alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF ACR GROUP, INC.

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the
Annual Report of ACR Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended February 29, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Alex Trevino, Jr., the Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, to my knowledge that:



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



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



/s/    Alex Trevino, Jr.Alex Trevino, Jr. Chief Executive Officer
 June 1, 2004




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



This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to
the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 22, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-51179 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MIGUEL ANGEL MONTER-CARRILLO, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:04-CR-402-1

-------------------- Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Miguel Angel Monter-Carrillo raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT JANUARY 31, 1996 AND THE CONDENSED,
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND RETAINED EARNINGS FOR THE SIX MONTHS
ENDED JANUARY 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,675,225
<SECURITIES>                                   102,424
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,850,259
<ALLOWANCES>                                    37,260
<INVENTORY>                                     66,855
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       2,165,908
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,955,616
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,751,874
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      6,675,216
<COMMON>                                     1,723,765
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,974,722)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,519,029
<SALES>                                      2,754,748
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,998,215
<CGS>                                        1,683,462
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,377,207
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             321,199
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (378,992)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (378,992)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (378,992)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.37)
        

</TABLE>
Mr. Dennis DeVany Chief, Essential Air Service Division Office ofAviation analysis US Department ofTransportation 

### 1200 NewJersey Avenue SE Washington DC, 20590 

# lb ICICLE ' 0 fL

RE: DOT-OST-2000-8556- Continuation ofAlaska Airlines EAS Service 

## I Adak, Alaska Dear Mr. DeVany, '' I /t

We would like to take this opportunity to express our support for continuation ofAlaska Airlines as the essential air service provider in Adak. Alaska Airlines has the abilityto provide both cargo and passenger service with the same aircraft twice 

### aweek. We have been able to maximize our fresh fish shipments and atthe same time minimize our costs in terms ofcrew travel. Our business also relies on dependable air service ofwhich we believe Alaska Airlines is the most capable ofproviding and has 

### aproven record overthe last several years. It is very clear to usthat one airline providing both services will best serve the community of Adak. We appreciate this opportunity for comment. Sincerely, ICICLE SEAFOODS, INC.

# ~~.)~ Adak Plant Manager



### ICICLE SEAFOODS, 

### INC. 4019 ·21stAvenue West • Seattle, 

### WA 98199 P.O. Box 79003 • 

### Seattle, WA 98119 • Tel:**206-282~0988** 

### • Fax: 206-282-7222
From: Tim Mitro

To: Sutkus, Carol@ARB; Hicks, Austin@ARB; Lewis, Monica@ARB

Cc: Christopher D. Brown AICP; Sondra Spaethe

Subject: Feather River AQMD - SIP Submittal - Rule 10.9 - Final

Date: Friday, October 24, 2014 3:36:20 PM

To ARB Rule Group,

On October 6, 2014, the Feather River AQMD’s Board of Directors approved the amendments to

District Rule 10.9. The District is requesting to submit this rule revision into the SIP.

The District previously submitted the 2009 version of Rule 10.9 for SIP consideration. The 2009

version was forwarded by CARB to EPA, and upon EPA review, an issue was identified that affected

the SIP approvability of the rule. Hence, the District would like to withdraw the previous 2009 SIP

submittal.

The District is requesting that this 2014 rule package is fast-tracked to EPA to replace the 2009 rule

package.

As previously discussed, the District has uploaded the required documents onto Dropbox. You can

find the required information at the following URL:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/vcin68zihlf5ju5/AABl5fMm5VMlSM2riWti4E_Ra?dl=0

The required documents for Feather River AQMD’s inclusion of Regulation X, Rule 10.9 – Rice Straw

Emission Reduction Credits and Banking into the SIP include the following:

- SIP Checklist 10.9

- SIP eval form 10.9

- Rule 10.9 (Final)

- Rule 10.9 Resolution

- Rule 10.9 Public Notice

- Rule 10.9 Staff Report (Final)

- Rule 10.9 Lineout-Strikeout

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.

Timothy Mitro

Feather River AQMD - Air Quality Engineer

(530) 634-7659 ext. 208

1007 Live Oak Blvd, Suite B-3

Yuba City, CA 95991

www.fraqmd.org
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6,1

Eastern Division

Grant Birchmeier, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−04069

Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly

Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, December 17, 2014:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly: Plaintiffs' unopposed

motion for an order compelling Sprint PCS to produce California subscriber records [262]

is granted. The Court hereby directs Sprint PCS to comply with the October 30, 2014

issued by the plaintiffs in this case by producing the remaining names and last known

home and e−mail addresses for the California subscribers whose numbers received the

calls at issue in this case on the dates identified in the subpoena. (Kennelly, Matthew)

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 264 Filed: 12/17/14 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:5231
Prospective Student: Any individual who has contacted, 

or who has been contacted by an eligible institution or its 

contractor, vendor or any other agent or representative 

of the institution, related to potential enrollment in one 

or more of the institution's GE programs.
22.404-1 Types of wage determinations. ( a ) *General wage determinations.* ( 1 ) A general wage determination contains prevailing wage rates for the types of construction designated in the determination, and is used in contracts performed within a specified geographical area. General wage determinations contain no expiration date and remain valid until modified, superseded, or canceled by the Department of Labor. Once incorporated in a contract, a general wage determination normally remains effective for the life of the contract, unless the contracting officer exercises an option to extend the term of the contract (see 22.404-12). These determinations shall be used whenever possible. They are issued at the discretion of the Department of Labor either upon receipt of an agency request or on the Department of Labor's own initiative.
( 2 ) General wage determinations are published on the Wage Determinations at *SAM.gov* website. General wage determinations are effective on the publication date of the wage determination or upon receipt of the wage determination by the contracting agency, whichever occurs first. “Publication” within the meaning of this section shall occur on the first date the wage determination is published on the Wage Determinations at *SAM.gov*. Archived Construction Wage Rate Requirements statute general wage determinations that are no longer current may be accessed in the “Archived DB WD” database on Wage Determinations at *SAM.gov* website for information purposes only. Contracting officers may not use an archived wage determination in a contract action without obtaining prior approval of the Department of Labor. To obtain prior approval, contact the Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, using *https://www.sam.gov ,* or contact the procurement agency labor advisor listed on *https://www.sam.gov .*
( b ) *Project wage determinations.* A project wage determination is issued at the specific request of a contracting agency. It is used only when no general wage determination applies, and is effective for 180 calendar days from the date of the determination. However, if a determination expires before contract award, it may be possible to obtain an extension to the 180-day life of the determination (see 22.404-5(b)(2)). Once incorporated in a contract, a project wage determination normally remains effective for the life of the contract, unless the contracting officer exercises an option to extend the term of the contract (see 22.404-12).
[53 FR 4935, Feb. 18, 1988, as amended at 66 FR 53480, Oct. 22, 2001; 71 FR 36932, June 28, 2006; 77 FR 204, Jan. 3, 2012; 79 FR 24204, Apr. 29, 2014; 86 FR 71325, Dec. 15, 2021]
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 97-3361MN

_____________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District v. * of Minnesota. * Roger G. Leffler, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

_____________ Submitted: May 14, 1998

Filed: May 21, 1998

_____________ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, JOHN R. GIBSON, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Roger G. Leffler appeals his mail fraud and counterfeit securities conv ictions and the guidelines sentence imposed by the district court. We affirm. Leffl er raises three contentions related to his convictions. We reject thes e contentions. First, the record contains abundant evidenc e on which the jury reasonably could have found Leffler guilty of all charges. Second, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Leffler's moti on for severance. Third, although we agree with Leffler that the prosecutor's disparaging comments in rebuttal argument were excessive and unnecessary, they were abbre viated, isolated, and nonrecurring, and when viewed-2-

in the framework of a six-day trial that produced substantial evidence of Leffler's guilt, the jury could not reasonably have been affected by the challenged comments. Leffler also challenges the district court's sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice. We reject this challenge as well. Because the district c ourt's factual findings on obstr uction of justice were not clearly erroneous and the district court did no t misapply the guidelines, we must affirm the enhancement. After careful review, we conclude the district court correctly resolved each o f Leffler's contentions, and we are satisfied that no error of law appears. We thus affirm Leffler's convictions and sentence. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### 2132.806 Contract clause.

The clause set forth in 2152.232-72 shall be inserted in all FEGLI Program contracts.
#### 222.7001 Definition.

“Noncontiguous State,” as used in this subpart, means Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Islands, Navassa Island, Palmyra Atoll, and Wake Island.

[65 FR 50151, Aug. 17, 2000]
(July 22, 1964)

#### Immaculate Pisano, Respondent, v. Charles Joseph, Appellant. Grace Gambino, Respondent, v. Florence Shuman, Appellant.

Motion by defendants-appellants in two companion actions to amend the decision and order of this court, dated April 20, 1964 (20 A D 2d 917), is granted to the following extent: The second paragraph of the said decision is amended to read as follows: “ Orders affirmed, without costs. No opinion. This disposition is without prejudice to the defendants’ rights to complete all pretrial examinations and other proceedings as they may be advised.” Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
Opinion issued February 21, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 1 9
- 00 07 5
- CV

——————————— IN RE RAMESH KAPUR , Relator

O riginal Proceeding o n Petition fo r Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator , Ramesh Kapur , has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to “compel the trial court to withdraw its [o]rder for [s]anctions

. ” 1 Relator has file d

a n otice for n on - suit without p rejudice , which we construe as a motion to dismiss his petition

.

1 The underlying case is Bluetex Management Solutions, LLC v. Ameena Whitfie l d, All Other Occupants , No. 1 1 2 186 5 , in the County Civil Court at Law No. 4 of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable William D

. McLeod presiding.2

Accordingly, we grant relator’s motion and dismiss the petition without prejudice to refiling same and vacate our order issued on January 31, 2019

. PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Goodman and Countiss

.
#### State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Respondent, v. Carol Huther, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Memorandum: The trial court in a series of erroneous rulings on the admissibility of evidence severely limited both parties in the trial of this action. The prior written statement made by defendant was clearly admissible and should have been received. The fact that the Trial Judge (in Ms own words) has a “phobia against things going in on what people say on other occasions” is immaterial. Admissibility of proof must be controlled by recognized rules of evidence and not the predilections of each individual Judge. However, the state of the record is such that we may consider the evidence that was not received. We have considered the prior statement as if it had been received in evidence. Upon all the proof we agree with the conclusion of the trial court that the operator of defendant’s veMcle was using it at the time of the accident with the implied permission of defendant (VeMcle and Traffic Law, § 59, now § 388). In *748the prior written statement of defendant made six months after the accident she stated that at the time of the accident the operator "still had my implied permission to use the ear at any time he wished.” Defendant’s testimony upon the trial is not contradictory of this statement but fully considered is corroborative thereof. (Appeal from judgment of Oneida County Court for plaintiff in an automobile negligence action.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Del Vecchio, JJ. [38 Misc 2d 346.]
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

About EDOFFICES

U.S.  Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos released a statement on the Department’s Regulatory Reform Task Force’s first  progress report as required by President Donald Trump’s Executive  Order 13777. The Department has also published a *Federal Register*notice seeking public input on regulations that may be appropriate for repeal,  replacement, or modification.

On August, 25, 2017 the Department’s  Office of Postsecondary Education published a  *Federal Register*notice announcing two public hearings  that will supplement this effort by seeking public input on Department  regulations and guidance specific to postsecondary education programs that may  be appropriate for repeal, replacement, or modification.

**Public Hearings Information**
                - September 26, 2017--Salt Lake Community  College-Miller Campus ,  Karen Gail Miller Conference Center, Copper Creek Room A&B, 9750 South 300  West, Sandy, Utah 84070.
                Driving  directions 
PDF
 (222K) 
Public  transportation information
List of Hearing Presenters 
WORD
 (16K)
Hearing Transcript 
PDF
 (703K)

                - October 4, 2017--U.S. Department of Education , Barnard  Auditorium, 400 Maryland Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20202.
                Nearest Metro stop: L’Enfant Plaza on the Orange, Blue, Green,  Yellow, and Silver Lines. 
Hearing Transcript 
PDF
 (1.1M)

The public  hearings will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., local time.

----

 

 Printable view

## How Do I Find...

          - Student loans, forgiveness
          - College accreditation
          - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
          - FERPA
          - FAFSA
          - 1098, tax forms

More >

## Information About...

          - Transforming Teaching
          - Family and Community Engagement
          - Early Learning

 

|  |
|--|
|  |
|  | Higher Education Policy |  |
|  |

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a GrantEligibility for Grants

Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website

Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works Clearinghouse

About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy ProgramSubscribe to E-Mail Updates

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 2 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 2

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That the two Houses of Congress shall meet in the Hall of the House of 
Representatives on Friday, the 6th day of January 2017, at 1 o'clock 
post meridian, pursuant to the requirements of the Constitution and 
laws relating to the election of President and Vice President of the 
United States, and the President of the Senate shall be their Presiding 
Officer; that two tellers shall be previously appointed by the 
President of the Senate on the part of the Senate and two by the 
Speaker on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be 
handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the 
certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral 
votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and 
acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the 
letter ``A''; and said tellers, having then read the same in the 
presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes 
as they shall appear from said certificates; and the votes having been 
ascertained and counted in the manner and according to the rules by law 
provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of 
the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which 
announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, 
if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, 
together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the 
two Houses.

            Passed the Senate January 3, 2017.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
115th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             S. CON. RES. 2

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

To provide for the counting on January 6, 2017, of the electoral votes 
         for President and Vice President of the United States.
```
<PAGE>

                CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement 
(Form S-8 No. 333-08181) pertaining to the Maxtor Corporation 1996 Stock 
Option Plan of Maxtor Corporation of our report dated April 25, 1996 with 
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Maxtor 
Corporation (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hyundai Electronics America) for 
the year ended March 30, 1996 included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for 
the year ended December 27, 1997.


                                               ERNST & YOUNG, LLP


San Jose, California
April 9, 1998