133
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (158,111)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (158,111)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.06)
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Mark Lessard and

Linda Lessard,

Plaintiffs

v. Civil No. 05-cv-192-SM

Wilton-Lyndeborough

Cooperative School District,

and the State of New Hampshire

Department of Education,

Defendants

O R D E R

Granted in part, denied in part (document no. 83). The

motion for clarification is denied as such since no clarification

is required. However the court will treat the motion as a motion

to supplement the record with Dr. Kemper's referenced transcribed

testimony, which is granted, but only to the extent that

testimony is relevant to the appeal before the court. Defendants

have provided a redacted transcript which they say is limited to

relevant testimony. The court will accept that transcript, but

afford Plaintiffs the opportunity to proffer additional material

from the full transcript that they believe to be material but

omitted from the Defendants' submission.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

October 31, 2006

Case 1:05-cv-00192-SM Document 86 Filed 10/31/06 Page 1 of 2
2

cc: Jennifer A. Eber, Esq.

Richard L. O’Meara, Esq.

Jeanne M. Kincaid, Esq.

Karen A. Schlitzer, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00192-SM Document 86 Filed 10/31/06 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-50-01-PB

Sheri Guerriero

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

May 2, 2006 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to complete discovery and prepare a defense. 

The government does not object to a continuance of the trial

date.

Accordingly, in order to allow the parties additional time

to complete discovery and properly prepare for trial, the court

will continue the trial from May 2, 2006 to June 6, 2006. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:06-cr-00050-PB Document 9 Filed 04/18/06 Page 1 of 2
2

The April 20, 2006 final pretrial conference is continued 

until May 22, 2006 at 4:00 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

April 18, 2006

cc: Michael Ramsdell, Esq.

Robert Kinsella, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00050-PB Document 9 Filed 04/18/06 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<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>                                           5,249
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   42,318
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     23,061
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                74,482
<PP&E>                                           6,343
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 230,321
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,742
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      34,827
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   230,321
<SALES>                                         34,252
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                34,252
<CGS>                                           14,845
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,633
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,928
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,691
<INCOME-TAX>                                       676
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,015
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,015
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.24
        

</TABLE>
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1041

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to permit additional States

to enter into long-term care partnerships under the Medicaid Program

in order to promote the use of long-term care insurance.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 15, 2001

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which was

referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to permit

additional States to enter into long-term care partnerships under the Medicaid Program in order to promote

the use of long-term care insurance.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1041 IH

1 SECTION 1. PERMITTING ADDITIONAL STATES TO ENTER

2 INTO LONG-TERM CARE PARTNERSHIPS TO

3 PROMOTE USE OF LONG-TERM CARE INSUR4 ANCE.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1917(b)(1)(C) of the So6 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396p(b)(1)(C)) is

7 amended—

8 (1) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘shall seek adjust9 ment’’ and inserting ‘‘may seek adjustment’’; and

10 (2) in clause (ii), by striking ‘‘had a State plan

11 amendment approved as of May 14, 1993, which

12 provided’’ and inserting ‘‘has a State plan amend13 ment approved which provides’’.

14 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

15 subsection (a) take effect on the date of the enactment

16 of this Act.

Æ
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-31357 Conference Calendar

RICKEY EVANS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus WILLIE WASHINGTON, Lieutenant; BURL CAIN, Warden; LOUIE CALVERT; RICHARD SPINNER; ROBERT SCHOTT; JOHN DOE PERRY; RUBEN A. EVANS; JOHN DOE HUNT; LEONARD WILLIAMS, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 98-CV-610-B

- - - - - - - - - - August 22, 2001 Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Rickey Evans, a Louisiana prisoner (# 108026), appeals the district court’s October 20, 2000, order, which effectively denied his F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment. The court originally entered judgment dismissing Evans’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action on July 28, 1999. Evans’ Rule 60(b) motion was filed more than 14 months later.No. 00-31357 -2- This court reviews the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion. Travelers Ins. Co. v. Liljeberg Enter.,
Inc. , 38 F.3d 1404, 1408 (5th Cir. 1994); Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi , 635 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir. 1981). The merits of the underlying judgment are not reviewable in an appeal from the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion. In re Ta Chi Navigation (Panama) Corp. S.A. , 728 F.2d 699, 703 (5th Cir. 1984). Evans’ Rule 60(b) motion cited “misapplication of state law, mistake, misrepresentation, fraud, and plain error” as reasons for being granted relief from judgment. Except for “plain error,” a Rule 60(b) motion based on these reasons must be filed within one year “after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.” See Rule 60(b) (one-year time bar applies to motions based on Rule 60(b)(1), (2), and (3)). Insofar as Evans sought relief based on those reasons, his Rule 60(b) motion was untimely. Evans has not purported to rely on Rule 60(b)(4) or (5). That leaves only Rule 60(b)(6), which provides relief for “any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” Rule 60(b)(6) is the catch-all provision of Rule 60(b), the means by which a court may grant relief from judgment when justice so requires and when the other subsections are inapplicable. Government Fin. Servs. One Ltd. Partnership v. Peyton Place, Inc. , 62 F.3d 767, 773-74 (5th Cir. 1995). Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is reserved for “extraordinary” circumstances. See Picco v. Global Marine Drilling Co. , 900 F.2d 846, 851 (5th Cir. 1990). Evans has not even attempted to showNo. 00-31357 -3- that his case presented “extraordinary” circumstances, and we find that no such circumstances are present. Evans has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in denying Rule 60(b) relief.
AFFIRMED.
#### PALMER v. PENTON LUMBER CO., Inc.

No. 3205.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

March 28th, 1950.

Gahagan & Pierson, Natchitoches, for appellant.

Edward K. Alexander, DeQuincy, for appellee.

PER CTJRIAM.

Plaintiff, in his application for rehearing, contends that we erred in granting him compensation for eight weeks rather than four hundred weeks because the operation had not been successful. In answer to his contention, plaintiff overlooks the fact that he had failed to prove to our satisfaction that the two abnormalities which existed at the time of the trial of his suit were the result of the accident or the operation. He also failed to prove to our satisfaction that these two abnormalities rendered him disabled within the terms of the compensation act. Act No. 20 of 1914, as amended.

However, applying the facts of this case in a very liberal way, we were of the opinion that justice would be better served by allowing him compensation for the additional eight weeks in view of the testimony of Dr. Drez.

Application for rehearing refused.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1405 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1405

     To amend the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998 to authorize 
appropriations to provide assistance for domestic centers and programs 
                for the treatment of victims of torture.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 4, 2001

  Mr. Smith of New Jersey (for himself and Mr. Lantos) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                                Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998 to authorize 
appropriations to provide assistance for domestic centers and programs 
                for the treatment of victims of torture.

    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 ``Torture Victims Relief 
Reauthorization Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR DOMESTIC TREATMENT CENTERS 
              FOR VICTIMS OF TORTURE.

    (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 5(b)(1) of the 
Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 2152 note) is amended to 
read as follows:
    ``(b) Funding.--
            ``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--Of the amounts 
        authorized to be appropriated for the Department of Health and 
        Human Services for fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004, there are 
        authorized to be appropriated to carry out subsection (a) 
        (relating to assistance for domestic centers and programs for 
        the treatment of victims of torture) $20,000,000 for fiscal 
        year 2002, $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, and $30,000,000 
        for fiscal year 2004.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect October 1, 2001.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

SUSAN A LARA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE 

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

8:23CV173

ORDER

With the parties’ consent, 

IT IS ORDERED:

1) Defendant’s deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s Second set of 

Interrogatories and Second set of Requests for Production is extended 

to January 15, 2024. 

2) The written discovery deadline, currently January 3, 2024, is extended 

to January 15, 202, and the deadline for filing any motion to compel is 

extended to January 31, 2024.

3) Defendant’s motion, (Filing No. 21), is deemed withdrawn.

Dated this 5th day of December, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Cheryl R. Zwart

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-cv-00173-JFB-CRZ Doc # 22 Filed: 12/05/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 73