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



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ FRANK J. BELLIZZIFrank J. BellizziExecutive Vice President(Principal Executive Officer)By:
    
    /s/ DIANE E. KLEINDiane E. KleinVice President  Finance and Treasurer(Principal Financial Officer)
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Carbon Lehigh Intermediate Unit #21, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 750 C.D. 2021

:

Kimberly Waardal (Workers' :

Compensation Appeal Board), :

Respondent :

PER CURIAM O R D E R

NOW, February 10, 2022

, upon consideration of P etitioner’s

application for re argument

, and R espondent’s answer in response thereto, the

application is denied.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 7, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 9409]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3264]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Transit Administration


Federal Transit Administration National ITS Architecture Policy 
on Transit Projects; Delay of Effective Date

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice; delay of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: This action temporarily delays for 60 days the effective date 
of the policy titled, ``Federal Transit Administration National ITS 
Architecture Policy on Transit Projects,'' published in the Federal 
Register on January 8, 2001, at 66 FR 1455, in conjunction with the 
Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) final rule titled, 
``Intelligent Transportation System Architecture and Standards,'' also 
published on January 8, 2001, at 66 FR 1446. The FTA policy concerns 
conformance with the National ITS Architecture and Standards. The 
policy encourages the effective deployment of ITS projects and 
coordination of local ITS strategies and projects to help meet the 
national and local goals for mobility, accessibility, safety, security, 
economic growth and trade, and the environment.
    FHWA is delaying the effective date of its rule in accordance with 
the memorandum of January 20, 2001, from the Assistant to the President 
and Chief of Staff, titled ``Regulatory Review Plan,'' published in the 
Federal Register on January 24, 2001. To avoid any inconsistency or 
confusion, FTA is choosing to delay the effective date of its policy by 
creating a new effective date that is the same as for the FHWA rule. 
This 60-day delay will allow FTA to further review, consider and 
coordinate the policy with FHWA.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of the policy published at 66 FR 
1455, January 8, 2001, is delayed until April 8, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, Brian Cronin, 
Advanced Public Transportation Systems Division, (202) 366-8841. For 
legal issues, Richard Wong, Office of Chief Counsel, (202) 266-1936.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The temporary 60-day delay in the effective 
date of the FTA policy is consistent with the effective date of the 
FHWA rule. In conjunction with FHWA's review of its rule, FTA will have 
the opportunity to further review, consider, and coordinate FTA's 
National ITS Architecture policy. We are making this change effective 
immediately because the original effective date of the FTA policy would 
have led to potential confusion given the delay in the effective date 
of the FHWA rule.

    Issued On: February 2, 2001.
Hiram J. Walker,
Acting Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 01-3264 Filed 2-5-01; 11:11 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-57-M
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SHI JIE PAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-10562.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 20, 2008.*

Filed May 23, 2008.

Marshall H. Silverberg, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Donald L. Wilkerson, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: PREGERSON, TASHIMA, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Shi Jie Pan appeals from the district court’s decision, following a limited remand under *United States v. Ameline,*409 F.3d 1073, 1084-85 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc), that the sentence it imposed would not have been materially different had it known that the Sentencing Guidelines were advisory. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Pan contends that, at sentencing, the district court violated his due process rights by requiring the government to prove the factual basis for five Guidelines enhancements by only a preponderance of the evidence, even though the enhancements had an extremely disproportionate impact on his sentence. Because Pan did not raise this contention in his original appeal, it is unreviewable. *See United States v. Thornton,*511 F.3d 1221, 1228-29 (9th Cir.2008); *United States v. Combs,*470 F.3d 1294, 1297 (9th Cir.2006).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In the Estate of Edna Mae Leonards, Deceased

Appellate case number: 01-20-00221-CV

Trial court case number: P03846A

Trial court: County Court of Chambers County

The reporter’s record was due on April 13, 2020. According to the information provided 

to the Court by the court reporter, appellant will not be providing a reporter’s record. If appellant 

does not request and make financial arrangements for the filing of the reporter’s record, this 

Court will consider and decide only those issues or points that do not require a reporter’s record 

for a decision. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c). 

If appellant does plan to provide a reporter’s record, appellant must respond to the Court 

within 10 days of the date of this notice with proof of payment to the court reporter or the Court 

will order appellant’s brief filed without the benefit of a reporter’s record. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: _________/s/ Russell Lloyd____________________

 Acting individually

Date: April 21, 2020
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Francis L. Simola, Chairman, President and CEO of PowerCold Corporation (the Company) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.  This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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: Date: March 20, 2006



/s/ Francis L. Simola

Francis L. Simola

Chairman, President and CEO















































---
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the
Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report of MCF Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, D. Jonathan Merriman and Gregory S.
Curhan, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



September 9, 2003



/s/ D. Jonathan MerrimanD. Jonathan Merriman Chairman and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Gregory S. CurhanGregory S. Curhan Chief Financial Officer




32
CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

*July 22, 2014*

[Cite as *07/22/2014 Case Announcements,*2014-Ohio-3194.]

*1480MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2009-0866.

#### State ex rel. Kobly v. Youngstown City Council.

In Mandamus. Upon consideration of relators’ motion to enlarge time to submit their brief and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is ordered that the time for filing the brief and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law is hereby extended to August 18, 2014. All other deadlines are adjusted in accordance with the timeframes set out by the April 9, 2014 scheduling order.

/s/ ANDREW J. CAMPBELL Special Master
RICARDO DUNCAN,

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. 1D15-2120

_____________________________/

Opinion filed August 8, 2016. 

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.

David P. Kreider, Judge.

Stephen N. Bernstein, Gainesville, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Robert Charles Lee and Matthew Pavese, 

Assistant Attorneys General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, WINOKUR, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**Certification
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2002**





In
      connection with the Annual Report of Sportsquest, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-KSB for the year ended October 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, R. Thomas Kidd, Chief
      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, to the best of his 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.





Dated:
      August 12, 2008




/s/
                R. Thomas KiddR.
                Thomas KiddChief
                Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.02



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Environmental Power Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the
Report), I, R. Jeffrey Macartney, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of the Company.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of
this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



/s/    R. Jeffrey MacartneyR. Jeffrey Macartney Chief Financial
Officer  March 29,
2004
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 3865]

# AGENCY:

Department of State.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                         *et seq.*; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                         *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Dreaming with Open Eyes: Dada and Surrealist Art from the Vera, Silvia, and Arturo Schwarz Collection in the Israel Museum,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner. I also                               ( print page 119)                            determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA from on or about February 2, 2002 to on or about April 28, 2002, and at possible additional venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Carol B. Epstein, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State, (telephone: 202/619-6981). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.

Dated: December 13, 2001.

Patricia S. Harrison,

Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, United States Department of State.

[FR Doc. 01-32225 Filed 12-31-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-08-P
#### MYERS *et al.*v. HUNT *et al.*

No. 6969.

Opinion Filed December 22, 1914.

APPEAL AND iERROR — Frivolous Appeal — Dismissal. It clearly appears from the motion to dismiss the petition in error and the judgment appealed from that this appeal is prosecuted for delay, and that plaintiffs in error had no valid defense to defendants in error’s cause of action, and that this appeal is manifestly frivolous. Held, that said motion to dismiss should be -sustained under the authority of Skirvin v. Bass .Furniture and Carpet 'Co., 43 Okla. 440, 143 Pac. 190, and Skirvin v. Goldstein, 40 Okla. 315, 137 Pac. 1176.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

*141*Error from District Court, Garvin County; B. McMillan, Judge.*

Action between Joe F. Myers and others and Miles H. Hunt and others. From the judgment, the parties first named bring error.

Dismissed.

*Blanton & Andrews,*for- plaintiffs in error.

*Everest, Smith & -Campbell,*for defendants in error.

RIDDLE, J.

Motion to dismiss the appeal has been filed upon the ground, among others, that the appeal is frivolous and not taken within the time allowed by law. No response has been filed to this motion. Judgment was rendered in the court below on May 14, 1914, sustaining motion of defendants in error for judgment on the pleadings. The judgment of the court recites that:

> “And thereupon the plaintiff announced ready for trial upon his mbtión for judgment upon the pleadings, and upon the merits of said cause, and said defendants, appearing, announced in open court that they had no -defense to the -action of the plaintiff herein,”

From the language quoted, *supra,*and the petition in error and motion to dismiss, it appears beyond doubt that this appeal is prosecuted for delay, and that the same is manifestly frivolous and without merit. It clearly appears from said judgment and motion to dismiss that defendants had no valid defense to plaintiffs’ cause of action.

In *Skirvin v. Bass Furniture & Carpet Co.,*43 Okla. 440, 143 Pac. 190, the third syllabus reads:

> “The motion to dismiss the petition in error shows that plaintiff in error had no legal defense to the.cause of .action, and in the trial court the cause of action was admitted; that the appeal is manifestly frivolous and without merit. *Held,*that it *142is proper for this court to sustain such motion and dismiss the appeal.”

See also, *Skirvin v. Goldstein,*40 Okla. 315, 137 Pac. 1176.

For the reasons stated herein, the appeal is dismissed.

All the Justices concur.
<PAGE>

                           QUALITY FOOD CENTERS, INC.
                                   EXHIBIT 11
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

Calculations of earnings per share reported in this report on Form 
10-K for the periods presented are based on the following:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                          Fiscal Year           Fiscal Year           Fiscal Year
                                             Ended                 Ended                 Ended
                                       December 30, 1995     December 31, 1994     December 25, 1993
                                       -----------------     -----------------     -----------------
<S>                                    <C>                   <C>                   <C>
PRIMARY
-------
  Weighted average
    shares outstanding                        15,706,279            19,434,211            19,299,718


  Dilutive effect 
    of stock options                             123,721               221,789               292,282
                                       -----------------     -----------------     -----------------

  Weighted average
    common and equivalent
    shares outstanding                        15,830,000            19,656,000            19,592,000
                                       -----------------     -----------------     -----------------
                                       -----------------     -----------------     -----------------

FULLY DILUTED
-------------

  Weighted average
    shares outstanding                        15,706,279            19,434,211            19,299,718


  Dilutive effect 
    of stock options                             125,721               239,789               292,282
                                       -----------------     -----------------     -----------------

  Weighted average
    common and equivalent
    shares outstanding                        15,832,000            19,674,000            19,592,000
                                       -----------------     -----------------     -----------------
                                       -----------------     -----------------     -----------------

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18. U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with Amendment No.1 on Form 10-K/A to the Annual Report of Sizeler Property Investors, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas A. Masilla, Jr., Principal Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

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

(2) The information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ Thomas A. Masilla, Jr.Thomas A. Masilla, Jr.Principal Executive OfficerApril 18, 2006




---

|* | A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Sizeler Property Investors, Inc. and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
|- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### Holman B. HENLEY, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeffrey N. DILLMAN, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 13-8023.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 17, 2014.

Decided: April 21, 2014.

Holman B. Henley, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Holman B. Henley, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a- circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Henley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauper-is, deny Henley’s motion for a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*