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

                     CERTIFICATION OF THE PRESIDENT AND CFO
                             PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of PrimeSource Healthcare,
Inc. (the "Company") for the annual period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Joseph H.
Potenza, as the President of the Company, and Shaun D. McMeans, as the Chief
Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his 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/ Joseph H. Potenza
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Name: Joseph H. Potenza
                                               Date:   October 14, 2003



                                               /s/ Shaun D. McMeans
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Name: Shaun D. McMeans
                                               Date:   October 14, 2003



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 8 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



                                       94
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1


                         ML MACADAMIA ORCHARDS, L.P.
                  COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER CLASS A UNIT
                     (in thousands, except per unit data)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                            1999          1998           1997
                                          ---------     ---------      ---------
<S>                                       <C>           <C>            <C>
Net income                                $   4,645     $     963      $  15,581

Class A Unitholders
  (ownership percentage)                   x     99%     x     99%      x     99%
                                          ---------     ---------      ---------

Net income allocable
  to Class A Unitholders                  $   4,599     $     953      $  15,425
                                          =========     =========      =========

Class A Units outstanding                     7,500         7,500          7,500
                                          =========     =========      =========

Net income per Class A Unit               $    0.61     $    0.13      $    2.06
                                          =========     =========      =========
</TABLE>


                                           47
§ 1778.6 Eligibility. ( a ) Grants may be made to public bodies and private nonprofit corporations serving rural areas. Public bodies include counties, cities, townships, incorporated towns and villages, boroughs, authorities, districts, and other political subdivisions of a State. Public bodies also include Indian tribes on Federal and State reservations and other Federally recognized Indian Tribal groups in rural areas.
( b ) Any entities responsible for willfully or purposely fouling a drinking water supply are not eligible to be the recipients of an award under this program.
( c ) In the case of grants made to alleviate a significant decline in quantity or quality of water available from the water supplies of rural residents, the applicant must demonstrate that the decline occurred within two years of the date the application was filed with the Agency. This would not apply to grants made for repairs, partial replacement, or significant maintenance on an established water system. In situations involving imminent decline, evidence must be presented to demonstrate that the decline is likely to occur within one year of the date the application is filed with the Agency.
[68 FR 46078, Aug. 5, 2003, as amended at 85 FR 23211, Apr. 27, 2020]
| **Consolidated Statements of Shareholders' Equity (Parenthetical) (USD $)** | 12 Months Ended |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|
||
| **Statement of Stockholders' Equity [Abstract]**                            |            |   |   |
| Common Stock, Dividends, Per Share, Cash Paid                               | $ 0.55          | $ 0.45 | $ 0.40 |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Aggregate dividends paid during the period for each share of common stock outstanding.
+ References
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher SEC -Name Regulation S-X (SX) -Number 210 -Section 04 -Article 3Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 505 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.3-04) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=27012166&loc=d3e187085-122770
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_CommonStockDividendsPerShareCashPaid**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**num:perShareItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                         |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**us-gaap_StatementOfStockholdersEquityAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-14

SHAN EDWARD CARTER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

CARLTON B. JOYNER, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North 

Carolina,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, 

Chief District Judge. (5:16-hc-02108-D)

Submitted: September 6, 2016 Decided: September 14, 2016 

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit 

Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shan Edward Carter, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Shan Edward Carter appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing without prejudice Carter's “Memorandum of Pro Se 

Defendant’s Intent to Request Appointment of Independent, 

qualified ‘Martinez’ counsel pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3599(b) 

thru (d).” The district court dismissed the action as premature 

after Carter confirmed that he did not wish to file a federal 

habeas corpus petition and had not exhausted his state court 

remedies. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. Carter v. Joyner, No. 5:16-hc-02108-D (E.D.N.C. 

June 28, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
*Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 95-40876

Summary Calendar

_____________________

MYRON C. DAGLEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CITY OF COLLINSVILLE, TEXAS, ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:95-CV-73

_________________________________________________________________

August 22, 1996

Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Myron C. Dagley appeals the grant of summary judgment for the

defendants-appellees in his civil rights suit arising from his

arrest and the impoundment of his vehicles on November 23, 1994.

Dagley does not challenge the district court’s imposition of
-2-

sanctions. Therefore, any such issue is deemed abandoned on

appeal. See Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 9 n.1 (5th Cir. 1994).

We have reviewed the record and the appellate briefs, and we

find no error in the district court’s grant of summary judgment.

Dagley’s argument concerning judicial bias by the district court is

without merit. See Liteky v. United States, 114 S.Ct. 1147,

1157-58 (1994). Dagley’s appeal is without arguable merit and thus

frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The appeal is DISMISSED.

The defendants-appellees represented by Mr. James C. Tidwell

move for sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 38. In the light of

the frivolousness of the appeal, the frivolous documents filed by

Dagley that purport to transfer this appeal, and Dagley’s failure

to heed our direction given in Dagley v. Rutherford, No. 95-40903,

slip op. at 2 (5th Cir. May 8, 1996), to review all pending appeals

to ensure that they are not frivolous, the motion for sanctions is

GRANTED. Mr. Tidwell and counsel for D.F.P., L.C., d/b/a Frank’s

Body Shop, are directed to submit, within 20 days, an itemized list

of appellate costs and attorney’s fees for this court’s

determination of the monetary sanction.

Finally, IT IS ORDERED that Dagley is directed to show cause,

within 20 days, why the defendants-appellees should not be awarded

attorney’s fees and costs in this appeal.
-3-

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS IMPOSED, WITH DIRECTION TO THE

LITIGANTS.
§ 1700.106 Discretionary provisions. ( a ) To improve the availability of eligible programs in eligible communities determined to have a high need for the benefits of an eligible program, the Administrator retains the discretion, on a case-by-case basis, to use any of the following SUTA authorities individually or in combination to: ( 1 ) Make available to qualified applicants financing with an interest rate as low as 2 percent;
( 2 ) Extend repayment terms;
( 3 ) Waive (individually or in combination) non-duplication restrictions, matching fund requirements, and credit support requirements from any loan or grant program administered by RUS; and
( 4 ) Give the highest funding priority to designated projects in substantially underserved trust areas.
( b ) Requests for waivers of nonduplication restrictions, matching fund requirements, and credit support requirements, and requests for highest funding priority will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis upon written request of the applicant filed pursuant to 7 CFR 1700.108.
( c ) Notwithstanding the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, the Administrator reserves the right to evaluate any application for an eligible program for use of the discretionary provisions of this subpart without a formal, written request from the applicant.
| **Consolidated Statements of Shareholders' Equity (unaudited) (Parenthetical) (USD $)** | 6 Months Ended |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|
||
| **Statement of Stockholders' Equity [Abstract]**                                        |           |   |
| Dividends Paid Per Share of Common Stock                                                | $ 0.32         | $ 0.27 |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Aggregate dividends paid during the period for each share of common stock outstanding.
+ References
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher SEC -Name Regulation S-X (SX) -Number 210 -Section 04 -Article 3Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 505 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.3-04) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=27012166&loc=d3e187085-122770
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_CommonStockDividendsPerShareCashPaid**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**num:perShareItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                         |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**us-gaap_StatementOfStockholdersEquityAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
#### Sakaris Haegeland, Appellant, v John J. Massa, Respondent.

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated August 7, 1979, which granted defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment against him. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, the motion to vacate the default judgment is denied and the default judgment is reinstated. Special Term erred in allowing this defendant to reopen his default. The court properly found that plaintiff’s delay in filing proof of service was a mere procedural irregularity to be corrected by an order *nunc pro tunc*(see *Reporter Co. v Tomicki,*60 AD2d 947). However, Special Term erred in then finding the default judgment to be a nullity because it was entered on the same date that proof of service was filed. Once the filing of proof of service was deemed timely made, service was complete 10 days later (see CPLR 308, subd 4). Defendant was required to answer within 30 days thereafter (see CPLR 320, subd [a]). Defendant’s time to answer expired some six months prior to entry of the default judgment. Gulotta, J. P., Cohalan, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
#### W. C. Handley, appellee, v. E. H. Robinson, appellant.

Gen. No. 33,587.

Opinion filed December 31, 1929.

Rehearing denied January 10, 1930.

Cohen *&*Berke, for appellant; Harry F. Brewer, of counsel. Nuttall & Chism and Newby & Murphy, for appellee; Harry A. Newby, Arch. F. Nuttall and Geo. M. Burditt, of counsel.

Mr. Justice Scanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.
§ 1774.17 Grant closing and disbursement. ( a ) *Grant closing.* RUS Bulletin 1780-12 “Water or Waste System Grant Agreement” will be completed and executed in accordance with the requirements of grant approval. The grant will be considered closed when RUS Bulletin 1780-12 has been properly executed. Processing officials or Approval officials are authorized to sign the grant agreement on behalf of RUS.
( b ) *Grant disbursements.* Agency policy is not to disburse grant funds from the Treasury until they are actually needed by the applicant. If an approved grant includes applicant or other contributions, then these funds will be disbursed before the disbursal of any Agency grant funds.
( c ) *Payment for project costs.* Project costs will be monitored by the RUS processing office. Invoices will be approved by the borrower and submitted to the Processing Official for concurrence. The review and acceptance of project costs by the Agency does not attest to the correctness of the amounts, the quantities shown or that the work has been performed under the terms of the agreements or contracts.
( d ) *Use of remaining funds.* Funds remaining after all costs incident to the basic project have been paid or provided for will not include applicant contributions if SEARCH grants funds are financing less than 100 percent of the project. Funds remaining may be considered in direct proportion to the amounts obtained from each source. Remaining funds will be handled as follows: ( 1 ) Remaining funds may be used for eligible grant purposes as described in 1774.14 of this subpart, or
( 2 ) Grant funds not expended will be canceled. Prior to the actual cancellation, the borrower, its attorney and its engineer will be notified of RUS' intent to cancel the remaining funds.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 November 24, 2015

s1116

Order 

Clerk

November 24, 2015

150966

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 150966

COA: 324335

Wayne CC: 09-029738-FC

MIGUEL ANGEL CRUZ-RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 19, 2014 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
#### §§ 1738.209-1738.250 [Reserved]
#### § 1774.4 Allocation of funds.

The Secretary may use not more than four percent of the total amount of funds made available for a fiscal year for water and waste disposal activities for SEARCH grants.
#### § 1788.6 RUS right to place insurance.

If a borrower fails to purchase or maintain the required insurance and fidelity coverage, the mortgagees may place required insurance and fidelity coverage on behalf and in the name of the borrower. The borrower shall pay the cost of this coverage, as provided in the loan documents.
§ 15f.7 May I be represented by an attorney? ( a ) If your Section 741 Complaint Request is automatically docketed as set forth in § 15f.5(a), and you already are represented by counsel of whom you have notified USDA, then this section does not apply.
( b ) If you are filing your Section 741 Complaint Request with USDA, and if you are represented by an attorney, your Section 741 Complaint Request should also include an authorization signed by you indicating that the attorney is entitled to represent you on your behalf. If USDA receives such an authorization, all documents in connection with consideration of your complaint under these procedures will be sent to your attorney and not to you.
( c ) Once your Section 741 Complaint Request is docketed with USDA, and you afterwards retain an attorney, you should forward an authorization to USDA signed by you indicating that the attorney is entitled to represent you on your behalf. If USDA receives such an authorization, all documents in connection with consideration of your complaint under these procedures will be sent to your attorney and not to you.
2004-1771.

#### State v. Quinones.

Cuyahoga App. No. 83720, 2004-Ohio-4485. Reported at 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, 845 N.E.2d 470. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          54,242
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   62,239
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      12,590,391
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,931,577
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,307,432
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,161,622
<BONDS>                                      8,966,573
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (5,387,421)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,307,432
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,257,195
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  585,564
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,066,780
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,070,903)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,070,903)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,070,903)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (75.83)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>