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





**CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**





Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




I,
      Keith
      A. Meister, Principal Executive Officer of American Property Investors, Inc.,
      the General Partner of American Real Estate Partners, L.P. (the “Registrant”),
      certify that to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the American
      Real Estate Partners, L.P., quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period
      ended March 31, 2007 of the Registrant (the “Report”):




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




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




/s/
                KEITH A. MEISTERKeith
                A MeisterPrincipal
                Executive Officer and Vice Chairman of the Board of American Property
                Investors, Inc., the General Partner of American Real Estate Partners,
                L.P.


Date:
      May
      9, 2007
# C_2014184EN.01004402.xml

| 16.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/44

---

Action brought on 28 March 2014 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-29/14)

2014/C 184/74

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the PMO’s decisions to annul and replace the initial proposals to transfer pension rights acquired prior to employment by the European Parliament after the applicant was transferred to the Commission.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the appointing authority’s decision of 18 December 2013, notified to the applicant by e-mail on 19 December 2013, rejecting the applicant’s complaints of 9 September 2013 against the PMO’s decisions of 10 June 2013; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the appointing authority’s decision of 18 December 2013, notified to the applicant by e-mail on 19 December 2013, rejecting the applicant’s complaints of 9 September 2013 against the PMO’s decisions of 10 June 2013;

| — | In addition, annul, so far as it is necessary, the PMO’s decisions of 10 June 2013 as complained against by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

In addition, annul, so far as it is necessary, the PMO’s decisions of 10 June 2013 as complained against by the applicant;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure and to pay all necessary expenses incurred in the course of these proceedings, including travel and accommodation costs and lawyers’ fees, pursuant to Article 91B of those Rules. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure and to pay all necessary expenses incurred in the course of these proceedings, including travel and accommodation costs and lawyers’ fees, pursuant to Article 91B of those Rules.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Riverside
Park Associates Limited Partnership 1999 Third Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000813812
<NAME> RIVERSIDE PARK ASSOCIATES LP
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           3,032
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          75,869
<DEPRECIATION>                                (36,453)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  43,625
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         45,021
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,704)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    43,625
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,897
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,057
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,961
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (160)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (273.85)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                           
                 CONSENT OF GOLDENBERG ROSENTHAL FRIEDLANDER, LLP
                                           

    We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Amended Annual 
Report on Form 10-K/A, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by 
NHP Incorporated (NHP) of our reports with respect to the audits of 
Partnerships listed below for the year ended December 31, 1994, and the 
incorporation by reference of such reports into NHP's Registration Statement 
on Form S-8, (No. 333-11933), NHP's Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 
333-11863), NHP's Registration Statement on Form S-8 (333-11917), NHP's 
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (333-11857) and NHP's Registration 
Statement on Form S-8 (333-08137).

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>                                                       <C>
Name of Partnership -- 1994                               Date of Report
---------------------------                               --------------

Baisley Park Associates (A Limited Partnership)           Februay 3, 1995
Brunswick Village Limited Partnership                     January 23, 1995
Churchview Gardens Limited Partnership                    January 23, 1995
Harris Gardens Limited Partnership                        January 23, 1995
Hawksworth Limited Partnership                            January 21, 1995
Hollows Associates (A Limited Partnership)                February 3, 1995
Kimberton Apartments Associates (A Limited Partnership)   January 18, 1995
Washington Northgate Limited Partnership                  February 3, 1995
Washington Westgate Limited Partnership                   January 28, 1995
Windsor Apartments Associates (A Limited Partnership)     January 18, 1995

</TABLE>


                                  /s/ Goldenberg Rosenthal Friedlander, LLP




   
Jenkintown, PA
October 27, 1997
Editorial Note on Part 25
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 25 appear at 88 FR 45065, July 14, 2023.

§ 25.15 General procedures. ( a ) All applications or petitions requesting agency action require the submission of an EA or a claim of categorical exclusion. A claim of categorical exclusion shall include a statement of compliance with the categorical exclusion criteria and shall state that to the applicant's knowledge, no extraordinary circumstances exist. Failure to submit an adequate EA for an application or petition requesting action by the agency of a type specified in § 25.20, unless the agency can determine that the action qualifies for exclusion under §§ 25.30, 25.31, 25.32, 25.33, 25.34, or 25.35 is sufficient grounds for FDA to refuse to file or approve the application or petition. An EA adequate for filing is one that addresses the relevant environmental issues. An EA adequate for approval is one that contains sufficient information to enable the agency to determine whether the proposed action may significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
( b ) The responsible agency officials will evaluate the information contained in the EA to determine whether it is accurate and objective, whether the proposed action may significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and whether an EIS will be prepared. If significant effects requiring the preparation of an EIS are identified, FDA will prepare an EIS for the action in accordance with the procedures in subparts D and E of this part. If significant effects requiring the preparation of an EIS are not identified, resulting in a decision not to prepare an EIS, the responsible agency official will prepare a FONSI in accordance with § 25.41.
( c ) Classes of actions that individually or cumulatively do not significantly affect the quality of the human environment ordinarily are excluded from the requirement to prepare an EA or an EIS. The classes of actions that qualify as categorical exclusions are set forth in §§ 25.30, 25.31, 25.32, 25.33, 25.34, or 25.35.
( d ) A person submitting an application or petition of a type subject to categorical exclusion under §§ 25.30, 25.31, 25.32, 25.33, 25.34, or 25.35, or proposing to dispose of an article as provided in § 25.30(d) or 25.32(h), is not required to submit an EA if the person states that the action requested qualifies for a categorical exclusion, citing the particular categorical exclusion that is claimed, and states that to the applicant's knowledge, no extraordinary circumstances exist.
[62 FR 40592, July 29, 1997, as amended at 80 FR 57535, Sept. 24, 2015]
#### § 573.300 Choline xanthate.

Choline xanthate may be safely used as a component of animal feed as an added source of choline to supplement the diets of poultry, ruminants, and swine in accordance with good feeding practice.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6428
KEVIN RAY SCHRUBB, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHARD A. YOUNG; GEORGE E. DEEDS; MAGGIE WATKINS; SUSIE COX, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-95-495-R) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 9, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin Ray Schrubb, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Susan Campbell Alexander, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order granting in part and denying in part Appellees' summary jud gment motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Riverside
Park Associates Limited Partnership 1999 First Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000813812
<NAME> RIVERSIDE PARK ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,612
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          74,947
<DEPRECIATION>                                (35,012)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  43,834
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         45,349
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,688)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    43,834
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,880
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,024
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,017
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (144)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (247)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
IIB 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7103 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 30, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Small Business and 

Entrepreneurship 

AN ACT 

To amend the Small Business Act to require Federal agencies to testify and report on scores received under the 

scorecard program for evaluating Federal agency compliance with small business contracting goals, to testify 

for failure to meet Governmentwide contracting goals, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

HR 7103 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Agency Accountability 

3 Act of 2024’’. 

4 SEC. 2. FEDERAL AGENCY TESTIMONY ON SCORECARD 

5 SCORES AND FAILURE TO ACHIEVE CERTAIN 

6 GOALS. 

7 Section 15(g)(2) of the Small Business Act (15 

8 U.S.C. 644(g)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the 

9 following: 

10 ‘‘(G) TESTIMONY REQUIRED.—The head of the 

11 office established in a Federal agency under sub12 section (k) shall testify before the Committee on 

13 Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate 

14 and the Committee on Small Business of the House 

15 of Representatives under the following cir16 cumstances: 

17 ‘‘(i) If such agency fails to receive a score 

18 equivalent to a letter grade of ‘A’ or above on 

19 the scorecard established under subsection (y) 

20 for a fiscal year, on the reasons for such fail21 ure. 

22 ‘‘(ii) If such agency fails to meet two or 

23 more of the Governmentwide goals established 

24 under paragraph (1)(A), on the reasons for 

25 such failure,’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

HR 7103 RFS

1 SEC. 3. FEDERAL AGENCY REPORTING ON SCORECARD 

2 SCORES. 

3 Section 15(h)(1)(D) of the Small Business Act (15 

4 U.S.C. 644(h)(1)(D)) is amended by inserting ‘‘and to im5 prove the score on the scorecard established under sub6 section (y)’’ after ‘‘better meet such goals’’. 

7 SEC. 4. COMPLIANCE WITH CUTGO. 

8 No additional amounts are authorized to be appro9 priated to carry out this Act or the amendments made 

10 by this Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 29, 2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 41128 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. PEDRO SANCHEZ

- ALBA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:15

- CR

- 565

- 1

Before REAVLEY, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Pedro Sanchez

- Alba raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Martinez

- Lugo , 782 F. 3d 198, 204

- 05 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 136 S. Ct. 533 (2015)

. In Martinez

- Lugo , 782 F.3d at 204

- 05, we held that an enhancem ent under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) for a prior felony conviction of a drug trafficking offense is warranted regardless whether the conviction for the prior offense required proof of remuneration or commercial activity

. Accordingly, the motion for

* 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 April 20 , 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-41128 Document: 00513472038 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2016No. 15

- 41128

2 summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Case: 15-41128 Document: 00513472038 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2016
**EXHIBIT 31 — SECTION 302 CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Theodore L. Arena, and I, Thomas J. Mulroney, each separately certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Provena Foods Inc. (the“Company”); 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and l5d-15(e)) for the Company and have: 

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including any subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Company’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting;and 

 

5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of the Company’s board of directors: 

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) Any fraud. whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date:November 3, 2005
§ 56.120 Lesser administrative actions. ( a ) If apparent noncompliance with these regulations in the operation of an IRB is observed by an FDA investigator during an inspection, the inspector will present an oral or written summary of observations to an appropriate representative of the IRB. The Food and Drug Administration may subsequently send a letter describing the noncompliance to the IRB and to the parent institution. The agency will require that the IRB or the parent institution respond to this letter within a time period specified by FDA and describe the corrective actions that will be taken by the IRB, the institution, or both to achieve compliance with these regulations.
( b ) On the basis of the IRB's or the institution's response, FDA may schedule a reinspection to confirm the adequacy of corrective actions. In addition, until the IRB or the parent institution takes appropriate corrective action, the Agency may require the IRB to: ( 1 ) Withhold approval of new studies subject to the requirements of this part that are conducted at the institution or reviewed by the IRB;
( 2 ) Direct that no new subjects be added to ongoing studies subject to this part; or
( 3 ) Terminate ongoing studies subject to this part when doing so would not endanger the subjects.
( c ) When the apparent noncompliance creates a significant threat to the rights and welfare of human subjects, FDA may notify relevant State and Federal regulatory agencies and other parties with a direct interest in the Agency's action of the deficiencies in the operation of the IRB.
( d ) The parent institution is presumed to be responsible for the operation of an IRB, and the Food and Drug Administration will ordinarily direct any administrative action under this subpart against the institution. However, depending on the evidence of responsibility for deficiencies, determined during the investigation, the Food and Drug Administration may restrict its administrative actions to the IRB or to a component of the parent institution determined to be responsible for formal designation of the IRB.
[46 FR 8975, Jan. 27, 1981, as amended at 81 FR 19035, Apr. 4, 2016]