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

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         In connection with the accompanying amended Quarterly Report on Form
10-QSB/A of Velocity Asset Management Inc. for the nine months ended September
30, 2006, I, John C. Kleinert, Chief Executive Officer of Velocity Asset
Management, Inc. hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

                  (1) such amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A for the
nine months ended September 30, 2006, 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 such amended Quarterly Report
on Form 10-QSB/A for the nine months ended September 30, 2006, fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Velocity Asset Management, Inc.

                                             /s/ JOHN C. KLEINERT
                                             ---------------------------
                                             John C. Kleinert
                                             Chief Executive Officer


November 24, 2006

                                       20
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

VALERUS COMPRESSION SERVICES,

A TEXAS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,

and VALERUS COMPRESSION

SERVICES MANAGEMENT, LLC, A

TEXAS LIMITED LIABILITY

COMPANY, GENERAL PARTNER,

Appellants,

v.

REEVES COUNTY APPRAISAL

DISTRICT and LOVING COUNTY

APPRAISAL DISTRICT,

Appellees. §

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 13

- 00366

- CV

Appeal from the

143rd Judicial District Court

of Reeves County, Texas

(TC#13

- 01

- 2 0290

- CVR)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was error in that

part of the judgment declaring that T EX .T AX C ODE A NN

. §§ 23.1241 and 23.1242 are

uncon stitutional as applied to Appellants’ compressors. We therefore reverse that part of the

judgment and render that these two statutes are not unconstitutional as applied in this case. In all

other respects, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed. We furt her order that Appellants and

Appellees each pay one half (1/2) the costs of this appeal. This decision shall be certified below

for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER , 2015.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
# L_2018262EN.01005401.xml

| 19.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 262/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 262/54

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2018/1571

of 18 October 2018

on the minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder for the 26th partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1),

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1240 of 18 May 2016 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to public intervention and aid for private storage (2), and in particular Article 32 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080 (3) has opened the sale of skimmed milk powder by a tendering procedure. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080 (3) has opened the sale of skimmed milk powder by a tendering procedure.

| (2) | In the light of the tenders received for the 26th partial invitation to tender, a minimum selling price should be fixed. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

In the light of the tenders received for the 26th partial invitation to tender, a minimum selling price should be fixed.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the 26th partial invitation to tender for the selling of skimmed milk powder within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080, in respect of which the period during which tenders were to be submitted ended on 16 October 2018, the minimum selling price shall be 123,10 EUR/100 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 18 October 2018.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Jerzy PLEWA

Director-General

Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 206, 30.7.2016, p. 71.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080 of 25 November 2016 opening the sale of skimmed milk powder by a tendering procedure (OJ L 321, 29.11.2016, p. 45).

3

---
#### Roland A. Olson, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. City of Chicago, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant-Appellant.

Gen. No. 52,975. (Abstract of Decision.)

First District, Third Division.

June 19, 1969.

Rehearing denied August 11, 1969.

Raymond F. Simon, Corporation Counsel of City of Chicago (Marvin E. Aspen and Marsile J. Hughes, Assistant Corporation Counsel, of counsel), for appellant;

James F. Hynan and James A. Condon, of Chicago, for appellee.

Opinion by PRESIDING JUSTICE SULLIVAN. Not to be published in full.
§ 1305.25 Unaccepted and defective electronic orders. ( a ) No electronic order may be filled if: ( 1 ) The required data fields have not been completed.
( 2 ) The order is not signed using a digital certificate issued by DEA.
( 3 ) The digital certificate used had expired or had been revoked prior to signature.
( 4 ) The purchaser's public key will not validate the digital signature.
( 5 ) The validation of the order shows that the order is invalid for any reason.
( b ) If an order cannot be filled for any reason under this section, the supplier must notify the purchaser and provide a statement as to the reason (e.g., improperly prepared or altered). A supplier may, for any reason, refuse to accept any order, and if a supplier refuses to accept the order, a statement that the order is not accepted is sufficient for purposes of this paragraph.
( c ) When a purchaser receives an unaccepted electronic order from the supplier, the purchaser must electronically link the statement of nonacceptance to the original order. The original order and the statement must be retained in accordance with § 1305.27.
( d ) Neither a purchaser nor a supplier may correct a defective order; the purchaser must issue a new order for the order to be filled.
567 P.2d 1216

#### PARAGON BUILDING CORPORATION, an Arizona Corporation, Appellant, v. BANKERS TRUST COMPANY, a New York Banking Corporation, Appellee.

No. 2 CA-CIV 2434.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2.

May 17, 1977.

Rehearing Denied June 30, 1977.

Review Denied July 12, 1977.

*88S. Leonard Scheff, Tucson, for appellant.

Silverstone & Stern by Lawrence H. Fleischman, Tucson, for appellee.

OPINION

RICHMOND, Judge.

Bankers Trust Company as assignee of a carpet manufacturer was awarded judgment on an unpaid account against Paragon Building Corporation, one of two joint venturers that undertook construction of the apartment complex in which the manufacturer’s product was installed. Paragon on appeal argues that the evidence provided no basis for its liability on the unpaid account, and in the alternative that the claim should have been dismissed for failure of Bankers Trust to engage in discovery proceedings in good faith.

As to Paragon’s first contention, there was competent evidence to support the judgment of the trial court, and, inasmuch as the court was not required to make findings of fact and conclusions of law, all reasonable inferences must be taken in favor of the prevailing party. *Balon v. Hotel & Restaurant Supplies, Inc.,*103 Ariz. 474, 445 P.2d 833 (1968). The construction contract and carpeting subcontract were evidence of the joint venture’s obligations to provide the carpeting, and the purchase orders were evidence that the carpeting was to be billed to the joint venture. A carpet change order was executed by Paragon, and partial payments were made by joint venture checks. A joint venture is a form of partnership, *Ellingson v. Sloan,*22 Ariz. App. 383, 527 P.2d 1100 (1974), and a joint venturer like other partners is liable to third parties for debts of the partnership. *Rae v. Cameron,*112 Mont. 159, 114 P.2d 1060 (1941); 46 Am.Jur.2d, Joint Ventures, § 57 (1969).

Paragon argues that its liability is precluded by evidence that the carpet manufacturer looked to a third party for payment of the account. Even if the third party’s promise of payment alone might have been sufficient consideration for the extension of credit, it would not absolve Paragon once the trial court found that the joint venture also was bound. See Fluor *Corp. v. United States ex rel. Mosher Steel Co.,*405 F.2d 823 (9th Cir. 1969).

Paragon cites no legal authority for the argument that its motion to dismiss “for failure to engage in discovery procedures” should have been granted. The record reflects no abuse of the trial court’s discretion. *See Greco v. Manolakos,*24 *89Ariz.App. 490, 539 P.2d 964 (1975). Upon production at trial of the materials that it contends should have been produced earlier, Paragon did not move for a continuance for the additional discovery it now argues it should have been afforded the opportunity to undertake. It cannot now be heard to assert prejudice that might thereby have been obviated.

Affirmed.

HOWARD, C. J. and HATHAWAY, J., concurring.
Exhibit No. 32.1


                         CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


Pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002,  each  of the
undersigned  certifies  that  this  periodic  report  fully  complies  with  the
requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934
and that information  contained in this periodic report fairly presents,  in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of BNCCORP,
Inc. and Subsidiaries.



Date: March 19, 2004                      BNCCORP, Inc.



                                    By /s/ Gregory K. Cleveland
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                           Gregory K. Cleveland
                                           Chief Executive Officer



                                    By /s/ Brenda L. Rebel
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                           Brenda L. Rebel
                                           Chief Financial Officer





A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document  authenticating,  acknowledging,  or otherwise  adopting the signatures
that  appear  in typed  form  within  the  electronic  version  of this  written
statement  required by Section 906, has been provided to BNCCORP,  Inc. and will
be retained by BNCCORP,  Inc.  and  furnished  to the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
**D1 1**  Z1 **1 2**  5 MIXED V ALUE CAP

ACITORS 7 MIXED V

ALUE RESISTORS **D4** D4 - SS3P3 - E3/84AGICT- ND

**C1** 

# Front side of the board

**IC -**  **1 IC**  **- 2**  **IC -**  **3 F1** 

**D2 D3**  **Q1**
**3**

**1** Z1 **1**

**2 2** 
**1 1**  C1 - P930 - NDIC - 1, IC - 2 - SP8M8TBCT- ND IC - 3 - PIC16F684 - I/SL - ND Z1 - DL5244B - TPMSCT- ND

F1 - F2933CT- ND D1, D2, D3 - B340A- FDICT- ND Q1 - BC848C - TPMSCT- ND

# Other side of the board

**Q1 Q2** 

**Q3 Q4**  Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7 - BC848C - TPMSCT- ND **IC -** **2** IC - 2 - SN65ML VD200D **2 6** 
**2 2** 

**2 Q4**  **Q5**

**Q6 Q7**  IC - 2 - SN65ML VD200D

**IC -**  **1** IC - 1 - UA78L05ACDRE4 - ND **4**

**2 2**  **2** 3

2 **1** 27 MIXED V ALUE RESISTORS 3 MIXED V

ALUE CAP

ACITORS Z2 **IC -**  **3**Z2 - DL5244B - TPMSCT- ND

IC - 3 - 4 pin conn -
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 43 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 43

  Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit the 
consideration of a concurrent resolution to provide for a recess of the 
  House after July 31 of any year unless the House has approved each 
          regular appropriation bill for the next fiscal year.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 10, 2017

 Mr. Wittman submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                         the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit the 
consideration of a concurrent resolution to provide for a recess of the 
  House after July 31 of any year unless the House has approved each 
          regular appropriation bill for the next fiscal year.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This resolution may be cited as the ``Stay on Schedule (S.O.S.) 
Resolution''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITING RECESS DURING AUGUST UNTIL APPROVAL OF ALL REGULAR 
              APPROPRIATION BILLS.

    Rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by 
adding at the end the following new clause:
``Concurrent resolution providing for adjournment during August
    ``13. If by July 31 of any calendar year the House has not passed 
each of the regular appropriation bills for the fiscal year which 
begins on October 1 of that calendar year, it shall not be in order to 
consider a concurrent resolution to provide that the House stand 
adjourned during any day occurring during August of that calendar year 
until the House has passed each such bill. For purposes of this clause, 
term `regular appropriation bill' means any annual appropriation bill 
which is under the jurisdiction of a single subcommittee of the 
Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives (as may be 
provided under the Rules for the fiscal year involved).''.
                                 <all>
```
###### Editorial Note on Part 172

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 172 appear at 61 FR 14482, Apr. 2, 1996; 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001; 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001; 68 FR 15355, Mar. 31, 2003; 70 FR 40880, July 15, 2005; 70 FR 67651, Nov. 8, 2005; 70 FR 72074, Dec. 1, 2005; and 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

#### § 172.884 Odorless light petroleum hydrocarbons.

Odorless light petroleum hydrocarbons may be safely used in food, in accordance with the following prescribed conditions:

(a) The additive is a mixture of liquid hydrocarbons derived from petroleum or synthesized from petroleum gases. The additive is chiefly paraffinic, isoparaffinic, or naphthenic in nature.

(b) The additive meets the following specifications:

(1) Odor is faint and not kerosenic.

(2) Initial boiling point is 300 °F minimum.

(3) Final boiling point is 650 °F maximum.

(4) Ultraviolet absorbance limits determined by method specified in § 178.3620(b)(1)(ii) of this chapter, as follows:

| Wavelength mμ | Maximum absorbance per centimeter optical pathlength |
| --- | --- |
| 280-289 | 4.0 |
| 290-299 | 3.3 |
| 300-329 | 2.3 |
| 330-360 | .8 |

(c) The additive is used as follows:

| Use | Limitations |
| --- | --- |
| As a coating on shell eggs | In an amount not to exceed good manufacturing practice. |
| As a defoamer in processing beet sugar and yeast | Complying with § 173.340 of this chapter. |
| As a float on fermentation fluids in the manufacture of vinegar and wine to prevent or retard access of air, evaporation, and wild yeast contamination during fermentation | In an amount not to exceed good manufacturing practice. |
| In the froth-flotation cleaning of vegetables | Do. |
| As a component of insecticide formulations used in compliance with regulations issued in parts 170 through 189 of this chapter | Do. |
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 200 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 200

 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United 
 States should develop and adopt a comprehensive cybersecurity policy.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 16, 2017

Mr. Taylor (for himself and Mr. Ruppersberger) submitted the following 
   resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United 
 States should develop and adopt a comprehensive cybersecurity policy.

Whereas nine megabreaches occurred in 2015, each resulting in the compromise of 
        more than 10 million personal identities;
Whereas one such megabreach of the background investigation databases of the 
        United States Office of Personnel Management resulted in the compromise 
        of the sensitive personal information of more than 21 million 
        individuals;
Whereas increasing interconnectedness, facilitated by ubiquitous Internet usage 
        and availability in virtually all aspects of modern life, places all 
        individuals, businesses, public and private entities, and critical 
        infrastructures at significant and persistent risk of cyber attack;
Whereas continuous and rapid technological advancements result in constantly 
        shifting cyber realities with respect to which policymakers have been 
        unable to keep pace; and
Whereas malicious cyber activity has the potential to cause great harm to the 
        national security, economy, and infrastructure of the United States and 
        the health, well-being, and safety of United States citizens: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
the United States should develop and adopt a comprehensive 
cybersecurity policy that clearly defines acts of aggression, acts of 
war, and other related events in cyberspace, including any commensurate 
responses to any such act or event in cyberspace.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                              
<ARTICLE>                                          5
<CIK>                                              0000812818
<NAME>                                    HUTTON INVESTORS FUTURES FUND, L.P.II
                                                    
<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                     JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                       MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                                    20,041,681
<SECURITIES>                                                 426,117
<RECEIVABLES>                                                      0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          20,467,798
<PP&E>                                                             0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            20,467,798
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                        251,598
<BONDS>                                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                              0
<PREFERRED>                                                        0
<COMMON>                                                           0
<OTHER-SE>                                                20,216,200
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              20,467,798
<SALES>                                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          (1,168,576)
<CGS>                                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                      0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              14,123
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                           (1,182,699)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                    0
<CHANGES>                                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                              (1,182,699)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                (306.80)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                      0
        

</TABLE>
#### § 1301.90 Employee screening procedures.

It is the position of DEA that the obtaining of certain information by non-practitioners is vital to fairly assess the likelihood of an employee committing a drug security breach. The need to know this information is a matter of business necessity, essential to overall controlled substances security. In this regard, it is believed that conviction of crimes and unauthorized use of controlled substances are activities that are proper subjects for inquiry. It is, therefore, assumed that the following questions will become a part of an employer's comprehensive employee screening program:

*Question.* Within the past five years, have you been convicted of a felony, or within the past two years, of any misdemeanor or are you presently formally charged with committing a criminal offense? (Do not include any traffic violations, juvenile offenses or military convictions, except by general court-martial.) If the answer is yes, furnish details of conviction, offense, location, date and sentence.

*Question.* In the past three years, have you ever knowingly used any narcotics, amphetamines or barbiturates, other than those prescribed to you by a physician? If the answer is yes, furnish details.

*Advice.* An authorization, in writing, that allows inquiries to be made of courts and law enforcement agencies for possible pending charges or convictions must be executed by a person who is allowed to work in an area where access to controlled substances clearly exists. A person must be advised that any false information or omission of information will jeopardize his or her position with respect to employment. The application for employment should inform a person that information furnished or recovered as a result of any inquiry will not necessarily preclude employment, but will be considered as part of an overall evaluation of the person's qualifications. The maintaining of fair employment practices, the protection of the person's right of privacy, and the assurance that the results of such inquiries will be treated by the employer in confidence will be explained to the employee.

[40 FR 17143, Apr. 17, 1975]