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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Twenty Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David J. Noble, Chairman/Director and 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:



| | (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/ David J. NobleDavid J. Noble Chairman/Director Principal Executive Officer


Date AUGUST 25, 2008
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-20569

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CAROL DENISE RICHARDSON; ESKICO TRUMAN GARNER

Defendants-Appellants

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:05-CR-323-2

Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Following a jury trial, Defendant-Appellant Carol Denise Richardson was

found guilty of one count of conspiring to possess crack cocaine with intent to

distribute and two counts of possessing crack cocaine with intent to distribute.

The district court sentenced her to serve life in prison. Eskico Truman Garner

was found guilty of one count of conspiring to possess crack cocaine with intent

to distribute and five counts of possessing crack cocaine with intentto distribute.

The district court sentenced him to serve 405 months in prison. Richardson and

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 7, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 06-20569

2

Garner both appeal their sentences. Richardson argues that her life sentence

is improper because it was based on facts concerning her prior convictions that

were neither admitted by her nor found by a jury. This argument is foreclosed.

See Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545, 565 (2002); Apprendi v. New Jersey,

530 U.S.466, 490 (2000).

Garner argues that the district court erred by determining that he was a

leader of the offense and by sentencing him in accordance with this finding. The

record shows, inter alia, that Garner conducted drug transactions, manufactured

crack cocaine, and directed the actions of other individuals who were involved

with the offense. The record also shows that at least five people were involved

with the offense. In light of these facts, the district court’s determination that

Garner was a leader of the offense is plausible. The district court’s imposition

of the disputed adjustment thus is not clearly erroneous. See United States v.

Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 204 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Cooper, 274 F.3d

230, 238 (5th Cir. 2001). Garner’s challenge to the presumption of

reasonableness afforded to a sentence that falls within the pertinent guidelines

range is foreclosed. See Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007).

Richardson and Garner have shown no error. Consequently, the

judgments of the district court are 

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       6,499,390
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  876,691
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               614,153
<PP&E>                                       2,340,110
<DEPRECIATION>                               (892,753)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,437,591
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,892,907
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    439,742
<COMMON>                                       365,876
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,739,066
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,437,591
<SALES>                                     10,086,881
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,086,881
<CGS>                                        5,580,846
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,580,846
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,199,859
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             331,008
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,024,832)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,024,832)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,024,832)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.72)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.72)


</TABLE>
§ 2102.4 Procedures for determining if an individual is the subject of a record. ( a ) Individuals desiring to determine if they are the subject of a record or system of records maintained by the NSC Staff should address their inquiries, marking them plainly as a *PRIVACY ACT REQUEST,* to: Staff Secretary, National Security Council, Room 374, Old Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20506.
All requests must be made in writing and should contain: ( 1 ) A specific reference to the system of records maintained by the NSC as listed in the NSC Notices of Systems and Records (copies available upon request); or
( 2 ) A description of the record or systems of records in sufficient detail to allow the NSC to determine whether the record does, in fact, exist in an NSC system of records.
( b ) All requests must contain the printed or typewritten name of the individual to whom the record pertains, the signature of the individual making the request, and the address to which the reply should be sent. In instances when the identification is insufficient to insure disclosure to the individual to whom the information pertains in view of the sensitivity of the information, NSC reserves the right to solicit from the requestor additional identifying information.
( c ) Responses to all requests under the Act will be made by the Staff Secretary, or by another designated member of the NSC Staff authorized to act in the name of the Staff Secretary in responding to a request under this Act. Every effort will be made to inform the requestor if he or she is the subject of a specific record or system of records within ten working days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal Federal Holidays) of receipt of the request. Such a response will also contain the procedures to be followed in order to gain access to any record which may exist and a copy of the most recent NSC notice, as published in the Federal Register, on the system of records in which the record is contained.
( d ) Whenever it is not possible to respond in the time period specified above, the NSC Staff Secretary or a designated alternate will, within ten working days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal Federal Holidays), inform the requestor of the reasons for the delay (e.g., insufficient requestor information, difficulties in record location, etc.), steps that need to be taken in order to expedite the request, and the date by which a response is anticipated.
October 30, 2014 

Memo to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0322 

Subject: Calls to Commenters Concerning Extending the Comment Period for SIPs: Supplemental 

Proposal to address Affirmative Defense Provisions in States Including in the Petition for Rulemaking and 

in Additional States 

On this day I either spoke with or left voicemails with the following commenters who had requested an 

extension to the comment period on the proposal. I informed each commenter that the after 

considering their request along with other requests for an extension the EPA would not be granting any 

extensions to the comment deadline of November 6, 2014. The commenters called were: 

Name Organization Method on Contact 

Robert Brown South Carolina Department of 

Health and Environmental 

Control 

Voicemail left on 10/30/2014 @ 

10:33 AM 

John Fainter Association of Electric 

Companies of Texas, Inc 

Voicemail left on 10/30/2014 @ 

10:38 AM 

Pamela Faggert Dominion Resource Services, Inc Voicemail left on 10/30/2014 @ 

10:46 AM 

Richard Hyde Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality 

Phone Conversation on 

10/30/2014 @ 10:50 AM 

Zachary Craft Baker and Botts, LLP Phone Conversation on 

10/30/2014 @ 10:57 AM 

Lauren Freeman Hutton and Williams Voicemail left on 10/30/2014 @ 

11:05 AM 

 

Thomas Coda 

/s/ 

EPA/OAQPS/AQPD/SLPG
§ 943.20 Approval of Texas abandoned mine land reclamation plan. The Secretary approved the Texas abandoned mine land reclamation plan, as submitted on April 24, 1980, and amended on May 30, 1980, June 2, 1980, and June 4, 1980, effective June 23, 1980. Copies of the approved plan are available at: ( a ) Surface Mining and Reclamation Division, Railroad Commission of Texas, Capitol Station, P.O. Box 12967, Austin, TX 78711.
( b ) Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Tulsa Field Office, 5100 East Skelly Drive, Suite 470, Tulsa, OK 74135-6548.
[64 FR 20168, Apr. 26, 1999]
Map 3-7: Rock Springs Field Office

Livestock Grazing Allotments

0 10 20 30 40

Kilometers

0 10 20 30 40

Miles

1

Rock Springs Field Office Boundary

Rock Springs Grazing Allotments

County Boundaries

Townships

Interstate Highways

State/US Highways

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM.

Wyoming Sage Grouse Land Use Plan Amendments

Final Environmental Impact Statement - May 2015

W Y O M I N G

MAP

AREA

U TA H

Rock Springs

Green River

§ ̈¦80

Sublette

Sweetwater

Lin

c

oln

Sw

e

etwate

r

Wyoming Sage Grouse

Land Use Plan Amendments

R 108 W R 107 W R 106 W R 105 W R 104 W R 103 W

T

12

N

T

13

N

T

14

N

T

15

N

T

16

N

T

17

N

T

18

N

T

19

N

T

20

N

T

21

N

I D

T

22

N

T

23

N

T

24

N

T

25

N

T

26

N

T

27

N

T

28

N

T

29

N

T

30

N

£¤191

R 114 W R 113 W R 112 W R 111 W R 110 W R 109 W

¬«530

¬«414

¬«372

Uinta

Sw

e

etwate

r

C O L O R A D O

R 102 W R 101 W R 100 W R 99 W

R 98 W

R 97 W

R 96 W

¬«530

¬«430

£¤191

¬«28

¬«28

£¤191

Fremont

Sweetwater

S

u

blette

F

r

e

m

o

nt
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7018

LITTLETON HARRY FASSETT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

EARL BESHEARS, Warden, Eastern Correctional

Institution; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF

MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-98-817-AW)

Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 20, 1998

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Littleton Harry Fassett, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,

Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Littleton Harry Fassett seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254

(West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. Fassett v. Beshears, No. CA-98-

817-AW (D. Md. June 23, 1998). 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
### §48109. Submission of budget information and legislative recommendations and comments

When the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration submits to the Secretary of Transportation, the President, or the Director of the Office of Management and Budget any budget information, legislative recommendation, or comment on legislation about amounts authorized in section 48101 or 48102 of this title, the Administrator concurrently shall submit a copy of the information, recommendation, or comment to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure and Appropriations of the House, the President of the Senate, and the Committees on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and Appropriations of the Senate.

(Pub. L. 103–272, §1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1297; Pub. L. 104–287, §5(9), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3389.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 48109 | 49 App.:2205(f). | Sept. 3, 1982, Pub. L. 97–248, §506(f), 96 Stat. 679. |

Section

The words "Director of the Office of Management and Budget" are substituted for "Office of Management and Budget" because of 31:502(a). The words "or transmits . . . budget estimate, budget request, supplemental budget estimate, or other" and "thereof" are omitted as surplus.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1996—Pub. L. 104–287 substituted "Transportation and Infrastructure" for "Public Works and Transportation".
4800

5000

5000

5000

5000

5000

5000

5200

5200

5200

5000

5200

5200

5000

4800

5000

5400

5200

5000

5000

5000

5200

5000

5000

Wi

5000

llow Creek

Willow Creek

Willow Creek

Middle

Mountain Tank

Big Tank

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

ESTADOS UNIDOS MEXICANOS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

ESTADOS UNIDOS MEXICANOS

Playas

Valley

Middle

Mountain

Middle

Mountain

Eagle

Mountain

Eagle

Mountain

Sentinel

Butte

Dog

Mountains

Pierce

Peak

Hilo

Peak

Whitewater

Mountains

34

46

34

30"

17'

67

39

34

100

000m

25'

34

108°

62

67

108°

68

34

47

34

49

34

42 43 7

69

7

7

22'

34

69

34

31°

34

7

000

34

27'

2 7

34

7 550

34

34

7

72

17'

34

27' 44

70

71

7

66

38

34

741

64

61

108°

34

63

7

FEET

7

34

7

41

73

108°

20'

N

31°

34

30"

73

34

7 44 45

7 45

FEET

34

30"

71

7

31°

15'

48

30"

68

39

34

130

000 FEET 7 7

34

34

61

7

63

7 49

74

30'

000m

22'

30'

34

66

30"

40 7 47 000 FEET

65

2

E 15'

64

43

22'

22'

65

520 48 000m

62

70

000

30"

34 N

20'

E

000m

30"

30"

25'

31°

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

NEW MEXICO

ADJOINING 7.5' QUADRANGLES

QUADRANGLE LOCATION

EAGLE MOUNTAIN, NM-CHH

2010

Interstate Route State Route

ROAD CLASSIFICATION

Interstate Route US Route State Route

Ramp 4WD

US Route Local Road

EAGLE MOUNTAIN QUADRANGLE

NEW MEXICO-CHIHUAHUA

7.5-MINUTE SERIES

Zone 12R

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and

1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator,

Produced by the United States Geological Survey

10 000-foot ticks: New Mexico Coordinate System of 1983

(west zone)

Imagery...............................NAIP, January 2005 - May 2009

Roads..............................................©2006-2010 Tele Atlas

Names...............................................................GNIS, 2008

Hydrography.................National Hydrography Dataset, 2005

Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 2001

1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

FEET

This map was produced to conform with version 0.5.10 of the

draft USGS Standards for 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Maps.

A metadata file associated with this product is draft version 0.5.11

SCALE 1:24 000

1 0.5 0 1

MILES

MN

1 0.5 0 KILOMETERS 1 2

GN

UTM GRID AND 2010 MAGNETIC NORTH DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET

1° 20 ́

24 MILS

9° 38 ́

171 MILS

U.S. National Grid

100,000-m Square ID

Grid Zone Designation

12R

YV

CONTOUR INTERVAL 40 FEET

NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988
§ 717.20 Topsoil handling and revegetation. ( a ) Topsoil shall be removed as a separate operation from areas to be disturbed by surface operations, such as roads and areas upon which support facilities are to be sited. Selected overburden materials may be used instead of, or as a substitute for topsoil where the resulting soil medium is determined by the regulatory authority to be equal to or more suitable for revegetation. Topsoil shall be segregated, stockpiled, and protected from wind and water erosion, or contaminants. Disturbed areas no longer required for the conduct of mining operations shall be regraded, topsoil distributed, and revegetated.
( b ) The permittee shall establish on all land that has been disturbed by mining operations a diverse, effective, and permanent vegetative cover capable of self-regeneration and plant succession, and adequate to control soil erosion. Introduced species may be substituted for native species if approved by the regulatory authority. Introduced species shall meet applicable State and Federal seed or introduced species statutes, and may not include poisonous or potentially toxic species.
June 9, 2015

Mr. Chris Petty Precision Management and Consulting, Inc.

P.O. Box 316 Mayfield, KY 42066

Dear Mr. Petty:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) . It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your March 13, 2015, exemption request on behalf of Precision Management and Consulting, Inc. into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-0649), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
EXHIBIT 21


                             LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES


     The Partnership is a general partner in JMB/San Jose Associates, an
Illinois general partnership which holds title to Park Center Financial
Plaza.  The Partnership is a general partner in Topanga Plaza Partnership,
a California general partnership which holds title to Topanga Plaza.  The
Partnership is a general partner in JMB-40 Broad Street Associates, an
Illinois general partnership which holds title to the 40 Broad Street
Building.  The Partnership's interest in the foregoing joint venture
partnerships, and the results of their operations are included in the
consolidated financial statements of the Partnership filed with this annual
report.
#### § 245.8 Purpose.

This part establishes responsibilities, procedures, and instructions for the security control of civil and military air traffic in order to provide effective use of airspace under various emergency conditions.
### §312506. Administration

In the administration of this chapter, the Secretary may—

(1) enter into contracts or make cooperative agreements with any Federal or State agency, educational or scientific organization, or institution, corporation, association, or qualified individual;

(2) obtain the services of experts and consultants or organizations of experts and consultants in accordance with section 3109 of title 5; and

(3) accept and utilize funds made available for salvage archeological purposes by any private person or corporation or transferred to the Secretary by any Federal agency.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3256.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 312506 | 16 U.S.C. 469b. | Pub. L. 86–523, §6, formerly §3, June 27, 1960, 74 Stat. 221, renumbered as §6 and amended Pub. L. 93–291, §1(8), May 24, 1974, 88 Stat. 175. |

Section
#### John F. Fay, appellee, v. Jacob Miller, appellant.

Gen. No. 29,301.

Action by tenant against landlord to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by reason of alleged negligence of defendant in care of stairway. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Philip L. Sullivan, Judge, presiding. Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1924.

Affirmed on remittitur; otherwise reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed April 13, 1925.

Rehearing denied April 27, 1925.

Anthony J. Schmidt, for appellant.

Harry D. Knight, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Johnston

delivered the opinion of the court.
From: "Frey, Nathan J." <Nathan_J._Frey@omb.eop.gov>

To: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 06/14/2012 08:42 PM

Subject: Re: Apparently we're ready for a final clean version

Through the OP chain is great. Thanks for your patience throughout. It was 

great working with you!

----- Original Message -----

From: Lydia Wegman [mailto:Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 08:36 PM

To: Frey, Nathan J.

Subject: Re: Apparently we're ready for a final clean version

I think a clean version is coming to you through our usual OP chain. Do you 

want me to send you a clean versionb independent of that process?

----- Original Message -----

From: "Frey, Nathan J." [Nathan_J._Frey@omb.eop.gov]

Sent: 06/15/2012 12:32 AM GMT

To: Lydia Wegman

Subject: Apparently we're ready for a final clean version

Please confirm with Gina/Janet re: latest conversations. Please send the 

final clean version to me when available. Thanks!
C. A. No. 76-451.

#### State *v.*Anthony Kachanis.

*Julius C. Michaelson,*Attorney General, *Nancy Marks Rahmes,*Special Asst. Attorney General, for plaintiff.

*Selya and Iannuccillo, Martin L. Greenwald,*for defendant.

The State’s motion to extend the time for filing its brief until June 23, 1977, is granted. This is the last extension which will be granted in this case.