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 2004








In connection with the Quarterly Report of Hybred International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gary Kouletas, President of the Company, respectfully certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2004, that:





That as Chief Executive Officer, I conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of June 30, 2011. In making this evaluation, I used the framework in Internal Control – Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Based on our evaluation under the framework in Internal Control – Integrated Framework, I concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was not effective as of June 30, 2011.





The Report fully complies with the requirements of the section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.














/s/ Gary Kouletas


Gary Kouletas


President (Principal Executive Officer)








Date: May 16, 2012





This Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of 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 Section 906 has been provided to Hybred International, Inc. and will be retained by Hybred International, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
|                                                       |          |          |          | Exhibit 12(g)
|------------------------------------------------------ | -------- | -------- | -------- | -------------
|                                                       |          |          |          |              
|System Energy Resources, Inc.                         
|Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges and
|Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges                   
|                                                       |          |          |          |              
|                                                       |         
|                                                       |         
|                                                       | 2004     | 2005     | 2006     | 2007         
|                                                       |          |          |          |              
|Fixed charges, as defined:                             |          |          |          |              
|Total Interest                                         | $58,928  | $60,424  | $59,931  | $57,117      
|Interest applicable to rentals                         | 3,426    | 3,039    | 3,914    | 4,463        
|                                                       |          |          |          |              
|Total fixed charges, as defined                        | $62,354  | $63,463  | $63,845  | $61,580      
|                                                       |          |          |          |              
|Earnings as defined:                                   |          |          |          |              
|Net Income                                             | $105,948 | $111,644 | $140,258 | $136,081     
|Add:                                                   |          |          |          |              
|Provision for income taxes:                            |          |          |          |              
|Total                                                  | 78,013   | 69,343   | 54,529   | 45,447       
|Fixed charges as above                                 | 62,354   | 63,463   | 63,845   | 61,580       
|                                                       |          |          |          |              
|Total earnings, as defined                             | $246,315 | $244,450 | $258,632 | $243,108     
|                                                       |          |          |          |              
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges, as defined         | 3.95     | 3.85     | 4.05     | 3.95         
|                                                       |          |          |          |              
|                                                       |          |          |          |              
|                                                       |          |          |          |              
|                                                       |          |          |          |
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-12-0001115

22-APR-2014

09:10 AM
#### Victor DE CASTRO ENCARNACION, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-72951.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 4, 2006.*

Filed Dec. 8, 2006.

Helen B. Zebel, Law Office of Helen B. Zebel, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Greg D. Mack, Margot L. Nadel, U.S. *695Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Rachel Dougan, U.S. Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before GOODWIN, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Victor De Castro Encarnación, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C § 1252. We review for substantial evidence. *Malhi v. INS,*336 F.3d 989, 992-93 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review in part and grant in part for the limited purpose of remanding for further proceedings regarding voluntary departure.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. *Li v. Ashcroft,*378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir. 2004). Encarnación omitted from his asylum application his relocation to various provinces within the Philippines and the fearful reactions of the mayors who insisted he keep moving. These omissions went to the “heart of his claim” of persecution. *See Chebchoub v. INS,*257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001).

The IJ granted voluntary departure for a 60-day period and the BIA streamlined and changed the voluntary departure to 30 days. In *Padilla-Padilla, v. Gonzales,*463 F.3d 972, 981 (9th Cir.2006), we held “that because the BIA issued a streamlined order, it was required to affirm the entirety of the IJ’s decision, including the length of the voluntary departure period.” We therefore remand to the agency for further proceedings regarding voluntary departure.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part and GRANTED in part; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
*Thursday, March 13, 1997*

MOTION DOCKET

96-2342.

#### State ex rel. Shotts v. Austin Powder Co.

Franklin App. No. 95APD12-1643. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County. On March 3,1997, appellants filed a reply brief that was due February 10, 1997. Rule XIV, Section 1(C) of the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court prohibits the filing of a brief that is not timely tendered for filing. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, *sua sponte,*that the reply brief be, and hereby is, stricken.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Alberto PARRA-MONTALVO, a/k/a Alberto Parra-Servantes, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-5164.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 15, 2006.

Decided: June 19, 2006.

Michael E. Archenbronn, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Alberto Parra-Montalvo appeals his conviction and seventy-two month sentence imposed following a guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute at least five kilograms of cocaine hydrochloride, a violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A) (2000). Parra-Montalvo’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), raising the argument that the sentence was not reasonable, but stating that he finds no meritorious grounds for appeal. The Government did not file an answering brief, and although advised of his right to do so, Parra-Montalvo did not file a pro se supplemental brief.

As required by *Anders,*we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. The district court sentenced Parra-Montalvo within the properly calculated sentencing guidelines range, *United States v. Green,*436 F.3d 449, 455-56 (4th Cir. 2006), and considered the factors provided *398in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp.2005). We find Parra-Montalvo’s sentence of seventy-two months to be reasonable. We therefore affirm his conviction and sentence.

This court requires that counsel inform Parra-Montalvo, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Parra-Montalvo requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Parra-Montalvo.

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*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF
OPERATIONS AS FOUND ON PAGES 3 AND 4 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE
QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          50,998
<SECURITIES>                                    54,343
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,428
<ALLOWANCES>                                       812
<INVENTORY>                                      3,714
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               144,505
<PP&E>                                          43,596
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,128
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 246,455
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,344
<BONDS>                                             23
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            41
<OTHER-SE>                                     225,278
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   246,455
<SALES>                                         19,967
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,967
<CGS>                                           10,466
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,466
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                28,689
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  15
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (17,236)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,057)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (14,179)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (14,179)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.35)
        

</TABLE>
#### GIBSON v. INTERNATIONAL FREIGHTING CORPORATION.

Civil Action No. 6435.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

Oct. 30, 1947.

Rehearing Denied May 19, 1948

Order Affirmed March 17, 1949.

See 173 F.2d 591.

*488See, also, D.C., 71 F.Supp. 875.

Freedman, Landy & Lorry, of Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Krusen, Evans & Shaw, of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

Before KIRKPATRICK, Chief Judge, and WELSH, BARD, GANEY, and McGRANERY, District Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The only question now before the Court is the application of plaintiff under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 30(b), 28 U. S.C.A., to recover the expenses of plaintiff’s counsel in traveling from Philadelphia to Chicago to take the deposition of one of the defendant’s witnesses. The Court has heretofore ordered that the deposition be taken orally, reserving at that time decision upon the plaintiff’s motion for counsel’s expenses.

The plaintiff has been unable to work since the illness which he alleges to have been caused by the accident in suit, and is without funds. The deposition in question was taken on the defendant’s behalf to be used as testimony at the trial, and not for discovery. It was therefore desirable that the plaintiff be represented by counsel at its taking. The question raised by this motion presents a matter peculiarly within the discretion of the Court and the Court is of the opinion that, under the circumstances of this particular case, the expenses of plaintiff’s counsel should be paid by the defendant.

An order may be presented.

Sur Motion for Reargument.

Before KIRKPATRICK, Chief Judge, and BARD, GANEY and McGRANERY, District Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The opinion filed in this case may well have given the defendant the impression that the sole reason for making the order heretofore entered was that the plaintiff was without funds. To correct this impression we take this occasion to say that that fact is not to be deemed controlling in applications of this kind, but is merely one of the circumstances which may be taken into consideration by the judge to whom the application is made. We repeat, that the matter is entirely within the Court’s discretion, to be exercised with regard to the particular circumstances of each case. Without intending to state a rule upon the subject, it may'be said that where one party proposes to take the deposition of a witness at a place far distant from the place of trial, not as discovery but to be offered as evidence in the case, the testimony being for his sole benefit and not sought 'by the other party, it would ordinarily seem fair that he should bear the cost of taking it. If it appears to the Court that the testimony is of such nature that it warrants the presence at the taking of the deposition of the attorney who is to try the case, it would also seem proper to include the traveling expenses of such attorney.

The motion for reargument is denied.
#### In the Matter of Paul Murphy, Respondent, v New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Appellant, and SouthBridge Towers, Inc., Respondent.

Submitted April 15, 2013;

decided April 25, 2013

*899Motion by City of New York for leave to appear amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and nine copies filed within seven days.
NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION

CHAIR’S NOTICE – Chairman E. Sequoyah Simermeyer

Visit www.NIGC.gov to learn more about the NIGC 3 For 35 Project— a 

year-long project emphasizing the importance of conversations among 

the tribal gaming regulatory community about workforce preparedness.

Date: September 5, 2023

Re: Remarks to UTTC Tribal Leaders Summit

Today I delivered opening remarks at the start of the annual 

United Tribes Technical College (UTTC) Tribal Leaders Summit. I 

joined senior officials from the State of North Dakota and 

tribal leaders as part of the Summit’s opening ceremony and 

dignitaries address in Bismarck, North Dakota. 

In my remarks, I spoke about NIGC’s mission, scope of 

responsibility and the record $40.9 billon FY22 gross gaming 

revenue across all gaming tribes. I also shared three points 

from a national regulatory body’s perspective on efficient and 

effective regulation:

• The importance of balancing authority and the application

of that authority

• The importance of planning for workforce capacity

• The responsibility to be responsive to and understand the 

local implications of risk. 

You can read the full text of my remarks here.

I am grateful to United Tribes President and the Summit’s 

organizers for convening a week of collaborative discussions and 

cultural celebrations. I wish the Tribal leaders, students, and 

other participants well as they engage in timely conversations 

on important policy topics as part of this 26th annual 

gathering. 

###
##### 



Exhibit 4.8
  
  Terms of appointment as non-executive director
 Bank
 Disclosure of interests and other relevant information
  APRA
 Remuneration and expenses
 NEDSP




---



##### 



Term of appointment and vacation of office
       Board meetings




---



##### 



Board committees
  Time commitment envisaged
   Indemnity, insurance and access to Bank documents
  Charters and policies
  
    
    Board charter;
    
    Board Corporate Governance Guidelines;
    
    The Banks Constitution;
    
    Securities trading guidelines;
    
    Guidelines for communication between the Bank and shareholders;
    
    Taking of independent professional advice by directors;
    
    Code of ethics entitled Statement of Professional Practice;
    
    External Auditor Services Policy;
    
    Equal Employment Opportunity Policy; and
    
    Occupational Health and Safety Systems.
  Notification of interests to ASX




---



##### 



Continuing education arrangements
       Frank J Swan
 Acknowledgment
  /s/ John Schubert
    
    27/07/05Signature
    
    Date
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 112 (Friday, June 12, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 28018]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13875]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-331-802]


Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador: Notice of Extension 
of Time Limit for the Final Results of the Third Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 12, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gemal Brangman at (202) 482-3773, or 
David Goldberger at (202) 482-4136, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 
20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 9, 2009, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published a notice for the preliminary results of the administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp 
from Ecuador covering the period February 1, 2007, through August 14, 
2007. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 9983 (March 9, 
2009). The final results for this administrative review are currently 
due no later than July 7, 2009, 120 days from the date of publication 
of the preliminary results of review.

Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results

    Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act), requires the Department to issue the final results of an 
administrative review within 120 days after the date on which the 
preliminary results are published. If it is not practicable to complete 
the review within that time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act 
allows the Department to extend the deadline for the final results to a 
maximum of 180 days after the date on which the preliminary results are 
published.
    The Department determines that completion of the final results of 
the review within the original time limit is not practicable. Due to 
the complexity of the issues raised in this review, the Department 
requires additional time to review and analyze them in order to 
complete this review. Therefore, the Department is extending the time 
limit for completion of the final results of this review by 60 days, in 
accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. The final results are 
now due no later than September 8, 2009.
    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: June 8, 2009.
John M. Andersen,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. E9-13875 Filed 6-11-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

September 28, 2007

Honorable J. Woodfin Jones

Alexander Dubose Jones & Townsend LLP

515 Congress Avenue, Suite 1720

Austin, TX 78701

Mr. William L. Kirkman

Bourland & Kirkman

201 Main Street, Suite 1400 

Fort Worth, TX 76102-3118

Mr. Douglas W. Alexander

Alexander Dubose Jones & Townsend LLP

515 Congress Avenue, Suite 1720

Austin, TX 78701

RE:Case Number:  05-0006

Court of Appeals Number:  03-03-00306-CV

Trial Court Number:  GN1-01679

Style:NATIONAL PLAN ADMINISTRATORS, INC. AND CRS MARKETING AGENCY, INC.

v.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed opinion and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 05-0006Page 2**