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





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002


(18 U.S.C SECTION 1350)





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of China Tel Group, Inc. and its
Subsidiaries (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q/A for the fiscal quarter ended March
31, 2010, as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
(“Report”), I, George Alvarez, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C Section
1350), that:





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.





By:
      /s/ George
      Alvarez
                George
      Alvarez
                Chief
      Executive Officer
                May
      24, 2010
 
 
 [A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
China Tel Group, Inc. and will be retained by China Tel Group, Inc. and
furnished to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.]
# Javits Neuroscience Investigator Award (R37)

In October 1983, the U.S. Congress established the Senator Jacob Javits Awards in the Neurosciences, in honor of the late Senator Javits (R-NY), to be administered by the National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke (now the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, NINDS). Senator Javits, who was himself afflicted with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), was a strong advocate for support of research in a wide variety of disorders of the brain and nervous system. The Javits Award (R37) is a conditional, seven-year research grant given to scientists for their superior competence and outstanding productivity. Javits Awards provide long-term support to investigators with a history of exceptional talent, imagination, and preeminent scientific achievement. The award is initially for a period of four years, after which, based on an administrative review, an additional project period of three years may be awarded. Since the program’s inception in fiscal year 1984, more than 600 Javits Investigator Awards have been made.

## Award Nominations

Investigators do not apply for a Javits Award. Nominations for this award are made by NINDS staff and by members of the NANDS Council. These nominations are then reviewed by the Director, NINDS and the NANDS Council. All Javits nominations must be approved by the NANDS Council prior to their award.

## Award Criteria

R01 applications on any topic relevant to the mission of the NINDS will be considered for Javits Awards; no deliberate effort will be made to maintain subject matter, institutional, or geographical balance. Competitive R01s judged by the initial review group to be highly meritorious are automatically eligible for consideration, provided they exemplify the investigator’s body of work. 

When nominating investigators for Javits awards, staff and Council consider R01 applications with scores within the NINDS percentile payline. These applications are generally from PIs with at least two consecutive cycles (i.e. 10 years) of continuous NINDS R01 (or equivalent) support. Staff and Council choose applications from investigators who have made substantial, cutting-edge contributions to neuroscience or neurology and have a record of conducting rigorous, transparent research. A Javits investigator is recognized as a leader in their field who can be expected to continue to be highly productive during the seven-year award period. In addition, Javits nominees must have a record of service to NINDS or NIH (e.g. study section service, steering committee participation) and of contributions to the community (e.g. mentoring, outreach, leadership in organizations). In choosing Javits candidates, NINDS values diversity of scientific perspectives and backgrounds.
> 
Javits Recipients

We invite you to read about the exciting work of our Javits Award recipients.

> 
For Javits Recipients - Questions about how to apply for extension after initial 4 year award period?

See the Javits-specific instructions on the NINDS Phased and Transition Awards page.
Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350   In connection with the Quarterly Report of Proper Power and Energy, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph E. Abdo, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to my knowledge that:  (i)  the accompanying Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Act); and  (ii)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  PROPER POWER AND ENERGY, INC.  /s/:  Joseph E. Abdo JOSEPH E. ABDO, Chief Executive Officer   November 16, 2009
CHRISTOPHER THOMPSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-1432

_____________________________/

Opinion filed July 14, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Alachua County.

William E. Davis, Judge.

Stacy A. Scott, Public Defender, and Canaan Goldman, Assistant Public Defender, 

Gainesville, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of appellant’s response to the Court’s order of March 

27, 2015, the Court has determined that the appeal is untimely with respect to 

appellant’s the December 8, 2015 criminal judgment and sentence. Accordingly, 
2

the appeal is dismissed. The dismissal is without prejudice to appellant filing a 

petition for belated appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 

9.141(c).

ROWE, SWANSON, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF**

**THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, David Gelbaum, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that the report of Entech Solar, Inc. on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and thatinformation contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operation of Entech Solar, Inc. 

 

Dated:March 31, 2010 

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Such certificationwill not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
Morgan v. Menard, 352-6-17 Wncv (Teachout, J., Oct. 27, 2017).

[The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is unofficial. It has been reformatted from the original. The accuracy of the text and the 

accompanying data included in the Vermont trial court opinion database is not guaranteed.]

STATE OF VERMONT

SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION

Washington Unit Docket No. 352-6-17 Wncv

MATTHEW J. MORGAN

Plaintiff

v.

LISA MENARD et al.

Defendants

DECISION

The State’s Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiff–Inmate Matthew Morgan initiated this case seeking Rule 75 review of a 

disciplinary infraction. He asked the court to expunge the violation and award him $60 for the 

lost opportunity to work in the facility. Sometime thereafter, presumably after the filing of the 

complaint, the DOC voluntarily expunged Mr. Morgan’s disciplinary violation. The State then 

filed a motion to dismiss because the matter had become moot, noting that an award of damages 

is not appropriately within the scope of a Rule 75 claim. Mr. Morgan appears to accept that the 

claim for damages is impermissible in this proceeding. However, he argues that the court should 

not dismiss this case without clearly ordering that there can be no collateral consequences of the 

conviction now that it is expunged.

There can be no doubt that any challenge to the disciplinary violation is moot because the 

DOC voluntarily expunged it.

An award of damages in the first instance is inconsistent with the court’s Rule 75 

authority. See V.R.C.P. 75(d) (“The judgment of the court shall affirm, reverse, or modify the 

decision under review as provided by law.”). 

The court declines to retain jurisdiction over a moot case due to collateral consequences 

that have not been identified, remain completely abstract, and may never come to fruition. “It is 

well-settled that this Court has jurisdiction to decide only ‘actual controversies arising between 

adverse litigants, duly instituted in courts of proper jurisdiction.’” Chase v. State, 2008 VT 107, 

¶ 11, 184 Vt. 430 (2008) (citation omitted). Here, there is no identified collateral consequence so 

there can be no controversy over one. If one should become apparent in the future, Mr. Morgan 

may address it at that time.
ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the State’s motion to dismiss is granted.

Dated at Montpelier, Vermont this ____ day of October 2017.

_____________________________

Mary Miles Teachout,

Superior Judge
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Miguel Mejias, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Antonio Rodriguez, Appellant.

Submitted June 10, 2013;

decided September 10, 2013

Motion for reargument denied *[see*21 NY3d 73 (2013)].

Judge Abdus-Salaam taking no part.
<PAGE>


                                  [LETTERHEAD]

July 13, 1998

Ms. Doris Lai
3285 Midvale Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90034
Via Fax (310) 470-9384

Dear Doris:

This letter will confirm our offer to you to accept the position of Vice 
President - Finance at Superior National Insurance Group, Inc. effective 
August 3, 1998 under the following terms:

1.   Salary of $125,000.
2.   5,000 options at the current market value.
3.   One year "evergreen" employment contract. If you are terminated by the 
     Company for any reason other than "for cause" at any time the contract 
     is in force, you will continue to receive compensation for one year from 
     the date of termination.
4.   You will be credited with the time of your prior employment for all 
     benefit purposes, except where prohibited by law.
5.   You will be allowed full participation in the management purchase of 
     SNTL shares associated with the upcoming rights offering, including the 
     financing to be provided to management by the company.
6.   Your duties will involve management of the Accounting Department, and 
     Alex Corbett and Stuart Levine will report directly to you, and you in 
     turn will report directly to me. Premium Audit and Collections will in 
     future report directly to me as well, as opposed to reporting through 
     the Vice President - Finance.

I trust you will find this proposal satisfactory, and I want to assure you 
that we are delighted at the prospect of your return to Superior National.

Very truly yours,

/s/ J. Chris Seaman

J. Chris Seaman

Copy to Brad Cooper
        Bill Gentz
Exhibit 10.1 First Amendment to Services Agreement by and between DCP Midstream Partners, LP and DCP Midstream, LP dated August 5, 2013


Exhibit 10.1










FIRST AMENDMENT
TO
SERVICES AGREEMENT


This First Amendment to Services Agreement (this “Amendment”) is dated as of August 5, 2013 and entered into by and between DCP Midstream, LP, a Delaware limited partnership (“Service Provider”) and DCP Midstream Partners, LP, a Delaware limited partnership (“Owner”).  Service Provider and Owner are sometimes referred to in this Amendment individually as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties”.
RECITALS
		
	A.
	The Parties entered into that certain Services Agreement dated as of February 14, 2013 (the “Services Agreement”) (capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning given thereto in the Services Agreement).




		
	B.
	The Parties desire to amend the Services Agreement to increase the G&A Expenses Limit as provided for in Section 2.5 of the Services Agreement to account for the sale of the Membership Interests in DCP LaSalle Plant LLC and DCP Midstream Front Range LLC from Service Provider to the Owner in two separate Purchase and Sale Agreements dated as of August 5, 2013 (the “PSAs”) which are referred to together herein and in Schedule A as “Project Frontier”.




FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows:
		
	1.
	Services Agreement Schedule Amendment.  Schedule A to the Services Agreement is replaced with the Schedule A attached hereto as Attachment I.




		
	2.
	Acknowledgement.  Except as amended hereby, the Services Agreement shall remain in full force and effect as previously executed, and the Parties hereby ratify the Services Agreement as amended hereby.




		
	3.
	Counterparts.  This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, all of which shall be considered one and the same agreement, and shall become effective when one or more counterparts have been signed by each of the Parties hereto and delivered (including by facsimile) to the other Parties.















EACH OF THE UNDERSIGNED, intending to be legally bound, has caused this Amendment to be duly executed and delivered to be effective as of August 5, 2013, regardless of the actual date of execution of this Amendment.


DCP MIDSTREAM, LP




By: /s/ Brent L. Backes
Name: Brent L. Backes
Title: Group Vice President, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary




DCP MIDSTREAM PARTNERS, LP 
By: DCP MIDSTREAM GP, LP, its general partner
By: DCP MIDSTREAM GP, LLC, its general partner




By: /s/ Michael S. Richards
Name: Michael S. Richards
Title: Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary
































Signature Page to First Amendment to Services Agreement





ATTACHMENT I




SCHEDULE A


G&A EXPENSES LIMIT






For 2013 the G&A Expenses Limit shall be $28,620,000 plus an additional $400,000 per year for Project Frontier, pro-rated for the remainder of calendar year 2013 from the Effective Date, as such term is defined in the PSAs.
**Exhibit
      32**





CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


AND
      CHIEF
      FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 (the "report") of KMA Global Solutions
      International, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended July
      31,
      2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Jeffrey D. Reid,
      Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
      certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
      ss. 1350), that to his 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.








Date:
                September 14, 2007
            /s/
                Jeffrey D. Reid


Jeffrey
      D. Reid


Chief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial


Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                              21
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      211
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   232
<PP&E>                                              67
<DEPRECIATION>                                      42
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    3608
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1481
<BONDS>                                              9
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               36
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            27
<OTHER-SE>                                        2046
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      3608
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    60
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (187)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (124)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (751)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (751)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (751)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 511 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Department 

of the Navy should take a leading role in the mitigation of crossborder spills, discharges, and debris in the Tijuana River that impact 

national security interests of the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 23, 2019 

Mrs. DAVIS of California (for herself, Mr. LEVIN of California, Mr. PETERS, 

and Mr. VARGAS) submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Armed Services 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

the Department of the Navy should take a leading role 

in the mitigation of cross-border spills, discharges, and 

debris in the Tijuana River that impact national security 

interests of the United States. 

Whereas runoff crossing the United States-Mexico border 

poses significant environmental and public health risks; 

Whereas discharges of raw sewage into the Tijuana River 

have required Navy in-water military training in the vicinity of Coronado, California, to be shifted to other locations due to health and safety concerns; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 511 IH 

Whereas the $1,000,000,000 Navy SEAL training center, 

Naval Base Coronado Coastal Campus, is located less 

than three miles from the mouth of the Tijuana River; 

Whereas sewage spills and debris, such as discarded tires, 

often clog the river channel, causing substantial erosion 

along the perimeter of the Naval Outlying Landing Field 

Imperial Beach (NOLFIB), which has threatened the installation’s perimeter fencing and resulted in the Navy 

developing a project to reinforce the riverbank and relocate portions of Navy fencing; 

Whereas such discharges also cause secondary impacts to 

local Navy operations, such as beach closures at Naval 

Base Coronado in areas that are prime nesting grounds 

for the Western Snowy Plover and the California Least 

Tern; 

Whereas increased regulatory actions by State and Federal 

environmental protection agencies may be levied if the 

quality and safety of these species’ nesting areas are affected, which will negatively constrain military activities 

in these areas; and 

Whereas Congress is concerned that future spills, discharges, 

and debris from the Tijuana River may have more significant impacts on the military installations and operations in the San Diego region: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that the Department of the Navy should take 

3 a leading role in the mitigation of cross-border spills, dis4 charges, and debris in the Tijuana River that impact na5 tional security interests of the United States. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Emil Eugenio SIERRA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-50516.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided June 21, 2006.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western *462District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Gregory D. Torres, Law Offices of Gregory D. Torres, Eagle Pass, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Emil Eugenio Sierra, who is represented by appointed counsel, has filed pro se motions asking us to strike the brief filed by his attorney, hold his appeal in abeyance, and either appoint new counsel to represent him or grant him leave to proceed on appeal pro se. Sierra has not established a conflict of interest or other most pressing circumstances or that the interests of justice otherwise require relief of counsel in his case. *See*Fifth Circuit Plan under the Criminal Justice Act, § 5(B). Moreover, Sierra’s motions for the appointment of substitute counsel or in the alternative to proceed pro se were made after his attorney filed a brief on his behalf. The motions are untimely and are denied. *Cf. United, States v. Wagner,*158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir.1998). Sierra’s requests to strike the brief filed by his attorney and hold his appeal in abeyance are also denied.

In the brief filed by his attorney, Sierra argues that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to raise duress as a defense at his trial and as a mitigating factor during his sentencing hearing. Sierra asks us to remand his case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing concerning his ineffectiveness claims.

Sierra did not raise his ineffective assistance of counsel claims in the district court, and the record is not sufficiently developed for us to review the claims. The Supreme Court has emphasized that a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is the preferred method for raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. *Massaro v. United States,*538 U.S. 500, 504-05, 123 S.Ct. 1690, 155 L.Ed.2d 714 (2003). Accordingly, Sierra’s motion to remand his case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing is denied. The district court’s judgment is affirmed without prejudice to Sierra’s right to raise his ineffective assistance of counsel claims in a § 2255 motion.

AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., et al., Respondents, v Almah LLC, Appellant.

Submitted July 15, 2013;

decided September 17, 2013

*1069Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution *(see Burke v Crosson,*85 NY2d 10, 18 n 5 [1995]).

Judge Abdus-Salaam taking no part.