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

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

The certification set forth below is hereby made solely for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements of Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and may not be relied upon or used
for any other purposes.

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Access
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the
period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Rosemary Mazanet, Acting Chief Executive Officer certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge (1) the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (2) the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 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 the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Signed at the City of  Dallas, in the State of Texas, this 20th
day of November, 2006.

/s/ Rosemary Mazanet
---------------------
Rosemary Mazanet
Acting Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated statement of income, consolidated balance sheet, consolidated
statement of cash flows for the form 10-Q dated March 31, 1996 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000317187
<NAME> PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                        7,057
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                        326
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                             693
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                         1,284
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,360
<COMMON>                                         1,476
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                           22
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                              1,080
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                   2,578
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              295
<PREFERRED>                                        171
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                             2,831
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                  28
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                      31
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                        141
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                    79
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                   3,206
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                    9,360
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                        1,458
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                               142
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       1,021
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       1,163
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                            295
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                   6
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                     301
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           107
<NET-INCOME>                                       194
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         14
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                      180
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                             0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                             357
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Jon Tucker, Doing Business as Technical Assistance and Services, Respondent, v M & T Insurance Agency, Inc., *1157Formerly Known as Matthews, Bartlett and Dedecker, Inc., Appellant.

[827 NYS2d 398]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Frederick J. Marshall, J.), entered December 6, 2005. The order denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action asserting causes of action for breach of contract and negligence based on defendant’s alleged failure to procure a commercial general liability (CGL) policy of insurance covering plaintiff for liability for bodily injury caused in the course of his business. Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s preanswer motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), (5) and (7).

Addressing first that part of the motion brought pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5), we conclude that the court properly refused to dismiss the complaint as time-barred. Defendant contends that, because the CGL policy was originally issued in 1995 and simply renewed annually thereafter, the causes of action accrued in 1995 and thus that this action, commenced on March 29, 2005, is time-barred *(see St. George Hotel Assoc. v Shurkin,*12 AD3d 359, 360 [2004]; *Mauro v Niemann Agency,*303 AD2d 468, 468-469 [2003]; *Hudson Envelope Corp. v Klausner,*249 AD2d 31, 32 [1998]). The record reflects, however, that there were, before the April 1, 2002 policy renewal, both “further discussions between plaintiff and the broker [and alleged] independent acts of malpractice” *(Hudson Envelope Corp.,*249 AD2d at 32). We thus conclude that the causes of action accrued on April 1, 2002, and that the action therefore was timely commenced *(cf. Mauro,*303 AD2d at 468-469; *see generally Neary v Tower Ins.,*32 AD3d 920 [2006]; *Vic Char Realty, Inc. v Alliance Plus, Inc.,*26 AD3d 278, 279 [2006]).

The factual submissions and arguments in support of those parts of defendant’s motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7) are properly made in a postanswer motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 and not on a preanswer motion to dismiss. In any event, the contentions of defendant that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the grounds that plaintiff was aware of the policy exclusion and that defendant fully discharged its duty to plaintiff are without merit. Present—Hurlbutt, A.PJ., Scudder, Gorski and Smith, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2335 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2335

  To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Bilateral 
 Economic Assistance, Global Health Programs, HIV/AIDS for fiscal year 
                                 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Bilateral 
 Economic Assistance, Global Health Programs, HIV/AIDS for fiscal year 
                                 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR BILATERAL ECONOMIC 
              ASSISTANCE, GLOBAL HEALTH PROGRAMS, HIV/AIDS FOR FISCAL 
              YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Bilaterial Economic 
Assistance, Global Health Programs, HIV/AIDS for fiscal year 2024 may 
not exceed $5,720,000,000.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**STATMON
      TECHNOLOGIES CORP.**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**19
      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 Statmon Technologies Corp. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Geoffrey P. Talbot, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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) 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/ Geoffrey P.
              Talbot****Geoffrey P. Talbot**
              **Chief Financial Officer**
              **August 14, 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 required
      by Section 906, has been provided to Statmon Technologies Corp. and will be
      retained by Statmon Technologies Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


34
J. A30045/17

2018 PA Super 278

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v. :

:

CHARLES WAYNE POU, : No. 95 WDA 2017

:

Appellant :

Appeal from the PCRA Order, January 9, 2017,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County

Criminal Division at No. CP-25-CR-0002742-2013

BEFORE: BOWES, J., STABILE, J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

CONCURRING OPINION BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.:

FILED OCTOBER 11, 2018

Although I agree with the Majority’s thorough discussion of the Supreme

Court’s decision in Weaver v. Massachusetts, 137 S.Ct. 1899 (2017), on

the issue of prejudice in the context of direct and collateral review, I would

affirm on the PCRA court’s finding that direct appeal counsel had a reasonable

basis for not raising a defective waiver colloquy issue. Under oath, during the

colloquy, appellant orally and in writing stated that he knew the possible

maximum sentences for the crimes with which he was charged, and even in

seeking PCRA relief, he has not asserted that he did not know the range of

sentences. Admittedly, this writer participated in the panel that remanded to

the PCRA court for a hearing on the reasonableness prong; however, I noted
J. A30045/17

- 2 -

my dissent because I believe the original colloquy complied with

Pa.R.Crim.P. 121.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 3 (Tuesday, January 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 603]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30963]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8993]


In the Matter of the Review of the Designation of Popular Front 
for the Liberation of Palestine--General Command as a Foreign Terrorist 
Organization Pursuant to Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act

    Based upon a review of the Administrative Record assembled in this 
matter pursuant to Section 219(a)(4)(C) and (b) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1189(a)(4)(C), (b)) (``INA''), 
and in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the 
Treasury, the Secretary of State concludes that the circumstances that 
were the basis for the 2008 decision to maintain the designation of the 
aforementioned organization as a foreign terrorist organization have 
not changed in such a manner as to warrant revocation of the 
designation and that the national security of the United States does 
not warrant a revocation of the designation of the Popular Front for 
the Liberation of Palestine--General Command.
    Therefore, the Secretary of State hereby determines that the 
designation of the aforementioned organization as a foreign terrorist 
organization, pursuant to Section 219 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1189), shall 
be maintained.
    This determination shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: December 29, 2014.
John F. Kerry,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-30963 Filed 1-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-AD-P
Exhibit 31.1
**Certifications**
I, Danny W. Mills, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-Q of American BuildingControl, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
 a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.     Dated:May 17, 2004      By /s/ Danny W. Mills      Danny W. Mills   Chief Executive Officer
#### T. James ANDERSON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION; Uninsured Employers’ Fund; Subsequent Injury Fund; Campen & Walsworth, PLLC; Union Baptist Church, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-1422.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 17, 2001.

Decided May 25, 2001.

T. James Anderson, Jr., pro se.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

*170PER CURIAM.

T. James Anderson, Jr. appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his civil action and abstaining from deciding claims pending in Maryland state courts. 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 Anderson v. Workers’ Compensation Commission,*No. CA-00-3251-AMD (D.Md. March 1, 2001). 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.*
#### Eldrid Sequeira, Appellant, v Rachel Sequeira, Respondent.

[963 NYS2d 102]

*505Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lori Sattler, J.), entered October 23, 2012, which awarded defendant mother temporary decision-making authority with respect to the parties’ son’s education, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly exercised its discretion in determining that it is in the child’s best interest to award defendant mother temporary decision-making authority with respect to the issue of the child’s education *(see Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167 [1982]). The parties agreed to joint legal custody, which their agreement defined as including equal input with respect to all major decisions, including education. They did not, however, provide for a situation, such as the one presented, where they cannot agree on where their child should attend school. Thus, there is a change in circumstances requiring modification of the agreement to protect the best interests of the child *(see Linda R. v Ari Z.,*71 AD3d 465, 466 [1st Dept 2010]; *Matter of Sparacio v Fitzgerald,*73 AD3d 790 [2d Dept 2010]) and the record supports the temporary award of educational decision-making to defendant.

Plaintiff father’s due process rights were not violated. He was afforded a fair hearing, was permitted to cross-examine defendant, testify on his own behalf, and argue his case. To the extent he argues that he was denied an opportunity to hire an attorney, he never made a request to do so.

There is also no merit to plaintiffs claim that the court was barred from deciding the issue by the doctrine of res judicata. No prior request for temporary education decision-making was made. In any event, as noted above, in custody and matrimonial matters, changed circumstances warrant the reconsideration of prior orders as do the best interest of a child *(id.).*

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, AbdusSalaam, Román and Clark, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Sorin P. St. Dominic’s Home et al., Respondents; Sorin P., Sr., et al., Appellants.

[873 NYS2d 89]

In a proceeding to terminate parental rights pursuant to Social Services Law 384-b, the parents separately appeal from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Richróath, J.), entered January 14, 2008, which, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that the subject child was permanently neglected, terminated their respective parental rights, and transferred guardianship and custody of the subject child to the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York for purposes of adoption.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In a proceeding to terminate parental rights based on permanent neglect, the petitioner must establish as a threshold matter that it made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship *(see*Social Services Law § 384-b [7] *744[a]; *Matter of Star Leslie W.,*63 NY2d 136 [1984]; *Matter of Sheila G.,*61 NY2d 368, 383 [1984]; *Matter of Michelle Rennee H.,*48 AD3d 684 [2008]; *Matter of Amy B.,*37 AD3d 600 [2007]; *Matter of Chimere C.,*259 AD2d 615 [1999]; *cf. Matter of Little Flower Children’s Servs. v Selena Maria W.,*253 AD2d 556, 557 [1998]). The petitioner is obligated to accommodate a parent’s special needs, including use of a language other than English *(see Matter of Nicole Lina C.,*269 AD2d 239 [2000]; *cf. Matter of Richard W.,*265 AD2d 685 [1999]).

At the fact-finding hearing, the petitioner showed that it exercised diligent efforts by evidence that it provided services to the parents, including individual and family counseling, arranging for visitation, and providing transportation to visitation. The petitioner also provided the services of an interpreter for the Romanian-speaking parents, and referred them to classes dealing with parenting skills, as well as domestic, alcohol, and sexual abuse. Although the parents attended therapy and participated in parental skills training, their testimony and that of their therapists demonstrated that they never acknowledged their responsibility for the behavior that led to the subject child’s placement in foster care. Instead, the parents continued to blame the petitioner for the child’s emotional and medical problems. The evidence established the parents’ permanent neglect despite the agency’s efforts *(see Matter of Shaquill Dywon M.,*50 AD3d 1142 [2008]; *Matter of Ailayah Shawneque L.,*40 AD3d 1097 [2007]; *Matter of James X.,*37 AD3d 1003 [2007]; *Matter of Jennifer R.,*29 AD3d 1005 [2006]).

In freeing the child for adoption, the court properly considered the best interests of the child, including the fact that he had spent more than nine years, substantially all of his life, in foster care *(see Matter of Daevon Lamar P.,*48 AD3d 469, 470 [2008]; *Matter of Jennifer R.,*29 AD3d 1005 [2006]; *Matter of Kianna Maria L.,*26 AD3d 166 [2006]; *Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. of City of N.Y. v Leona W.,*192 AD2d 602, 603 [1993]). Prudenti, EJ., Spolzino, McCarthy and Leventhal, JJ., concur.