alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32**

 

 

**Certification Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002**

 

 

In connection with theAnnual Report ofPublic Company Management Corporation, ("PUBC") on Form 10-KSB for thefiscal year ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen Brock, Chief Executive Officerand Principal Financial Officer of PUBC, certify, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 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 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 ofPUBC.

 

Date:December 29, 2005

/s/ Stephen Brock

Stephen Brock

Chief Executive Officerand

Principal Financial Officer
**MAY**
               DEC
				**APR**28**2009**
               2010
				**2012****94 captures**
           25 Oct 07 - 7 Oct 12
   Close
       Help


Illustration of 6 food groups amp; physical activitySearch MyPyramidSubjects•
      MyPyramid Basics○
      Inside the Pyramid○
      Tips & Resources○
      Print Materials○
      Got a Question?•
      Interactive Tools○
      Apps Competition○
      MyFoodapedia○
      MyPyramid Plan○
      Menu Planner○
      MyPyramid Tracker○
      Child Cost Calculator•
      Multimedia○
      Audio & VideoßNEW○
      Animation•
      Specific Audiences○
      Preschoolers (2-5y)○
      Kids (6-11y)○
      Pregnant & Breastfeeding○
      General Population•
      For Professional Use•
      Steps to a Healthier Weight•
      Dietary Guidelines•
      Partnering with MyPyramid•
      Related Links
            
            You
              are here: Home / MyPyramid for Pregnancy & BreastfeedingMyPyramid for Pregnancy and Breastfeeding MyPyramid for Moms
                        When you are pregnant or breastfeeding, you have special nutritional needs. This section of MyPyramid.gov is designed just for you.  It has advice you need to help you and your baby stay healthy.Pregnant tosoFirst — visit your health care provider if you haven’t already.  Every pregnant woman needs to visit a health care provider regularly.  He or she can make sure both you and your baby are healthy.  Your provider can also prescribe a safe vitamin and mineral supplement, and anything else you may need.
                    Next — get your own MyPyramid Plan for Moms.  Your Plan will show you the foods and amounts that are right for you. Enter your information for a quick estimate of what and how much you need to eat.  Or, go to the
                    Then — learn more by choosing a topic from the menu below.  The “Sources of  Information” will take you straight to the government’s best advice on pregnancy and breastfeeding.
                    MyPyramid Plan for Moms
                            Pregnancy — Nutritional Needs
                            Pregnancy — Weight Gain
                            Dietary Supplements
                            Special Health Needs
                        Breastfeeding — Nutritional Needs
                            Breastfeeding — Weight Loss
                            Food Safety
                            Sources of  InformationMyPyramid Menu Planner for MomsFollow MyPyramid onLast Modified: 
  May 12, 2010 11:47 AMUSDA.gov | FOIA | Accessibility
              Statement | Privacy
              Policy | Non-Discrimination
              Statement | Information
              Quality | USA.gov | White
              House
#### Widincamp *v.*The State.

November 15, 1910.

Indictment for murder. Before Judge Seabrook. Tattnall superior court. July *2,*1910.

*Twiggs & Gazan*and *II. II. Elders,*for plaintiff in error.

*H. A. Hall, attorney-general, N. J. Norman,*solicitor-general, and *Edwin A. Cohen,*contra.

Evans, P. J.

1. Where the court gives in charge the law as to the degree of strength of circumstantial evidence necessary to support a conviction for crime, as defined in the Penal Code, § 984, it is not error to refuse a request to charge which is but a paraphrase of that section with no concrete application to the specific case.

2. When newly discovered evidence is relied on as a- ground for new trial it should appear that the defendant and his counsel were ignorant of it until after the trial. If there be more than one counsel, it must be made to affirmatively appear that all of them were ignorant of the existence of the alleged evidence at the time of the trial. *Lee*v. *State,*69 *Ga.*705; *Leathers*v. *Leathers,*132 *Ga.*211 (63 S. E. 1118).

3. Objections propter affectum to a juror must be made before the trial. If urged after verdict as a ground for new trial, the movant must satisfy the" court, that the circumstances relied on to establish the juror’s disqualification were unknown to the defendant and his counsel at the time of the trial, and, where the defendant had more than one counsel, that each of his counsel was ignorant of such circumstances until after the trial. *Anderson*v. *State,*14 *Ga.*709.

4. The evidence, though circumstantial, was sufficient to authorize the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge, and his discretion in refusing a new trial will not be disturbed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4780 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4780

To amend the definition of marine highway transportation to include the 
carriage by a documented vessel of cargo that is bulk, liquid, or loose 
           cargo loaded in tanks, holds, hoppers, or on deck.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 4, 2022

   Mr. Cruz introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the definition of marine highway transportation to include the 
carriage by a documented vessel of cargo that is bulk, liquid, or loose 
           cargo loaded in tanks, holds, hoppers, or on deck.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Improving Marine Highway 
Transportation Act of 2022''.

SEC. 2. MARINE HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION DEFINITION AMENDMENT.

    Section 55605(1) of title 46, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``or'' after the 
        semicolon;
            (2) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (E); 
        and
            (3) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
                    ``(D) bulk, liquid, or loose cargo loaded in tanks, 
                holds, hoppers, or on deck; or''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 5, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 59616]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-22294]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Accredited Standards Committee X9, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on August 23, 2004, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), the Accredited Standards 
Committee X9, Inc. (``ASC X9'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of business of 
the standards development organization and (2) the nature and scope of 
its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for 
the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of 
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.
    Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place 
of business of the standards development organization is: Accredited 
Standards Committee X9, Inc. (``ASC X9''), Annapolis, MD. The nature 
and scope of ASC X9's standards development activities are to develop 
and promote standards for the financial services industry in order to 
facilitate services and products. ASC X9's objectives are to support 
(maintain, enhance and promote use of) existing standards; facilitate 
development of new, open standards based upon consensus; incorporate 
nonproprietary items developed by other organizations where 
appropriate; provide a common source for all standards affecting the 
financial services industry; focus on concurrent and future standards 
needs of the financial services industry standards; and participate in 
and promote the development of international standards.
    Additional information concerning ASC X9 may be obtained from 
Cynthia L. Fuller, Executive Director, Accredited Standards Committee 
X9, Inc., P.O. box 4035, Annapolis, MD 21403, Tel. (410) 267-7707.

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 04-22294 Filed 10-4-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Supreme Court Cause DA 22-0503

The parties have stipulated through counsel of record to dismiss this matter 

with prejudice pursuant to and in accordance with, Rules of Appellate Procedure 

16(5).

IT IS ORDERED that this matter is dismissed with prejudice. Each side is 

to bear its own costs and attorney’s fees.

SUBSECTOR SOLUTIONS, INC., d/b/a,

TREASURE STATE INTERNET &

TELEGRAPH, INC.,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

CITY OF HELENA

Defendant and Appellee.

ORDER FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 9 2023

01/09/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0503
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY ELEV

 509.13

 508.90

 507.98

 507.83

 507.18

 508.43

 508.45

 508.37

 508.89

 508.94

 508.91

 508.54

 508.26

 507.65

 507.86

 507.89

 507.90

 507.96

 507.98

 508.00

 508.49

 508.76

 508.61

 508.58

 507.70

 506.96

 506.35

 506.24

 505.27

 504.41

 65,882

 65,597

 64,465

 64,283

 63,495

 65,018

 65,043

 64,944

 65,585

 65,646

 65,609

 65,154

 64,809

 64,065

 64,319

 64,356

 64,368

 64,441

 64,465

 64,489

 65,092

 65,425

 65,240

 65,203

 64,125

 63,229

 62,501

 62,370

 61,225

 60,224

STORAGE

+654

-285

-1,132

-182

-788

+1,523

+25

-99

+641

+61

-37

-455

-345

-744

+254

+37

+12

+73

+24

+24

+603

+333

-185

-37

-1,078

-896

-728

-131

-1,145

-1,001

CHANGE

1,585

1,115

721

1,214

839

1,931

1,148

1,115

1,516

1,247

1,190

979

1,059

960

1,434

1,311

1,252

1,220

1,203

1,225

1,520

1,403

1,133

1,216

670

623

755

1,144

612

610

INFLOW

 1,243

 1,245

 1,277

 1,291

 1,224

 1,145

 1,119

 1,139

 1,176

 1,199

 1,192

 1,190

 1,224

 1,323

 1,295

 1,280

 1,233

 1,171

 1,181

 1,200

 1,200

 1,219

 1,211

 1,221

 1,196

 1,061

 1,106

 1,210

 1,175

 1,105

POWER

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

SPILL

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

OUTLET

 12

 14

 15

 15

 12

 18

 16

 26

 17

 17

 17

 18

 9

 12

 11

 12

 13

 12

 10

 13

 16

 16

 15

 14

 17

 14

 16

 0

 14

 10

C.F.S.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

SEPTEMBER 2018 TULLOCH RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: 10/01/2018

RES.

EVAP

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS -5,004 33,950 36,051 0 0 421

ACRE-FEET -5,004 67,340 71,507 0 0 835

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 71,507

SPILL 0 71,507

 65,228

OUTLET 0

TOTAL 

NEW

MELONES

RELEASE (1)

 1,570

 1,109

 744

 1,220

 847

 1,897

 1,126

 1,118

 1,496

 1,239

 1,201

 978

 1,070

 972

 1,446

 1,334

 1,204

 1,210

 1,210

 1,221

 1,494

 1,391

 1,134

 1,204

 671

 638

 754

 1,163

 623

 611

 33,895

 67,231

*COMPUTED INFLOW IS SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES, AND EVAPORATION.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
THE  SCHEDULE   CONTAINS   SUMMARY   FINANCIAL   INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM THE CONSOLIDATED  BALANCE SHEET AS OF  AUGUST
31, 1997 AND  THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT  OF INCOME FOR  THE
QUARTER ENDED  AUGUST  31,  1997 AND  IS  QUALIFIED  IN  ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                NOV-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                     AUG-31-1997
<CASH>                                           15,716,842
<SECURITIES>                                      4,172,553
<RECEIVABLES>                                    16,825,590
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1,112,957
<INVENTORY>                                      10,655,938
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 49,674,382
<PP&E>                                           80,047,345
<DEPRECIATION>                                   38,883,469
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  105,089,252
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            14,779,175
<BONDS>                                           7,090,870
<COMMON>                                          2,708,457
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<OTHER-SE>                                       76,795,323
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    105,089,252
<SALES>                                          30,018,752
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 34,137,907
<CGS>                                            19,782,608
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    19,782,608
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     15,699
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  189,762
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   6,654,074
<INCOME-TAX>                                      2,328,928
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               4,325,146
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                      4,325,146
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           .18
        

</TABLE>
### §5346. Local committee of Indian parents in school districts having school boards composed of non-Indian majority

#### (a) Election; functions

Whenever a school district affected by a contract or contracts for the education of Indians pursuant to sections 5342 to 5348 of this title has a local school board not composed of a majority of Indians, the parents of the Indian children enrolled in the school or schools affected by such contract or contracts shall elect a local committee from among their number. Such committee shall fully participate in the development of, and shall have the authority to approve or disapprove programs to be conducted under such contract or contracts, and shall carry out such other duties, and be so structured, as the Secretary of the Interior shall by regulation provide: Provided, however, That, whenever a local Indian committee or committees established pursuant to section 7424(c)(4) of title 20 or an Indian advisory school board or boards established pursuant to sections 5342 to 5348 of this title prior to January 4, 1975, exists in such school district, such committee or board may, in the discretion of the affected tribal governing body or bodies, be utilized for the purposes of this section.

#### (b) Revocation of contracts

The Secretary of the Interior may, in his discretion, revoke any contract if the contractor fails to permit a local committee to perform its duties pursuant to subsection (a) of this section.

(Apr. 16, 1934, ch. 147, §5, as added Pub. L. 93–638, title II, §202, Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2213; amended Pub. L. 103–382, title III, §393(d), Oct. 20, 1994, 108 Stat. 4027; Pub. L. 107–110, title VII, §702(e), Jan. 8, 2002, 115 Stat. 1947; Pub. L. 114–95, title IX, §9215(a), Dec. 10, 2015, 129 Stat. 2166.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 456 of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 5 of act Apr. 16, 1934, ch. 147, 48 Stat. 596, which excluded Oklahoma from the application of contract provisions, was omitted in the general amendment of act Apr. 16, 1934, by act June 4, 1936, ch. 490, 49 Stat. 1458.

#### Amendments

2015—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 114–95 made technical amendment to reference in original act which appears in text as reference to section 7424(c)(4) of title 20.

2002—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107–110 substituted reference to section 7424(c)(4) of title 20 for reference to section 7814(c)(4) of title 20.

1994—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–382 substituted reference to section 7814(c)(4) of title 20 for reference to section 241dd(b)(2)(B)(ii) of title 20.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2002 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 107–110 effective Jan. 8, 2002, except with respect to certain noncompetitive programs and competitive programs, see section 5 of Pub. L. 107–110, set out as an Effective Date note under section 6301 of Title 20, Education.
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, *v.*Kenneth Morgan, Defendant-Appellant.

(No. 59477;

First District (5th Division)

June 7, 1974.

*818Charlotte Adelman, of Chicago, for appellant.

Bernard Carey, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Patrick T. Driscoll, Jr., and John B. Adams, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

Opinion by

Mr. JUSTICE DRUCKER.
1 In The


### Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ N O . 09

- 21

- 00173

- CV

__________________ JAMES MONROE WARE , Appellant

V.

ROYA DAWN WARE , Appellee

__________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 88th District Court Hardin County, Texas Trial Cause No. 621 1 4

__________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION

James Monroe Ware appealed from an order granting a bill of review. The
appellant has neither established indigence, nor paid the filing fee in his appeal. See
Tex. R. App. P. 5, 20.1; see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 145. On June 29, 2021, we sent a
letter to the parties ques tioning our jurisdiction and requested a response be filed by
July 14, 2021. On July 26, 2021, we sent a letter to the parties notifying them that

the fi l ing fee for the appeal had not been paid and warned the parties that the appeal

would be dismissed wit hout further notice unless the appellant paid the filing fee.2 The appellant has failed to comply with the notices from the clerk requiring
action within a specified time. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c). Accordingly, the appeal
is dismissed. Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on September 1 , 2021 Opinion Delivered September 2, 2021
Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 11285 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
PABLO SUASTE BALDERAS , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:18

- CR

- 217

- 1

Before BENAVIDES, HAYNES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Pablo Suaste Balderas pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and he was sentenced to 63 months in prison, to be followed by a three

- year supervised release term. Suaste Balderas correctly concedes that the se cond argument he raises on appeal

– that his sentence violates due process because it exceeded the statutory maximum charged in the indictment

– is foreclosed by Almendarez

- Torres v. United

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set f orth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 7, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-11285 Document: 00514987793 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/07/2019No. 18

- 11285

2 States , 523 U.S. 224, 226

- 27 (1998). He raises the issue, however , to preserve it for further review. In addition, Suaste Balderas contends that the district court plainly erred by stating in the judgment that his conviction was punishable under § 1326(b)(2), rather than § 1326(b)(1), because his prior Texas conviction for manufacture/delivery of a controlled substance was not an aggravated felony for purposes of § 1326(b)(2), and he requests modification of the judgment accordingly. To show plain error, he must show a fo rfeited error that is clear
or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. 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 do so “only if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of jud icial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citations omitted).
As Suaste Balderas correctly notes , his Texas conviction does not qualify as an aggravated felony because the statute prohibiting manufacture and delivery of a controlle d substance is indivisible and includes mere offers to sell. See United States v. Hinkle , 832 F.3d 569, 574 (5th Cir. 2016); United States v.
Ibarra

- Luna , 628 F.3d 712, 715

- 16 (5th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, the designation in the written judgment indicati ng that Suaste Balderas was convicted and sentenced under § 1326(b)(2) was erroneous. See United States v. Godoy , 890 F.3d 531, 542 (5th Cir. 2018). We therefore MODIFY the district court’s judgment to reflect that Suaste Balderas was sentenced under § 1 326(b)(1), and we AFFIRM the judgment AS MODIFIED. Case: 18-11285 Document: 00514987793 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/07/2019