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

**CERTIFICATION OF**

**PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF**

**VALENCE TECHNOLOGY, INC.**

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the “Form 10-Q”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, of Valence Technology, Inc. (the “Issuer”).

I, Robert L. Kanode, the Principal Executive Officer of the Issuer, certify that to the best of my knowledge:

|   | (i) | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (ii) | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer. |
|--------|------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:  August 9, 2007 | /s/ Robert L. Kanode |
|------------------------|----------------------|

|   | Robert L. Kanode |
|--------|------------------|
Opinion issued August 8 , 2023

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 23
- 00486
- CV

——————————— IN RE JAJWK, LLC AND JAJWK, LP , Relat or s

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDU M OPINION Relators, JAJWK LLC and JAJWK LP, have filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s post

- judgment “Order to Transfer and Sale” signed on June 26, 2023. 1 We deny the petition. We lift the stay imposed by our July 14, 2023 order. Any pending motions are dismissed as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Landau , and Rivas

- Molloy

.

1 The underlying case is Primeway Federal Credit Union v. Baber Naeem, Matthew Favard, Emperial Motor Sales, LLC , and T exas Department of Motor Vehicles , cause number 2020

- 79495 , pending in the 215th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Elaine H. Palmer presiding.
Exhibit 32.2



Certification 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 Annual Report of Wisconsin Gas Company (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2004 (the "Report"), I, Allen L. Leverett, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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.

/s/  Allen L. Leverett             
Allen L. Leverett 
Chief Financial Officer
March 30, 2004

This certification accompanies this Report 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 Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  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 Wisconsin Gas Company and will be retained by Wisconsin Gas Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### MERCHANT BANK OF NEW YORK v. GROVE SILK CO.

Civ. 3626.

United States District Court M. D. Pennsylvania.

June 26, 1951.

Compton & Handler, by Arthur Berman and Samuel Handler, Harrisburg, for plaintiff.

J. Julius Levy, Ernest D. Preate, Scranton, for defendant.

WATSON, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff filed a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum served by the Defendant upon Fabian Roll, Vice President of the Plaintiff Bank, at 434 Broadway, New York City, New York.

Plaintiff contends, inter alia, that the subpoena is of no force and effect as it is not within 100 miles of the place of trial, Scranton, Pennsylvania.

*440Under Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., a subpoena may be served at a place outside the district provided it is within 100 miles of the place of hearing or trial specified in the subpoena. The distance is to be determined by the ordinary, usual and shortest route of public travel and not by a mathematically straight line between the place of service and the place of trial. Jennings v. Menaugh, C.C.Ind.1902, 118 F. 612; Green v. Victor Talking Machine Co., D.C.E.D.N.Y.1926, 15 F.2d 869. The Court may take judicial notice that a distance between cities named is more than 100 miles. Munson S. S. Lines v. Newman, 5 Cir., 1928, 24 F.2d 417.

In applying the above method for computing distance, the Court takes judicial notice that New York City, New York, is more than 100 miles distant from Scranton, Pennsylvania, by the usual and shortest route of public travel.

The subpoena, having been served at a place more than 100 miles distant from Scranton, Pennsylvania, it is ordered that Plaintiff’s motion to quash the subpoena, served upon Fabian Roll on June 21, 1951, be, and it hereby is, granted, and the subpoena be, and it hereby is quashed.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 131 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 131

Expressing the gratitude of the House of Representatives to the people 
    and Government of Malaysia for their support, cooperation, and 
            assistance in combating international terrorism.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 6, 2003

  Mr. Meeks of New York submitted the following resolution; which was 
          referred to the Committee on International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the gratitude of the House of Representatives to the people 
    and Government of Malaysia for their support, cooperation, and 
            assistance in combating international terrorism.

Whereas the United States and Malaysia have a long history of fraternal 
        relations between both countries;
Whereas rubber from Malaysia has played an important role in the development of 
        the automobile industry in the United States;
Whereas the Malaysian armed forces served alongside United States Armed Forces 
        in Somalia;
Whereas United States Armed Forces train in the art of jungle warfare combat at 
        Malaysia's Jungle Warfare Center;
Whereas on May 14, 2002, Prime Minister Mahathir of Malaysia paid an official 
        visit the United States to meet with President George W. Bush;
Whereas the United States and Malaysia have agreed to cooperate in the area of 
        seaport security; and
Whereas Malaysia has agreed to partner with the United States and host the 
        creation of a Regional Counter-Terrorism Center focusing on training and 
        capacity building: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives expresses its 
friendship with the citizens of Malaysia and its deep appreciation and 
gratitude to the Government of Malaysia for their support, cooperation, 
and assistance in combating international terrorism.
                                 <all>
```
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3383 

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 

at 719 Church Street in Nashville, Tennessee, as the ‘‘Fred D. Thompson 

Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2016 

Mr. ALEXANDER (for himself and Mr. CORKER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

A BILL 

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 719 Church Street in Nashville, Tennessee, as the ‘‘Fred D. Thompson Federal Building 

and United States Courthouse’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FRED D. THOMPSON FEDERAL BUILDING AND 

4 UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE. 

5 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that— 

6 (1) Fred D. Thompson was first elected to the 

7 United States Senate in 1994 and served as a Sen8 ator from the State of Tennessee until 2003; 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3383 IS

1 (2) Fred D. Thompson graduated from Mem2 phis State University in 1964 and Vanderbilt Uni3 versity School of Law in 1967, and served as an As4 sistant United States Attorney in the State of Ten5 nessee; 

6 (3) Fred D. Thompson was appointed by Sen7 ator Howard Baker, Jr., to serve as minority counsel 

8 to the Senate Watergate Committee in 1973; 

9 (4) following his service as a United States 

10 Senator, Fred D. Thompson continued to pursue his 

11 acting career, which began in 1985 with the movie 

12 ‘‘Marie’’ in which he played himself; 

13 (5) Fred D. Thompson was known for his in14 tegrity, humility, and dedication to public service; 

15 and 

16 (6) the naming of the Federal building and 

17 United States courthouse located at 719 Church 

18 Street in Nashville, Tennessee, after Senator Fred 

19 D. Thompson would honor his name and the legacy 

20 he left to all citizens of the State of Tennessee. 

21 (b) DESIGNATION.—The Federal building and United 

22 States courthouse located at 719 Church Street in Nash23 ville, Tennessee, shall be known and designated as the 

24 ‘‘Fred D. Thompson Federal Building and United States 

25 Courthouse’’. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3383 IS

1 (c) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the Federal building and United States court4 house referred to in subsection (b) shall be deemed to be 

5 a reference to the ‘‘Fred D. Thompson Federal Building 

6 and United States Courthouse’’. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 23.1



                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in  Post-Effective  Amendment No. 1
to  the  Registration  Statement  (Form  S-8  No.  33-34566)  pertaining  to the
Envirosource, Inc. Savings Plan, Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-26633),
Post-Effective  Amendment  No. 1 to the  Registration  Statement  (Form  S-8 No.
33-1549), and Post Effective Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No.  33-13728),  each of which pertains to  Envirosource,  Inc.'s  Incentive
Stock Option Plan,  Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-46925) pertaining to
the Envirosafe Services,  Inc. Stock Option Plan, and the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 33-53019)  pertaining to the Envirosource,  Inc. 1993 Stock Option
Plan of our  report  dated  March 19,  1999  with  respect  to the  consolidated
financial statements and schedule of Envirosource,  Inc. included in this Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1998.



                                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP




Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 30, 1999
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. IGNAC IO VALLES-B ARR IOS, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-10096

D.C . No. 2:13-c r-01469-GM S M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Howa rd D. M c Kibbe n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding ** Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 23, 2014 * ** B e fore : W . FLETC HER , R AW LINSON, a

n d C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Igna c io Va lle s-B arrios a

ppe a ls from the distric t c o urt’ s judgm e nt a nd c ha lle nge s his guilty -ple a c onvic tion a

nd 40-m onth se nte nc e for re e ntry a fte r 

# F IL ED OCT 02 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** The Honora

ble Howa rd D. M c Kibbe n, Se nior Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ne v a da , sitting by de signa tion.

*** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).de porta

tion, in viola

tion of 8 U.S.C . § 1326. Pursua nt to Ande rs v . C

alifornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Valle s-B arrios’ s c ounse l ha s file d a brie f stat ing tha

t the re are no grounds for re lie f, a long with a m otion to withdra

w a s c o unse l of re c ord. W e have provide d Va lle s-B arrios theopportunity to file a pro se supple m e nta l brie f. No pro se supple m e nta l brie f or an s we ring brie f ha s be e n file d . Va lle s-B arrios ha s wa ive d his right to a ppe a l his c onvic tion a

nd se nte nc e . Our inde pe nde nt re v i e w of the re c ord pursua nt to Pe nson v . Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), disc lose s no a

rgua ble issue a s to the va lidity of the wa ive r. Se eUnite d State s v . W atson , 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th C ir. 2009). W e a c c ordingly dism iss the a ppe a l. Se eid. at 988. C ounse l’ s m otion to withdra w is G RANT E D. DISM I SSE D.

1 4 - 1 0 0 9 6 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         476,419
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  245,830
<ALLOWANCES>                                    23,426
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               733,786
<PP&E>                                       1,850,764
<DEPRECIATION>                                 345,019
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,291,224
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          183,581
<BONDS>                                      2,884,256
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          889,182
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           502
<OTHER-SE>                                   (635,315)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,291,224
<SALES>                                         55,444
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               422,611
<CGS>                                           35,305
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  269,016
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                10,259
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             131,402
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (240,495)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (240,495)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (285,943)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (5.76)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (5.76)


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MARK DAVID BREAKIRON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 118 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 28th day of September, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
IV 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 26

Honoring the contributions of Catholic schools. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 8, 2003

Mr. VITTER submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

RESOLUTION

Honoring the contributions of Catholic schools.

Whereas America’s Catholic schools are internationally acclaimed for their academic excellence, but provide students more than a superior scholastic education; 

Whereas Catholic schools ensure a broad, values-added education emphasizing the lifelong development of moral, intellectual, physical, and social values in America’s young 

people; 

Whereas the total Catholic school student enrollment for the 

2000–2001 academic year was 2,616,330, and the student-teacher ratio is 17 to 1; 

Whereas Catholic schools teach a diverse group of students; 

Whereas more than 26 percent of school children enrolled in 

Catholic schools are minorities, and more than 13 percent 

are Non-Catholics; 
2

•HRES 26 IH 

Whereas Catholic schools produce students strongly dedicated 

to their faith, values, families, and communities by providing an intellectually stimulating environment rich in 

spiritual, character, and moral development; and 

Whereas in the 1972 pastoral message concerning Catholic 

education, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops 

stated, ‘‘Education is one of the most important ways by 

which the Church fulfills its commitment to the dignity 

of the person and building of community. Community is 

central to education ministry, both as a necessary condition and an ardently desired goal. The educational efforts 

of the Church, therefore, must be directed to forming 

persons-in-community; for the education of the individual 

Christian is important not only to his solitary destiny, 

but also the destinies of the many communities in which 

he lives’’: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

2 (1) supports the goals of Catholic Schools 

3 Week, an event co-sponsored by the National Catho4 lic Educational Association and the United States 

5 Conference of Catholic Bishops and established to 

6 recognize the vital contributions of America’s thou7 sands of Catholic elementary and secondary schools; 

8 and 

9 (2) congratulates Catholic schools, students, 

10 parents, and teachers across the Nation for their on11 going contributions to education, and for the key 
3

•HRES 26 IH 

1 role they play in promoting and ensuring a brighter, 

2 stronger future for this Nation.

Æ
<PAGE>   1

                                                                  Exhibit 10(g)


                    DESCRIPTION OF EARNINGS MAXIMIZATION PLAN

        The Earnings Maximization Plan (the "Plan") was adopted by the Board of
Directors in 1998 to provide incentive cash compensation to key officers of the
Company. The Plan replaced the prior Earnings Maximization Plan that had been
originally adopted by the Board of Directors in 1988. The Plan covers fiscal
1999 through fiscal 2003.

        Under the Plan, a bonus pool is funded only when the Company achieves
specified Earnings Per Share targets, which increase annually. These targets are
set by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors. The bonus pool for
any fiscal year in which a target is achieved will initially be calculated as
Earnings Per Share multiplied by the funding pool level. The funding pool level
is specified by the Compensation Committee. The amount of the bonus pool as so
calculated will then be multiplied by either 105%, 110% or 115% if the Company's
Return On Assets equals or exceeds the rates specified by the Compensation
Committee. The resulting product will be the final bonus pool distributed.

        The Chief Executive Officer determines the key officers of the Company
who will participate in the Plan and the amount of the bonus pool that will be
allocated to each participant (provided that aggregate payments cannot exceed
the specified bonus pool amount). Participants in the Senior Executive Earnings
Maximization Plan (the "SEEMP") cannot participate in the Plan.

        The Plan provides for an adjustment to the calculation of Earnings Per
Share where the statutory tax rates applicable to the Company change.

        In the event of a "change in control" of the Company, bonuses will be
paid in the same manner as set forth in the SEEMP. For the purposes of the Plan,
"Earnings Per Share" and "Return On Assets" have the same meaning as set forth
in the SEEMP.
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 391 

To preserve and protect the free choice of individual employees to form, 

join, or assist labor organizations, or to refrain from such activities. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 5, 2015 

Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. HATCH, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. CRUZ, Mr. HELLER, Mr. LEE, 

Mr. RISCH, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. VITTER, Mr. WICKER, and Mr. SCOTT) 

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To preserve and protect the free choice of individual employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, or to 

refrain from such activities. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Right-to5 Work Act’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 391 IS

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE NATIONAL LABOR RELA2 TIONS ACT. 

3 (a) RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES.—Section 7 of the Na4 tional Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 157) is amended 

5 by striking ‘‘except to’’ and all that follows through ‘‘au6 thorized in section 8(a)(3)’’. 

7 (b) UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES.—Section 8 of the 

8 National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158) is amend9 ed— 

10 (1) in subsection (a)(3), by striking ‘‘: Pro11 vided, That’’ and all that follows through ‘‘retaining 

12 membership’’; 

13 (2) in subsection (b)— 

14 (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘or to 

15 discriminate’’ and all that follows through ‘‘re16 taining membership’’; and 

17 (B) in paragraph (5), by striking ‘‘covered 

18 by an agreement authorized under subsection 

19 (a)(3) of this section’’; and 

20 (3) in subsection (f), by striking clause (2) and 

21 redesignating clauses (3) and (4) as clauses (2) and 

22 (3), respectively. 

23 SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT. 

24 Section 2 of the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 152) 

25 is amended by striking paragraph Eleven. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS