alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Federal Screw Works (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Quarterly Report"), I, Thomas ZurSchmiede, President and 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, that:

      (1)   The Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
and

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

                                            /s/ Thomas ZurSchmiede
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Thomas ZurSchmiede, President and
                                            Chief Executive Officer of
                                            Federal Screw Works

Dated:  February 11, 2005
19.601 General. ( a ) A Certificate of Competency (COC) is the certificate issued by the Small Business Administration (SBA) stating that the holder is responsible (with respect to all elements of responsibility, including, but not limited to, capability, competency, capacity, credit, integrity, perseverance, tenacity, and limitations on subcontracting) for the purpose of receiving and performing a specific Government contract.
( b ) The COC program empowers the SBA to certify to Government contracting officers as to all elements of responsibility of any small business concern to receive and perform a specific Government contract. The COC program does not extend to questions concerning regulatory requirements imposed and enforced by other Federal agencies.
( c ) The COC program is applicable to all Government acquisitions except for 8(a) sole-source awards. A contracting officer shall, upon determining an apparent successful small business offeror to be nonresponsible, refer that small business to the SBA for a possible COC, even if the next acceptable offer is from a small business.
( d ) When a solicitation requires a small business to adhere to the limitations on subcontracting, a contracting officer's finding that a small business cannot comply with the limitation shall be treated as an element of responsibility and shall be subject to the COC process. When a solicitation requires a small business to adhere to the definition of a nonmanufacturer, a contracting officer's determination that the small business does not comply shall be processed in accordance with subpart 19.3.
( e ) Contracting officers, including those located overseas, are required to comply with this subpart for U.S. small business concerns.
( f ) For the purpose of receiving a COC on an unrestricted acquisition, a small business nonmanufacturer may furnish any end item produced or manufactured in the United States or its outlying areas.
[48 FR 42240, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 51 FR 2664, Jan. 17, 1986; 54 FR 34754, Aug. 21, 1989; 59 FR 67036, Dec. 28, 1994; 61 FR 67410, Dec. 20, 1996; 62 FR 44820, Aug. 22, 1997; 85 FR 11764, Feb. 27, 2020; 88 FR 69524, Oct. 5, 2023]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. George Steven Li Vecchi, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted. Memorandum: The verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Furthermore, the failure of the People to produce very important exhibits on this appeal seriously affected defendant’s right to review the judgment of conviction. An examination by this court of physical exhibits such as the two pieces of the nail file could have been determinative of this entire appeal one way or the other. There is also an absence of reports from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, not satisfactorily explained, as to exhibits that were sent to the bureau for inspection and analysis. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court convicting defendant of burglary, third degree.) Present—Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Del Yecchio, JJ.
#### In the Matter of George Goldsmith, as Chairman of the Tenants’ Committee at 400 East 49th Street, New York, Appellant, v. Hortense W. Gabel, as Administrator of the City Rent and Rehabilitation Administration, Respondent, and Anthony J. Faranda, Intervenor-Respondent.

Judgment dismissing the petition in an article 78 proceeding unanimously affirmed on the opinion of Mr. Justice Geeler [42 Misc 2d 732],. with costs to respondents. Concur—Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, McNally and Staley, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
Company's audited  financial  statements for the year ended October 31, 1998 (as
filed  with the  Company's  annual  report on Form  10-KSB for such year) and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000318523
<NAME>                        Techscience Industries, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                       USD
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                           NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                             OCT-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    1
<CASH>                                             2
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      0
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   2
<PP&E>                                             0
<DEPRECIATION>                                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     2
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             10
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                          16<F1>
<OTHER-SE>                                       (24)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       2
<SALES>                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   0
<CGS>                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      7
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (7)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (7)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    8
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                       7
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0
<FN>
<F1> Gives  affect to a 1-for-10 reverse  stock split  effective at the close of
business  on January 4,  1999.  Prior  financial  data  schedules  have not been
restated to reflect such reverse stock split.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Hirsch *&*Co., Appellant, v. Warren B. Pattiz, Respondent.

Order, entered on February 20,1963, denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion to strike answer and direct entry of judgment in the amount of $8,156.83, with interest from July 15, 1962, granted, with $10 costs. On May 24, 1962, after making several margin calls to which defendant did not respond, plaintiff stock brokerage firm sent a telegram to defendant advising him that if it did not receive a specified additional margin payment by 3:00 p,m. of the following day, it would “ sell at the market at that time or as soon thereafter as practicable ”. No additional payments having been forthcoming, plaintiff sold some shares on May 25, 1962 and additional shares on succeeding days, finally closing out the account on June 1, 1962 by selling the shares that still remained in it. Telegrams preceded each sale. Defendant’s defenses and counterclaim assert in essence that plaintiff breached their trading agreement by allowing the securities to be undermargined and by failing to liquidate the account promptly. In the broadest terms this agreement gives plaintiff the right in its discretion to sell without prior notice to or demand upon defendant and also provides that “any indulgence” by plaintiff to defendant shall not constitute a waiver of any of its rights. The trading agreement also stated that all transactions should be subject to the Rules and Regulations of the American Stock Exchange, among other agencies and institutions, which rules and regulations defendant contends were violated by the conduct of plaintiff in permitting his account to be undermargined and in not liquidating it promptly. As of June 29, 1962, however, a month after liquidation of his account, defendant confirmed in writing the statement of his account containing the particulars *608of the sales of his securities and the resulting debit balance. Also, in the course of his examination before trial defendant testified unequivocally that he asked plaintiff “to extend as much consideration as possible ”, not to sell indiscriminately and to “ exercise as much discrimination in selling as possible.” It is clear that whatever contract rights flowed to defendant by incorporation through reference of the rules of the exchange into the trading agreement (and, see, *Nichols & Co.*v. *Columbus Credit Corp.,*204 Mise. 848, affd. 284 App. Div. 870) were unmistakably waived by him. 'Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, McNally and Stevens, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         123,273
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           2,426
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                63,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    390,773
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         443,066
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           435,921
<LOANS>                                      1,772,107
<ALLOWANCE>                                     23,065
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,922,258
<DEPOSITS>                                   2,450,072
<SHORT-TERM>                                   127,340
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             27,861
<LONG-TERM>                                     25,661
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        45,975
<OTHER-SE>                                     245,349
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,922,258
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                112,257
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               35,943
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 3,592
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               151,792
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              54,356
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,673
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           93,763
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    2,814
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               3,113
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 79,752
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 47,761
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      31,002
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    31,002
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.33
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.71
<LOANS-NON>                                      9,637
<LOANS-PAST>                                     4,308
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   215
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 16,674
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                22,646
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    3,002
<RECOVERIES>                                       607
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               23,065
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            23,065
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
#### 1942.202-70 Authorized Representative of the Contracting Officer (AR/CO).

The Contracting Officer may designate an appropriately qualified Government employee to act as the Authorized Representative of the Contracting Officer (AR/CO). Such designation shall apply to a single contract, must be in writing, and shall define the scope and limitations of the AR/CO's authority. The instrument designating an AR/CO shall not contain authority to sign or agree to any contract or major modification to a contract. Contractual commitments shall be made only by a duly certified contracting officer. The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause at 1952.242-70, Authorized Representative of the Contracting Officer, in solicitations and contracts when an individual is to be selected and designated by the Contracting Officer to perform administration of a given contract(s).
### §§1583, 1584. Repealed. Pub. L. 97–439, §5(b)(4), Jan. 8, 1983, 96 Stat. 2288

Section 1583, act Aug. 9, 1939, ch. 615, title III, §303, 53 Stat. 1283, related to adulterated seed.

Section 1584, acts Aug. 9, 1939, ch. 615, title III, §304, 53 Stat. 1284; Oct. 15, 1966, Pub. L. 89–686, §18, 80 Stat. 979, related to seed unfit for seeding purposes.
FAFSA Free Application for Federal Student Aid

Section 1: Student Demographics 

Q1. Student’s Full Name 

Q2. Student’s Permanent Address 

Q3. Student’s Telephone Number 

 

Q4. Student’s State of Legal Residence 

Q5. Student’s Email Address 

Q6. Student’s Social Security Number Q7. Student’s Date of Birth 

Section 2: Student Eligibility 

Q8a. Student’s Citizenship Status 

 I am a U.S. Citizen (US natural) 

 I am an eligible non-citizen 

 I am not a U.S citizen or an eligible non-citizen 

Q8b. Student’s Alien Registration Number 

Q9. Are you male or female? Most male students must be registered with Selective Service to get federal aid. If you 

Male ___ Female ___ are male, age 18-25 and not registered, check the box and we will register you. 

 Register Me ________ 

Q10. Have you ever been convicted for the possession or sale of illegal drugs for an offense that occurred while you 

were receiving federal student aid? 

Q11. Student’s High School Completion Status 

Q12. Student’s Enrollment Status 

Section 3: Student Dependency Status 

Q13.Were you born before January 1, 1986? 

Q14 As of today, are you married? (Answer “Yes” if you are separated but not divorced.) 

Q15 At the beginning of the 2009–2010 school year, will you be working on a master’s or 

doctorate program (such as an MA, MBA, MD, JD, PhD, EdD, or graduate certificate, etc.)? 

Q16 Are you a veteran of the United States Armed Forces or are you currently serving on 

active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces for purposes other than training? 

Q17 Do you have children or other dependents (other than your spouse) who live with you 

and who receive more than half of their support from you, now and through June 30, 2010? 

If you (the student) answered “No” to every question in this section, go to Section 4. 

If you answered “Yes” to any question in this section, skip Section 4 and go to Section 5. 
Section 4: Parent Demographics - Complete if you (the student) answered “No” to every question in Section 2.

Q18 Mother’s Full Name 

Q19 Mother’s Social Security Number Q20 Mother’s Date of Birth 

Q21 Father’s Full Name 

Q22 Father’s Social Security Number Q23 Father’s Date of Birth 

Section 5: Income Information – From 2008 IRS Tax Return 

If you (the student) answered “No” to EVERY question in Section 2, questions refer to your parent(s). 

If you (the student) answered “Yes” to ANY question in Section 2, questions refer to you (and your spouse). 

Q24 IRS tax filing status? 

(Tax filing status from IRS Form 1040, 1040A, 1040EZ — Boxes 1 through 5)

Q25 Adjusted Gross Income for 2008? 

(Adjusted Gross Income on IRS Form 1040—line 37; 1040A—line 21; or 1040EZ—line 4) 

Q26 Number of IRS Exemptions. 

(Exemptions on IRS Form 1040 Line 6d or on Form 1040A—Line 6d) 

Q27 Total amount of excludable income? 

(Excludable income is need based student work, federal work study, grants and scholarships) 

Section 6: Colleges to Receive the Results of Your FAFSA Application 

Section 7: Student and Parent Signature Statement
16.501-2 General. ( a ) There are three types of indefinite-delivery contracts: Definite-quantity contracts, requirements contracts, and indefinite-quantity contracts. The appropriate type of indefinite-delivery contract may be used to acquire supplies and/or services when the exact times and/or exact quantities of future deliveries are not known at the time of contract award. Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 3401 and 41 U.S.C. 4101, requirements contracts and indefinite-quantity contracts are also known as delivery-order contracts or task-order contracts.
( b ) The various types of indefinite-delivery contracts offer the following advantages: ( 1 ) All three types permit ( i ) Government stocks to be maintained at minimum levels and
( ii ) direct shipment to users.
( 2 ) Indefinite-quantity contracts and requirements contracts also permit ( i ) flexibility in both quantities and delivery scheduling and
( ii ) ordering of supplies or services after requirements materialize.
( 3 ) Indefinite-quantity contracts limit the Government's obligation to the minimum quantity specified in the contract.
( 4 ) Requirements contracts may permit faster deliveries when production lead time is involved, because contractors are usually willing to maintain limited stocks when the Government will obtain all of its actual purchase requirements from the contractor.
( c ) Indefinite-delivery contracts may provide for any appropriate cost or pricing arrangement under part 16. Cost or pricing arrangements that provide for an estimated quantity of supplies or services (e.g., estimated number of labor hours) must comply with the appropriate procedures of this subpart.
[48 FR 42219, Sept. 19, 1983. Redesignated and amended at 60 FR 49725, Sept. 26, 1995; 75 FR 13421, Mar. 19, 2010; 79 FR 24202, Apr. 29, 2014' 87 FR 73898, Dec. 1, 2022]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
ERIC McCANTS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)

vs. } Case No. 11-CV-8000

DAIMLER TRUCKS NORTH AMERICA, _ ) Hon. William J. Hibbler

LLC, )
)
Defendant. )
)
)

DEFENDANT DAIMLER TRUCKS NORTH AMERICA, LLC'S MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Defendant Daimler Trucks North America, LLC (“DTNA”), by its attorneys,
respectfully moves this Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) for Judgment on
the Pleadings as to all counts of Plaintiff Eric McCants’ Complaint (the “Complaint”), and in
support thereof states as follows:

1. On or about October 14, 2011, Plaintiff filed his Complaint pro se in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, alleging race discrimination and retaliation against DTNA, his former
employer. See Complaint, fj 2-3. On November 11, 2011, DTINA removed this matter to this
Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 1.

2. Upon taking Plaintiffs deposition on December 22, 2011, counsel for DTNA
learned that Plaintiff had previously filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy under Chapter 7 of
the United States Bankruptcy Code, and that Plaintiff's debt was subsequently discharged in May

of 2011 by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Hlinois.

4841-1108-6606.1


3. After conducting further investigation into publicly available documents, counsel
for DTNA determined that Plaintiff had full knowledge and notice of the claims asserted in the
Complaint prior to petitioning for bankruptcy, but did not disclose such claims as potential assets
on the schedule of assets submitted with his voluntary petition. Failure to disclose such assets
precludes Plaintiff from later asserting such claims for his benefit at the expense of his creditors
under the doctrine of judicial estoppel.

4. As a result of judicially noticeable facts, and for other reasons articulated more
fully in DTNA’s Memorandum of Law In Support of Its Motion For Judgment on the Pleadings,
contemporaneously filed this Motion, Plaintiff is precluded as a matter of law from pursuing the
claims asserted in the Complaint against DINA under the doctrine of judicial estoppel. As a
result of these facts, and based upon the pleadings, this Court must dismiss the Complaint with
prejudice.

WHEREFORE, Defendant Daimler Trucks North America, Inc. respectfully requests this
Court:

a. Dismiss all claims raised against it by Plaintiff in his Complaint pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), with prejudice;

b. Enter judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff based upon the pleadings
and judicially noticeable facts;

c. Award it all reasonable costs and attorneys fees associated with defending

the instant matter; and

4841-1108-6606.1


d. For any other relief this Court deems just and equitable.

Dated: March 15, 2012

4841-1108-6606.1

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Christopher G. Ward
Christopher G Ward

John L. Litchfield

Foley & Lardner LLP

321 North Clark Street, Suite 2800
Chicago, IL 60654-5313
312.832.4500

312.832.4700

Attorneys for Defendant DAIMLER TRUCKS
NORTH AMERICA, LLC
Exhibit 32.1

BRIGGS & STRATTON CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Form 10-Q for Quarterly Period Ended March 28, 2010

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 Briggs & Stratton Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 28, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Todd J. Teske, Chief 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 the best of 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/ Todd J. Teske                                
|Todd J. Teske Chief
Executive Officer May 5, 2010

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed
by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 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.