alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit No. 32.1

Certification of CEO Pursuant to  18 U.S.C. Section 1350,  As Adopted Pursuant to  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of DRS Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark S. Newman, Chief Executive Officer of DRS Technologies, Inc., 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:



|November 8, 2004 |  | /s/MARK S. NEWMANMark S. Newman Chief Executive
Officer
|---------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------

A
SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO DRS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY DRS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND
FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.

44

---



QuickLinks
###### Editorial Note on Part 75

#### Editorial Note:

The provisions of this part marked [Statutory Provision] appear in Title III of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

#### § 75.515 Cable fittings; suitability.

[Statutory Provision]

Cables shall enter metal frames of motors, splice boxes, and electric compartments only through proper fittings. When insulated wires other than cables pass through metal frames, the holes shall be substantially bushed with insulated bushings.
### Postcrystalline deformation of the Pelona Schist bordering Leona Valley, southern California

By: James George Evans

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1039

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
###### Editorial Note on Part 75

#### Editorial Note:

The provisions of this part marked [Statutory Provision] appear in Title III of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

#### § 75.501-1 Coal seams above the water table.

As used in § 75.501, the phrase “coal seams above the water table” means coal seams in a mine which are located at an elevation above a river or the tributary of a river into which a local surface water system naturally drains.
# Recognizing the Sovereignty of the Kingdom of Morocco Over the Western Sahara

The United States affirms, as stated by previous Administrations, its support for Morocco's autonomy proposal as the only basis for a just and lasting solution to the dispute over the Western Sahara territory. Therefore, as of today, the United States recognizes Moroccan sovereignty over the entire Western Sahara territory and reaffirms its support for Morocco's serious, credible, and realistic autonomy proposal as the only basis for a just and lasting solution to the dispute over the Western Sahara territory. The United States believes that an independent Sahrawi State is not a realistic option for resolving the conflict and that genuine autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty is the only feasible solution. We urge the parties to engage in discussions without delay, using Morocco's autonomy plan as the only framework to negotiate a mutually acceptable solution. To facilitate progress toward this aim, the United States will encourage economic and social development with Morocco, including in the Western Sahara territory, and to that end will open a consulate in the Western Sahara territory, in Dakhla, to promote economic and business opportunities for the region.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim that, the United States recognizes that the entire Western Sahara territory is part of the Kingdom of Morocco.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fourth day of December, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-fifth.

[FR Doc. 2020-27738

Billing code 3295-F1-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6398
DAVID GLOVER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-2125-2-17AJ) Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 20, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Glover, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and thedistrict court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny acertificate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent that a certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate. We dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Glover v. South Carolina , No. CA-95-2125-2-17AJ (D.S.C. Feb. 27, 1996). 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
§ 865.1 Scope. This part establishes procedures regarding— ( a ) The reporting of acts of discriminatory discharge or other acts of discrimination under the Act caused by any person. Forms of discrimination include, but are not limited to: Firing, suspension, transfer or demotion, denial or reduction of wages and benefits, coercion by promises of benefits or threats of reprisal, and interference with the exercise of any rights afforded under the Act:
( b ) The investigation of applications for review and holding of informal conferences about the alleged discrimination; and
( c ) The request for formal hearings with the Office of Hearings and Appeals.
#### § 876.10 Information collection.

In accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.,* the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information collection requirements of part 876 and assigned it control number 1029-0104. OSM will use the information to determine if the State's or Indian tribe's Acid Mine Drainage Abatement and Treatment Programs is in compliance with legislative mandate. States and Indian tribes are required to respond to obtain a benefit in accordance with SMCRA. A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and you are not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

[73 FR 67641, Nov. 14, 2008]
### §20706. "Officer of election" defined

As used in this chapter, the term "officer of election" means any person who, under color of any Federal, State, Commonwealth, or local law, statute, ordinance, regulation, authority, custom, or usage, performs or is authorized to perform any function, duty, or task in connection with any application, registration, payment of poll tax, or other act requisite to voting in any general, special, or primary election at which votes are cast for candidates for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, or Resident Commissioner from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

(Pub. L. 86–449, title III, §306, May 6, 1960, 74 Stat. 88.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 1974e of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
#### § 77.1908-1 Hoist operation; qualified hoistman.

Hoists shall be under the control of and operated by a qualified hoistman when men are in a slope or shaft.
# C_2023344EN.01012301.xml

| 29.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/123 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/123

---

Notice for the attention of certain persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Annex I to Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 and in Annex IV to Council Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela

(2023/C 344/12)

The following information is brought to the attention of Mr. Néstor Neptali BLANCO HURTADO (No 19), Mr. Carlos Alberto CALDERÓN CHIRINOS (No 21), Mr. Rafael Antonio FRANCO QUINTERO (No 23), Mr. Alexander Enrique GRANKO ARTEAGA (No 24), Mr. Hannover Esteban GUERRERO MIJARES (No 25), Mr. Elvis Eduardo HIDROBO AMOROSO (No 29), Mr. Jorge Elieser MÁRQUEZ MONSALVE (31), Mr. Omar José PRIETO FERNÁNDEZ (No 38), Mr. Carlos Ramón Enrique CARVALLO GUEVARA (No 51), Mr. Carlos Enrique TERÁN HURTADO (No 53), persons appearing in Annex I to Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 (1) and in Annex IV to Council Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 (2) concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela.

1

2

The Council intends to maintain the restrictive measures against the above-mentioned persons with new statements of reasons. Those persons are hereby informed that they may submit a request to the Council to obtain the intended statement of reasons for maintaining their designation, by 6 October 2023, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| RELEX.1 |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

e-mail: mailto:sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

The persons concerned may submit at any time a request to the Council, together with any supporting documentation, that the decision to include and maintain them on the list should be reconsidered, to the address provided above. Such requests will be considered when they are received. In this respect, the attention of the persons concerned is drawn to the regular review by the Council according to Article 13 of Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074.

---

(1)  
  OJ L 295 14.11.2017, p. 60.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 295 14.11.2017, p. 21.

2

---
§ 77.413 Boilers. ( a ) Boilers shall be equipped with guarded, well-maintained water gages and pressure gages placed so that they can be observed easily. Water gages and pipe passages to the gages shall be kept clean and free of scale and rust.
( b ) Boilers shall be equipped with automatic pressure-relief valves; valves shall be opened manually at least once a week to determine that they will function properly.
( c ) Blowoff valves shall be piped outside the building and shall have outlets so located or protected that persons passing by, near, or under them will not be scalded.
( d ) Boiler installations shall be provided with safety devices, acceptable to the Mine Safety and Health Administration, to protect against hazards of flameouts, fuel interruptions, and low-water level.
( e ) Boilers shall be inspected internally at least once a year by a licensed inspector and a certificate of inspection signed by the inspector shall be displayed in the vicinity of the boiler.
#### Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Appellant-Respondent, v Pigott Construction International Limited, Respondent-Appellant, and Duane D. Van Deusen et al., Respondents.

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs, on the opinion at Special Term, Fritsch, J. (See, also, *Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v Masternak,*55 AD2d 472.) (Appeals from order of Monroe Supreme Court-summary judgment.) Present-Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Simons, Schnepp and Witmer, JJ.
Exhibit
23.10
 
 
 CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
   The Board
of Directors
 FNB
United Corp.
 Asheboro,
North Carolina
  We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
33-72686, 333-54702, 333-99333, 333-105442, 333-109450, 333-133734,
333-143703,  and 333-144132) on Form S-8 and the registration
statement (No. 33-59565) on Form S-3 of FNB United Corp. (“the
Corporation”) of our reports dated March 16, 2009, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of FNB United Corp. and Subsidiary, and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which reports appear
in FNB United Corp.’s December 31, 2008 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
  Our
report, dated March 16, 2009, on the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting as of December
31, 2008, expresses our opinion that FNB United Corp. did not maintain effective
internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2008, because of
the effect of the material weakness relating to the lack of adequate staffing
and segregation of duties in its Accounting Department.
 
  March 16,
2009Raleigh, North Carolina
### §80104. Form and requirements for negotiation

(a) General Rules.—(1) A negotiable bill of lading may be negotiated by indorsement. An indorsement may be made in blank or to a specified person. If the goods are deliverable to the order of a specified person, then the bill must be indorsed by that person.

(2) A negotiable bill of lading may be negotiated by delivery when the common carrier, under the terms of the bill, undertakes to deliver the goods to the order of a specified person and that person or a subsequent indorsee has indorsed the bill in blank.

(3) A negotiable bill of lading may be negotiated by a person possessing the bill, regardless of the way in which the person got possession, if—

(A) a common carrier, under the terms of the bill, undertakes to deliver the goods to that person; or

(B) when the bill is negotiated, it is in a form that allows it to be negotiated by delivery.

(b) Validity Not Affected.—The validity of a negotiation of a bill of lading is not affected by the negotiation having been a breach of duty by the person making the negotiation, or by the owner of the bill having been deprived of possession by fraud, accident, mistake, duress, loss, theft, or conversion, if the person to whom the bill is negotiated, or a person to whom the bill is subsequently negotiated, gives value for the bill in good faith and without notice of the breach of duty, fraud, accident, mistake, duress, loss, theft, or conversion.

(c) Negotiation by Seller, Mortgagor, or Pledgor to Person Without Notice.—When goods for which a negotiable bill of lading has been issued are in a common carrier's possession, and the person to whom the bill has been issued retains possession of the bill after selling, mortgaging, or pledging the goods or bill, the subsequent negotiation of the bill by that person to another person receiving the bill for value, in good faith, and without notice of the prior sale, mortgage, or pledge has the same effect as if the first purchaser of the goods or bill had expressly authorized the subsequent negotiation.

(Pub. L. 103–272, §1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1347.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 80104(a)(1) | 49 App.:108. | Aug. 29, 1916, ch. 415, §§27, 28, 30, 37, 38, 39 Stat. 542, 543, 544. |
| 80104(a)(2) | 49 App.:107. | |
| 80104(a)(3) | 49 App.:110. | |
| 80104(b) | 49 App.:117. | |
| 80104(c) | 49 App.:118. | |

Section

In subsection (a)(1), the words "If the goods are deliverable to the order of a specified person" are substituted for "the person to whose order the goods are deliverable by the tenor of the bill" for clarity. The text of 49 App.:108 (last sentence) is omitted as unnecessary because of the restatement.
#### YOUNGS et al., Respondents, v. YOUNGS et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division. Second Department.

March 24, 1905.)

Action by Fanny Henrietta Youngs, as sole surviving executrix, etc., and others, against Ada C. Youngs, individually, etc., and others. No opinion. Motion for stay pending appeal to the Court of Appeals granted.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edward Levy, Appellant.

[831 NYS2d 909]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Brown, J.), rendered May 11, 2005, convicting him of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

*671Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court *(see*CPL 220.60 [33; *People v Gutierrez,*35 AD3d 883 [2006]; *People v Grimes,*35 AD3d 882 [2006]). In this case, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying, without a hearing, the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty *(see People v White,*25 AD3d 576 [2006]; *People v Rangolan,*295 AD2d 543 [2002]; *People v Badger,*288 AD2d 485 [2001]). Miller, J.P., Mastro, Ritter and Balkm, JJ., concur.
#### Mary Florio, Appellant, v. Nicholas Florio, Respondent.

Order, entered January 14, 1963, denying plaintiff wife’s motion for summary judgment in action to recover certain moneys withdrawn from joint accounts in Savings banks and savings and loan associations, and from a joint safe-deposit box, un'animously affirmed, without costs to either party. While it is clear enough that a presumption exists in favor of the wife as to the rights created by .the joint deposits, such presumption is generally rebuttable *(Marrow*v. *Moskowitz,*255 H. Y. 219; *Russo*v. *Russo,*17 A D 2d 129). No similar presumption of course applies to the moneys in the safe-deposit box, but as to these, plaintiff, in conclusory language only, alleges an agreement of joint ownership. A fair reading of defendant husband’s affidavit makes clear his purpose to assert and prove that there was never an intention to create the rights upon which the wife asserts her cause of action. The affidavit of defendant husb'and, while stressing the significant surrounding circumstances, neglects to reach explicitly the matter of intention, but that alone should not preclude a trial of the issues of fact evidently present. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Stevens, Steuer and Bastow, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                                         460,748
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  241,213
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               790,591
<PP&E>                                       4,670,639
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,674,145
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,880,987
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          246,589
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       388,062
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,198,705
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,880,987
<SALES>                                        250,089
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               250,878
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  243,189
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,584
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,337
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,247
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,247
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 15






                     INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REVIEW REPORT




The Board of Directors
Credit Suisse First Boston (USA), Inc.



We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated statement of financial
condition of Credit Suisse First Boston (USA), Inc. and subsidiaries as of
September 30, 2000, and the related condensed consolidated statements of income,
changes in stockholders' equity and cash flows for the three and nine-month
periods ended September 30, 2000. These condensed consolidated financial
statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim financial
information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial
data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with generally accepted auditing standards, the objective of which is the
expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole.
Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the condensed consolidated financial statements referred to above for
them to be in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.


/s/ KPMG LLP


New York, New York
November 14, 2000