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

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 Report of Stem Cell Therapy International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Periodic
Report"), I, Calvin Cao, President (Principal Executive Officer) of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. the Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated:     November 14, 2006    /s/Calvin Cao
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Calvin Cao, Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 828 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 828

 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United 
  States Trade Representative should promptly resume negotiations to 
              conclude the Environmental Goods Agreement.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 2020

    Ms. DelBene (for herself, Mr. Panetta, Mr. Beyer, Ms. Sewell of 
 Alabama, and Mr. Kind) submitted the following resolution; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United 
  States Trade Representative should promptly resume negotiations to 
              conclude the Environmental Goods Agreement.

Whereas climate change is one of the most serious threats we face today;
Whereas transitioning towards a low-emissions economy must be a priority for all 
        countries;
Whereas, on July 8, 2014, the United States and other member countries of the 
        World Trade Organization, accounting for nearly 90 percent of global 
        exports in environmental goods, began negotiations on the Environmental 
        Goods Agreement;
Whereas the Environmental Goods Agreement would eliminate tariffs on a broad 
        range of environmental goods including wind turbines, water treatment 
        filters, solar water heaters, and bicycles;
Whereas the United States is a leader in the development of environmental goods, 
        but such goods can face tariffs as high as 50 percent when exported to 
        other countries; and
Whereas the negotiations represent a significant opportunity to help countries 
        across the world access high-quality affordable environmental goods 
        while also leveling the playing field for American manufacturers and 
        supporting green jobs: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
not later than 90 days after the date of the adoption of this 
Resolution, the United States Trade Representative should resume 
negotiations to conclude the Environmental Goods Agreement.
                                 <all>
```
@article{1213171,
  author = {John Barker and Jeremy Cook and Jean Philippe Chabot and Steven Kline and Zhenhuang Zhang and Cedric Gagnon},
  title = {Extraneous Scattering Background in SANS Instruments},
  year = {2022},
  number = {33},
  month = {2022-02-22 05:02:00},
  publisher = {Neutron News},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=934196},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/10448632.2022.2035571},
  language = {en},
}
am no lover ot Mari nsf Face been’ vith
(om Volk M balesvMe so anu fudure: towespmdvrce needs tr be,

_ addressed here... \ was transfumey lost Thuan 4-10-IS. Than. you
Sb wery wiih for_ypue ine on His matory _ .

bod less;

4
\ Aid award wens reports es wal letore Tawny Mal lin 50 06
Viagre iS AN t fl + ii

a RZCONTNACY

again
Lowy on hyn Hi 44st
Crain: Uni pe —
\4o\ Stale Schon\ YA ‘ : —__ COURT-OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ——

badesviMe, TK.
es 44 = ) UL Tas

ApolAcesta, Clark
#### Angelo Iannone, Appellant, v ING Financial Services, LLC, et al., Respondents.

[853 NYS2d 339]

Plaintiff, a stock trader employed by defendants, was tape-recorded apparently discussing the purchase and use of illegal drugs on defendants’ premises. When confronted with this information, plaintiff initially stated that his conversation was taken “out of context.” The employer suspended plaintiff and *392gave him an opportunity to place the conversation “in context.” The next day, after reviewing a transcript of the recording, plaintiff sent an e-mail stating that he realized he was addicted to illegal drugs and needed to seek immediate medical and psychiatric treatment to help him stop. This communication requested an accommodation to pursue a drug rehabilitation program, which might require him to seek personal time off. Instead, defendants immediately terminated plaintiffs employment by telephone. Plaintiff protested the firing in a subsequent e-mail, alleging that his rights were violated by the employer.

In the case of drug addiction, the term “disability” is applicable only to a person who is recovering or has recovered, and is currently free of such abuse; it does not include an individual who is currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs (Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-102 [16] [c]). The General Regulations of the New York State Division of Human Rights similarly provide that drug addiction is a disease, and a “recovered/ recovering” addict is entitled to protection under the Human Rights Law, whereas a current drug abuser is not (9 NYCRR 466.11 [h] [1]). Where the employer has knowledge of the current use of illegal drugs, the employee is not entitled by law to an accommodation for treatment, and may be terminated (9 NYCRR 466.11 [h] [4]). Here, plaintiff admitted in his e-mail that he could not stop his illegal drug use without professional assistance, which he had not yet received, and thus he did not qualify for an accommodation since he was abusing drugs at the time of his termination.

Plaintiffs retaliation claim was also properly dismissed. His first complaint about a violation of his rights came after he was terminated, so the firing could not have been in retaliation for complaints or opposition to discrimination by the employer. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Gonzalez, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6321

WARREN CHASE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WAYNE M. EVERD; THE ANNAPOLIS POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.

(1:07-cv-02581-CCB)

Submitted: May 22, 2008 Decided: May 30, 2008

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Warren Chase, Appellant Pro Se. Michael John Winkelman, MCCARTHY

& COSTELLO, LLP, Bowie, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Warren Chase appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his complaint seeking the return of property and money

as frivolous. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated

by the district court. See Chase v. Everd, No. 1:07-cv-02581-CCB

(D. Md. Jan. 14, 2008). 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.

DISMISSED
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-51120

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JESUS MANUEL GARCIA-MONGE, also known as Jesus M. Garcia,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:14-CR-788-1

Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jesus Manuel Garcia-Monge was convicted of illegal reentry and 

received a within-guidelines sentence of 41 months of imprisonment followed 

by a three-year term of supervised release. On appeal, Garcia-Monge 

challenges the procedural reasonableness of his sentence based on the district 

court’s reliance on an allegedly incorrect fact. Because Garcia-Monge’s request 

for a variance did not preserve the error he now complains of, our review is for 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 17, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-51120 Document: 00513120389 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/17/2015
No. 14-51120

2

plain error. See United States v. Neal, 578 F.3d 270, 272 (5th Cir. 2009); United 

States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007). To succeed on plain error 

review, Garcia-Monge must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and 

affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 

(2009). If he makes such a showing, we have the discretion to correct the error 

but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of 

judicial proceedings. See id.

Because the question of whether the district court misstated the status 

of Garcia-Monge’s state sentence presented a factual issue which could have 

been resolved by the district court upon proper objection at sentencing, it 

cannot constitute plain error. See United States v. Claiborne, 676 F.3d 434, 

438 (5th Cir. 2012). Even if it could, and even assuming Garcia-Monge has 

demonstrated a forfeited error that was clear or obvious, see United States v. 

Kirklin, 701 F.3d 177, 178-80 (5th Cir. 2012), he has not demonstrated that the 

error affected his substantial rights or that we should exercise our discretion 

to correct the error, see Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-51120 Document: 00513120389 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/17/2015
----

|  | (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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report. |
|--|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Dated: October 28, 2014 | /s/ Matthew T. Plavan                      |
|--------|-------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|   |                    | Matthew T. Plavan, Chief Executive Officer |
|   |                    |                                       |
|   | Dated: October 28, 2014 | /s/ Dan T. Bessey                          |
|   |                    | Dan T. Bessey, Chief Financial Officer     |

----
Benefits and Beneficiaries Under the Railroad Retirement 

and Unemployment Insurance Systems - April 2005 

Benefit payments April 2005 April 2004 

Regular Retirement 

and Survivor Benefits 

Total 

Retired employ

Spouses and d

Widow(er)s - a

Other survivors 

ees 

ivorced spouses 

ged and disabled 

22,179,000 

90,967,000 

155,323,000 

$762,628,000 

494,158,000 

21,959,000 

89,448,000 

155,678,000 

$746,152,000 

479,067,000 

Average under 

Being paid Awarded in Social Security 

Monthly benefits end of month month April 2005 

Number Average1 Number Average1 Being Paid Awarded 

Total 601,000 ......... 2,600 ......... ......... .........

Regular employee annuities, total 285,000 $1,715 1,000 $2,200 ......... .........

 Age 201,300 1,675 2 300 2 2,723 $958 3 $1,237

 Disability, Full Retirement Age and Over 35,000 1,531 ......... ......... ......... .........

 Disability, Under Full Retirement Age 48,700 2,014 400 2,211 896 956 

Spouses and divorced spouses 140,800 639 700 693 465 338 

Widow(er)s--aged and disabled 147,400 1,050 700 1,410 908 740 

Widowed mothers and fathers 900 1,334 4/ 1,248 684 676 

Widow(er)s--remarried and divorced 14,700 696 100 742 5/ 5/ 

Children 12,100 791 100 1,062 629 641 

Other survivors 100 750 ......... ......... ......... .........

 Benefit payments 

Being paid 

end of month 

Awarded 

in month 

Supplemental 

Employee 

Annuities 

April 

2005 

$5,235,000 

April 

2004 

$5,346,000 

Number 

124,200 

Average 

$42 400 

Number

$41 

Average 

1

Railroad retirement benefits shown are net of reduction for social security benefit entitlement. 

2

For employees retiring directly from the railroad industry with full age annuity (their years of service averaged 34); about 300

 other age annuities were awarded in the month. 

3

For men aged 65 or over insured on regular basis. 

4

Fewer than 50. 

5

Remarried and divorced widow(er)s included with aged and disabled widow(er)s and widowed mothers and fathers. 

Note. --Data are on a cash basis (unaudited) and are partly estimated. Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Regular retirement and survivor benefit payments total includes hospital insurance benefits for services in Canada. 

(Over) 
Benefits and Beneficiaries Under the Railroad Retirement 

and Unemployment Insurance Systems - (Continued) 

April 2005 

Unemployment and Sickness Benefits 

Average payment 

Number of beneficiaries 

during month 

Per 2-week 

registration period

 Per

 full week 

Unemployment 2,800 $469 $277 

Sickness 5,900 

April 2005 

486 

Benefit payments 

278 

April 2004 

Unemployment

Total 

2,584,000 

$5,560,000 $7,664,000

3,402,000 

Sickness 2,976,000 4,262,000 

Note. --Data are on a cash basis (unaudited). Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.

 Recycled

 Paper 

Published by the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board 

Bureau of the Actuary
EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statement
(Form S-8 No.  33-29612)  pertaining  to the 1987 Stock  Option  Plan of Kimmins
Corp.  and in the related  Prospectus,  of our report dated April 7, 1999,  with
respect to the consolidated  financial  statements and schedule of Kimmins Corp.
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1999.




                                                       /s/ Ernst & Young LLP



Tampa, Florida
April 12, 2000
Supreme Court ofthe United States

Office ofthe Clerk

Washington, DC 20543-0001

July 15, 2015

Scott S. Harris

Clerk of the Court

(202) 479-3011

Clerk

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

P.O. Box 12308

Capitol Station

Austin, TX 78711

Re: Juan Lizcano

v. Texas

No. 15-65

(Your No. WR-68,348-03)

Dear Clerk:

The petition for a writ of certiorari in the above entitled case was filed on July

14, 2014 and placed on the docket July 15, 2015 as No. 15-65.

Sincerely,

Scott S. Harris, Clerk

by ^4£—

Andrew Downs

Case Analyst

WED IN

20URT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS

JUL 20 2015
EXHIBIT 4.1

[Front of Specimen Common Stock Certificate]


                             [GRAPHIC LOGO OMITTED]
[NUMBER]                                                                [SHARES]

                           INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS
                           OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
                                February 28, 2001

                                                                 See Reverse for
                                                             certain definitions


                                   FNB BANCORP

                             Total Authorized Issue
                       10,000,000 Shares Without Par Value
                                  COMMON STOCK


THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT

IS THE OWNER OF

FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF THE ABOVE CORPORATION TRANSFERABLE ONLY
ON THE BOOKS OF THE CORPORATION BY THE HOLDER HEREOF IN PERSON OR BY DULY
AUTHORIZED ATTORNEY UPON SURRENDER OF THIS CERTIFICATE PROPERLY ENDORSED.

     WITNESS, THE SEAL OF THE CORPORATION AND THE SIGNATURES OF ITS DULY
AUTHORIZED OFFICERS.

Dated:



_______________________, Secretary                ___________________, President

                        [CORPORATE SEAL OF FNB BANCORP ]
<PAGE>
[Back of Specimen Stock Certificate]


     The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of
this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full
according to applicable laws or regulations:

TEN COM   -- as tenants in common
UNIF TRANSFERS MIN ACT...............(Cust)  CUSTODIAN...............(Minor)
        Under Uniform Transfers to Minors Act....................(State)
TEN ENT   -- as tenants by the entireties
JT TEN    -- as joint tenants with right of
             survivorship and not as tenants
             in common

ADDITIONAL ABBREVIATIONS MAY ALSO BE USED THOUGH NOT IN THE ABOVE LIST.

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, ________ HEREBY SELL, ASSIGN AND TRANSFER UNTO

PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER
  IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE
----------------------------------------
                                        |
----------------------------------------
 [PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEE]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                          Shares
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
represented  by the  within  Certificate,  and do hereby
irrevocably constitute and appoint
                                                                        Attorney
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
to transfer  the said stock on the books of the within  named  Corporation  with
full power of substitution in the premises.

Dated
     --------------------------

               In the presence of
                                 -----------------------------
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 124 (Tuesday, June 30, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 31236]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15247]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


Deschutes Provincial Advisory Committee (DPAC)

AGENCY: Forest Service, Department of Agriculture.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Deschutes Provincial Advisory Committee will meet on July 
9, 2009, to discuss the future of sustainable recreation on the 
Deschutes National Forest. The meeting will start at 8:30 a.m. at the 
Forest Supervisor's Office, 1001 SW. Emkay Drive, Bend, Oregon in the 
Upper Deschutes Conference Room. Members will be updated on the winter 
Recreation Sustainability Analysis. An Open Public Forum is scheduled 
from 9:40-10 a.m. Then, members will go to the field at 10 a.m. to key 
recreation sites on the forest to discuss future desired recreation 
opportunities in preparation for the upcoming Forest Plan Revision. The 
trip is scheduled to end at 4 p.m. All Deschutes Province Advisory 
Committee Meetings are open to the public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chris Mickle, Province Liaison, 
Crescent Ranger District, Highway 97, Crescent, Oregon 97733, Phone 
(541) 433-3216.

Mary Farnsworth,
Deputy Deschutes National Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. E9-15247 Filed 6-29-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1195
CURLEE SHERMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE HONORABLE JOSEPH R. MCCROREY, Defendant - Appellee.

No. 04-1258
CURLEE SHERMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOSEPH R. MCCROREY, Defendant - Appellee.

No. 04-1282
CURLEE SHERMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant,- 2 - versus THE HONORABLE JOSEPH R. MCCROREY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-04-119-3-2-24BD; CA-04-312-3) Submitted: June 9, 2004 Decided: June 25, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curlee Sherman, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: Curlee Sherman seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaints. The district court referred these cases to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). In each case the magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Sherman that failure to file timely, specific objections to the recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Sherman failed to specifically object to the magistrate judge’s recommendations. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Sherman has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeals. 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.
DISMISSED