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




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section
1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), the undersigned
officer of Birch Branch, Inc. (the “Company”) does hereby certify with
respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period
ended June 30, 2010 (the “Report”) that, to the best of his
knowledge:




1.           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) and 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.




Date:  August
      23, 2010
              /s/
      Wang FengWang
      FengPresident,
      Chief Executive Officerand
      Principal Financial Officer
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2020073DE.01002501.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 10.3.2020 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 73/25 |

---

Berichtigung der Durchführungsverordnung (EU) 2019/1776 der Kommission vom 9. Oktober 2019 zur Änderung des Anhangs I der Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 2658/87 des Rates über die zolltarifliche und statistische Nomenklatur sowie den Gemeinsamen Zolltarif

(
[Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 280 vom 31. Oktober 2019](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2019_280_R_TOC)
)

Auf Seite 688 erhalten Titel und Nummerierung der Endnoten der Tabelle folgende Fassung:

„(1) Milchproteine
“

„(2) Stärke/Glucose
“

„(3) Saccharose/Invertzucker/Isoglucose
“.

---
#### § 31.3301-2 Measure of tax.

The tax for any calendar year is measured by the amount of wages paid by the employer during such year with respect to employment after December 31, 1938. (See § 31.3306(b)-1, relating to wages, and §§ 31.3306(c)-1 to 31.3306(c)-3, inclusive, relating to employment.)

[T.D. 6658, 28 FR 6632, June 27, 1963]
#### Debra Weaver, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of Adam Weaver, an Infant, Appellant, v Jason Frith, Defendant, and Lynn Heintz, Individually and as Executor of Ruth Heintz, Deceased, and as Administrator/Executor of the Estate of Dennis Heintz, Deceased, Respondent. (Action No. 1.) Jason A. Frith, Appellant, v Lynn Heintz, Individually and as Executor of Ruth Heintz, Deceased, and as Administrator/Executor of the Estate of Dennis Heintz, Deceased, Respondent. (Action No. 2.)

[803 NYS2d 508]

Appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Genesee County (Robert C. Noonan, A.J.), entered August 19, 2004. The judgment granted the motion of defendant Ruth Heintz, individually and as administrator/executor of the estate of Dennis Heintz, deceased, for summary judgment dismissing the complaints and all cross claims against her.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in decision at Supreme Court. Present—Scudder, J.P., Martoche, Pine, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.
www.gpo.gov

### §1300h–6. Distribution of funds

(a) For the purpose of proceeding with the per capita distribution of the funds appropriated and subsequently apportioned to the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community in satisfaction of judgments awarded the Lake Superior Chippewas and Mississippi Chippewas in dockets numbered 18–C, 18–T, 18–S, and 18–U of the Indian Claims Commission, the Secretary of the Interior shall accept the tribe's certification of enrolled membership.

(b) Individuals who are or become members of the Lac Vieux Desert Band and who are eligible for per capita shares out of funds apportioned to the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community or Sokaogan Chippewa Community shall continue to be eligible for such per capita payments notwithstanding their relinquishment of their enrollment in either community pursuant to section 1300h–3 of this title.

(Pub. L. 100–420, §8, Sept. 8, 1988, 102 Stat. 1579.)
www.gpo.gov

### §483a. Mortgages and deeds of trust by individual Indian owners; removal from trust or restricted status; application to Secretary

(a) The individual Indian owners of any land which either is held by the United States in trust for them or is subject to a restriction against alienation imposed by the United States are authorized, subject to approval by the Secretary of the Interior, to execute a mortgage or deed of trust to such land. Such land shall be subject to foreclosure or sale pursuant to the terms of such mortgage or deed of trust in accordance with the laws of the tribe which has jurisdiction over such land or, in the case where no tribal foreclosure law exists, in accordance with the laws of the State or Territory in which the land is located. For the purpose of any foreclosure or sale proceeding the Indian owners shall be regarded as vested with an unrestricted fee simple title to the land, the United States shall not be a necessary party to the proceeding, and any conveyance of the land pursuant to the proceeding shall divest the United States of title to the land. All mortgages and deeds of trust to such land heretofore approved by the Secretary of the Interior are ratified and confirmed.

(b) In the event such land is acquired by an Indian or an Indian tribe, such land shall not be removed from trust or restricted status except upon application to the Secretary under existing law.

(Mar. 29, 1956, ch. 107, 70 Stat. 62; Pub. L. 98–608, §2, Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 3173; Pub. L. 101–644, title III, §301(c), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4667.)

#### Amendments

1990—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 101–644 inserted “tribe which has jurisdiction over such land or, in the case where no tribal foreclosure law exists, in accordance with the laws of the” before “State” in second sentence.

1984—Pub. L. 98–608 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsec. (b).
H. R. 1087

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

An Act

For the relief of Nguyen Quy An.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. WAIVER OF CERTAIN NATURALIZATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR NGUYEN QUY AN.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the inability of Nguyen Quy

An to meet the requirements of section 316 of the Immigration

and Nationality Act that relate to having the status of an alien

lawfully admitted for permanent residence, and residence and physical presence in the United States, if otherwise qualified he shall

be considered eligible for naturalization and, upon filing an application for naturalization and being administered the oath of renunciation and allegiance pursuant to section 337 of such Act, shall

be naturalized as a citizen of the United States.

(b) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF FEES.—Subsection (a) shall apply only if the application for naturalization

is filed with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of

the enactment of this Act.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0567 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. LESLIE DEAN ERNST,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including June 5 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 27 2023

04/27/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0567
T~EATTORNEY GENERAL 

OF ?t-EXAS 

PRICE DANIEL ATTORNEYGENERAL 
the caption. Montgomery C’ounty was named in the bedy or 

,the law., but mas not aWed in the caption,. The Court .said: 

-0 da find, however, that in the body or 

the Bill there appears for the first time the 

County or Montgomery as one entitled to rote upon such local issue. By reason. 0r the railure 

to give notice in the caption that Montgomery 

was to be added to such list of counties, we 

think the inclusion of ,Montgomerg County thereinwas wid and inerrmtire.~~ 

The case of Ward Cattle and Pasture Company vs. 

Qarpe&te&?, 109 Ter. 103, 200 S.W. 521; oited in your letter, 

is via ,acoord~ with the Winslow oase. In that case Matagorda 

County .*&8 Ineluded in, ArQale 6964 but ‘was omittea from the 

later Aot without mentionfng the omission in the caption& 

The bomt held that the omfesion W that county f%m the caption, was ,deceptiye and did not Cake the achutf out of the 

p~risloks ,or then lew. 

All laws which arrested tba pertimqt atetus or 

Qrshge County were superseded by the last ,amendment of ArtiOlij '@9,64, which was passed 6s House Bill No. 150, Chaptdr 

2&i, Acts; of the 4Sth Legisletura, p. 393, b&y “Am Act 

amendgy AptidLe 6954 or the Perised E+itutes or Texas or 

19.23~~ as the s6me has ;b,een heretofore aaeaded so 7s to permit oertafn oountfes to hare a stork law electis&~ and dealsrimg; an emqrigenoj.n mat asptia* is strifioieat to uxprera the smbjeot or the b&11, (Is required by Seat ion 35 

ai Artiole III of the State ~omstitu~ioa. Oreage County is 

mot ramed ,Jn either the aaptisn sr b,od,y of that amendment 

*hiah beaame effective May 7, 1943. 

We are of the opinion that Orange County is not 

authorlse& to hold an election to determine whether horses, 

mules, ,jacks, jennets and aattle may run at large in the 

oatuty or in amy sub-division of it, by reason of its oxolurioa .fyom the amendment or Article 6954, by the 4Bth 

Legislature in lW3i 

is immaterial ,. 

Prior legiela~tlre history on the point 

. 

Orange County having been omitted ir.mm the 

title mad alro iron the body of House bill MO. 150, 

dote of the 48th Legislature, p. ‘393, amending Ar- 

$i,ole 3854, v. a. s., whlah authorizes named oounties to hoLd eleotioar to determine if horses, 

* 

, 
. . 

Honorable Orahaii'BZuce - Page 3 

BP 

Amfste6t 

,.. . 

’ 

,*
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 197

JOINT RESOLUTION

Waiving certain enrollment requirements with recontinuing appropriations for fiscal year 1997. Hundred Fourth Congress making general or spect to any bill or joint resolution of the One
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 197

JOINT RESOLUTION

Waiving certain enrollment requirements with respect to any

bill or joint resolution of the One Hundred Fourth Congress making general or continuing appropriations for

fiscal year 1997.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. WAIVER OF REQUIREMENT FOR PARCHMENT

4 PRINTING.

5 (a) WAIVER.—The provisions of sections 106 and

6 107 of title 1, United States Code, are waived with respect

7 to the printing (on parchment or otherwise) of the enroll8 ment of any appropriation measure of the One Hundred

9 Fourth Congress presented to the President after the en10 actment of this joint resolution.

11 (b) CERTIFICATION OF ENROLLMENT BY COMMIT12 TEE ON HOUSE OVERSIGHT.—The enrollment of any such

13 measure shall be in such form as the Committee on House

14 Oversight of the House of Representatives certifies to be

15 a true enrollment.
2

•HJ 197 EH

1 SEC. 2. APPROPRIATION MEASURE DEFINED.

2 For purposes of this joint resolution, the term ‘‘ap3 propriation measure’’ means a bill or joint resolution that

4 includes provisions making general or continuing appro5 priations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997.

Passed the House of Representatives September 28,

1996.

Attest:

Clerk.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1137 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1137

To amend title 39, United States Code, to prevent certain types of mail 
 matter from being sent by a Member of the House of Representatives as 
                        part of a mass mailing.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 6, 1995

 Mr. LaHood (for himself and Mr. Inglis of South Carolina) introduced 
   the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House 
 Oversight and, in addition, to the Committee on Government Reform and 
 Oversight, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 
 in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the Committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 39, United States Code, to prevent certain types of mail 
 matter from being sent by a Member of the House of Representatives as 
                        part of a mass mailing.

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

SECTION 1. RESTRICTION.

    (a) In General.--Section 3210(a) of title 39, United States Code, 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(8) A Member of the House of Representatives may not send, as 
part of a mass mailing, any matter described in subparagraph (B), (C), 
or (F) of paragraph (3).''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to mail sent during any session of Congress 
beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
IV

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 28

Expressing the sense of Congress that a proposed cross-border fee for vehicles

and pedestrians entering the United States from Canada or Mexico

is unwise and should not be enacted.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 14, 1995

Mr. LAFALCE (for himself and Mr. DE LA GARZA) submitted the following

concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and

Means

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress that a proposed crossborder fee for vehicles and pedestrians entering the

United States from Canada or Mexico is unwise and

should not be enacted.

Whereas the President’s proposed budget includes a proposal

that would levy an entry fee of $3.00 for each vehicle entering the United States and $1.50 for each pedestrian

entering the United States at border crossings between

the United States and the nations of Canada and Mexico;

Whereas imposition of any such fees will have devastating

consequences for border communities along both the

Western and Southern borders of the United States;
2

HCON 28 IH

Whereas imposition of any such fees will adversely and seriously affect commerce among the United States, Canada,

and Mexico;

Whereas imposition of any such fees violates the spirit of free

trade in general and, in particular, the United StatesCanada Free Trade Agreement and the North American

Free Trade Agreement;

Whereas imposition of any such fees would be, in actuality,

an unreasonable and unfair tax on border crossings; and

Whereas imposition of any such fees would be likely to result

in the imposition of similar fees on the part of the Canadian and Mexican governments, thus exacerbating the adverse economic impacts noted above: Now, therefore, be

it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that cross3 border entry fees or taxes on vehicles and/or pedestrians

4 seeking to enter the United States from Canada or Mex5 ico, such as those proposed in the President’s budget, are

6 economically unsound and are likely to result in retaliatory

7 fees or taxes on the part of the Canadian and Mexican

8 Governments, and therefore such fees should not be im9 posed by the United States, and the President is urged

10 to remove this proposal from his budget recommendations.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1198 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1198

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
                coastwise trade for the vessel ISABELLE.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 9, 1995

   Mr. Reed introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
                coastwise trade for the vessel ISABELLE.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), the 
Act of June 19, 1886 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 12106 of title 
46, United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may issue a 
certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for 
employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel ISABELLE (United 
States official number 600655).
                                 <all>
```
# L_2019019EN.01000101.xml

| 22.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 19/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 19/1

---

COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2019/92

of 21 January 2019

implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (1), and in particular Article 14(1) and (3) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 17 March 2014, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 269/2014. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 17 March 2014, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 269/2014.

| (2) | Following the death of a designated person, the Council considers that the entry for this person should be deleted from Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 269/2014. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Following the death of a designated person, the Council considers that the entry for this person should be deleted from Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 269/2014.

| (3) | Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that 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, 21 January 2019.

For the Council

The President

F. MOGHERINI

---

(1)  
  OJ L 78, 17.3.2014, p. 6.

1

---

ANNEX

The entry concerning the following person is deleted from the list set out in the Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 269/2014:

| ‘150. | Iosif (Joseph) Davydovich KOBZON’ |
| --- | --- |

‘150.

Iosif (Joseph) Davydovich KOBZON’

---
IA

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 187

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative

to expenditures to affect Congressional, Presidential, State, and local elections.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 25, 1996

Mr. VOLKMER introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States relative to expenditures to affect Congressional,

Presidential, State, and local elections.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission

9 for ratification:
2

•HJ 187 IH

1 ‘‘ARTICLE—

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. The Congress shall have the power to

3 set limits on expenditures by, in support of, or in opposi4 tion to, all candidates in any primary, general, or other

5 election for Federal office.

6 ‘‘SECTION 2. The States shall have the power to set

7 limits on expenditures by, in support of, or in opposition

8 to, all candidates in any primary, general, or other election

9 for State and local office.’’.

Æ
#### In the Matter of Deborah Linksman, Respondent, v Charles Linksman, Appellant.

[804 NYS2d 265]

In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Dounias, J.), dated August 18, 2004, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Fields-Ferraro, S.M.) dated April 7, 2004, granting the mother’s petition for an upward modification of child support and increasing his child support obligation to $299 a month.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the objections are sustained, the order dated April 7, 2004, is vacated, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.

The parties were divorced by decree in the State of Virginia which, inter alia, directed the father to pay child support. In a prior appeal, this Court determined that the Family Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to consider the mother’s previous petition to enforce the child support provisions of the Virginia divorce decree, as she failed to demonstrate that the decree was registered in New York *(see Matter of Linksman v Linksman,*16 AD3d 588 [2005]; 28 USC § 1738B [i]; Family Ct Act §§ 580-603, 580-611 [a]).

Therefore, inasmuch as the Family Court continues to lack subject matter jurisdiction, the court should have denied the instant petition and dismissed the proceeding *(see Matter of Linksman v Linksman, supra).*

The parties’ remaining contentions are academic in light of our determination. Schmidt, J.P., Cozier, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.