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

BERNARD CHAUS, INC.CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bernard Chaus, Inc. (the ‘‘Company’’) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|  |              |                                                                                                                       |
|--|--------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | •  | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |

|  |              |                                                                                                                                                      |
|--|--------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | •  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

May 04, 2007

|  | /s/ Josephine Chaus                     |
|--|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | Josephine Chaus |
|--|-----------------|

|  | Chairwoman of the Board and |
|--|-----------------------------|

|  | Chief Executive Officer |
|--|-------------------------|

----
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 6137

MARK MCCOY , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. WARDEN CARTLEDGE , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence

. Henry M. Herlong, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 4:16

- cv - 00638

- HMH )

Submitted : May 25 , 2017 Decided: May 31, 2017

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Mark McCoy, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General, Sherrie Ann Butterbaugh, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit

.2 PER CURIAM: Mark McCoy seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and the court’s orders denying his motions for reconsideration . The order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C . § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Sl ack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and tha t the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McCoy has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny McCoy’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.
DISMISSED
§ 1070.32 Testimony and production of documents prohibited unless approved by the General Counsel. ( a ) Unless authorized by the General Counsel, no employee or former employee of the CFPB shall, in response to a demand or a request provide oral or written testimony by deposition, declaration, affidavit, or otherwise concerning any official information.
( b ) Unless authorized by the General Counsel, no employee or former employee shall, in response to a demand or request, produce any document or any material acquired as part of the performance of that employee's duties or by virtue of that employee's official status.
#### § 1815.101 Purpose.

This part supplements Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and describe how the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund intends to consider environmental factors and concerns in the Fund's decisionmaking process. This part applies only to the Fund and not to any other bureau, office or organization within the Department of the Treasury.
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE 

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819 

DCN: SE02996

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
# C_2023344EN.01012401.xml

| 29.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/124 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/124

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

28 September 2023

(2023/C 344/13)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0539 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 157,33 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4558 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,86333 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 11,6065 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 0,9678 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 144,90 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 11,3160 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,378 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 392,35 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,6343 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9754 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 28,8951 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6483 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4206 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,2491 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7698 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4431 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 426,71 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 20,1700 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,6986 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 382,56 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,9618 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,988 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,657 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,3115 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,5940 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 87,6395 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0539

JPY

Japanese yen

157,33

DKK

Danish krone

7,4558

GBP

Pound sterling

0,86333

SEK

Swedish krona

11,6065

CHF

Swiss franc

0,9678

ISK

Iceland króna

144,90

NOK

Norwegian krone

11,3160

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,378

HUF

Hungarian forint

392,35

PLN

Polish zloty

4,6343

RON

Romanian leu

4,9754

TRY

Turkish lira

28,8951

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6483

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4206

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,2491

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7698

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4431

KRW

South Korean won

1 426,71

ZAR

South African rand

20,1700

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,6986

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 382,56

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,9618

PHP

Philippine peso

59,988

RUB

Russian rouble

THB

Thai baht

38,657

BRL

Brazilian real

5,3115

MXN

Mexican peso

18,5940

INR

Indian rupee

87,6395

---

(1)  
  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
# C_2022189EN.01007301.xml

| 10.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/73 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/73

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

6 May 2022

(2022/C 189/06)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0570 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 137,90 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4400 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85625 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,4686 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0419 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 138,30 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,9808 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,665 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 381,47 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,7028 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9490 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 15,8078 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4888 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3560 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,2969 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6440 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4642 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 343,90 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,9614 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,0506 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5336 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 312,44 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6191 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 55,467 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | |
| THB | Thai baht | 36,303 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,3183 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,3555 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 81,2980 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0570

JPY

Japanese yen

137,90

DKK

Danish krone

7,4400

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85625

SEK

Swedish krona

10,4686

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0419

ISK

Iceland króna

138,30

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,9808

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,665

HUF

Hungarian forint

381,47

PLN

Polish zloty

4,7028

RON

Romanian leu

4,9490

TRY

Turkish lira

15,8078

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4888

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3560

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,2969

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6440

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4642

KRW

South Korean won

1 343,90

ZAR

South African rand

16,9614

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,0506

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5336

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 312,44

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6191

PHP

Philippine peso

55,467

RUB

Russian rouble

THB

Thai baht

36,303

BRL

Brazilian real

5,3183

MXN

Mexican peso

21,3555

INR

Indian rupee

81,2980

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
#### THORVALD BERG ET AL. v. UNITED STATES

[59 C. Cls. 462; 269 U. S. 535]

Decided October 26, 1925.

Judgment was rendered in favor of the United States in the court below. On appeal it was decided:

*Per ewrimn;*

*Dismissed*upon the authority of *Omnia Commercial Co. v. United*States, 262 U. S. 502.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         (7,116)
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     17,751
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                70,251
<PP&E>                                         300,688
<DEPRECIATION>                                (20,287)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 387,587
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,465,729
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      2,500
<COMMON>                                        25,719
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   350,823
<SALES>                                        535,055
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               535,055
<CGS>                                          203,934
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  758,574
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               596,278
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              35,026
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (462,479)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.07)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-1205

NIKHIL DESAI, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; PAUL E. WEBBER; CURTIS VON KANN; SCHANTA JONES, United States Deputy Marshal; TODD DILLARD, United States Marshal Service, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-97-1686-A) Submitted: December 15, 1998 Decided: January 11, 1999 Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and ERVIN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nikhil Desai, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Parker, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Nikhil Desai appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint brought under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) and 42U.S.C. § 1985 (1994) and denying Desai’s motion to amend the complaint to allow suit against two U.S. Marshals in their individual capacities. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. The district court properly found that an amendment to the complaint would be futile because the statute of limitations, under both Virginia and District of Columbia law, would bar Desai’s claims against U.S. Marshals Jones and Dillard. The court also properly found that District of Columbia Judges Webber and von Kann are absolutely immune from suit for damages arising out of their judicial actions. To the extent that Desai seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, the district court properly dismissed Desai’s claim because lower federal courts lack jurisdiction to review District of Columbia court proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 1257 (1994); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983). Accordingly, we affirm. 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.

AFFIRMED
§ 77.13 Applications for noncompetitive adaptive sports grants. ( a ) When VA identifies that an eligible entity is the only entity capable of providing an adaptive sports activity for disabled veterans and disabled members of the Armed Forces, and VA determines that the award of a grant to this entity is warranted to enable adaptive sports activities for disabled veterans and disabled members of the Armed Forces, VA may request that entity to submit a grant application. To verify that only one entity is capable of providing an adaptive sports activity: ( 1 ) VA must determine that the adaptive sports activity is available only from one eligible entity;
( 2 ) VA must receive a written statement from an entity which verifies that a particular adaptive sports activity is only available from a named non-Federal entity; or
( 3 ) After VA attempts to find competition for a grant by issuing a NOFA, VA receives only one application to provide the adaptive sports activity sought under the NOFA or having received no applications, engages a qualified adaptive sport entity to negotiate provision of the adaptive sports activity sought.
( b ) To submit an application for a noncompetitive adaptive sports grant, an applicant must obtain from VA an adaptive sports grant application package and submit to VA the information called for in the adaptive sports grant application package within the time period established in the NOFA.
( c ) The noncompetitive adaptive sports grant application must include: ( 1 ) Information regarding the program design and supporting evidence directly linking the program to the achievement of the program's objectives;
( 2 ) Documentation on the eligibility of the applicant to receive an adaptive sports grant and on why the award of a noncompetitive grant is warranted;
( 3 ) Description of the type of adaptive sports activities that would be provided;
( 4 ) Documentation concerning the estimated operating costs and operating budget for the adaptive sports activities for which a grant is sought;
( 5 ) Documentation that the applicant has the technical expertise needed; and
( 6 ) Reasonable assurances that if the applicant receives an adaptive sports grant under this part: ( i ) It will provide adequate financial and administrative support for providing the services set forth in the adaptive sports grant application and will actually provide such services; and
( ii ) It will keep records and submit reports as VA may reasonably require, within the time frames required; and give VA, upon demand, access to the records upon which such information is based.
(OMB has approved the information collection requirements in this section under control number 2900-0820) [79 FR 37217, July 1, 2014, as amended at 80 FR 25235, May 4, 2015]
# C_2023142EN.01001501.xml

| 25.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/15

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

24 April 2023

(2023/C 142/11)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1002 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 148,17 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4530 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,88463 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 11,3090 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 0,9800 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 150,10 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 11,6470 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 23,439 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 375,15 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,6055 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9298 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 21,3507 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6468 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4906 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6346 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7916 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4684 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 468,59 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 19,9476 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,5837 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 447,99 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,8821 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,336 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,858 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,5788 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 19,8331 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 90,1255 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1002

JPY

Japanese yen

148,17

DKK

Danish krone

7,4530

GBP

Pound sterling

0,88463

SEK

Swedish krona

11,3090

CHF

Swiss franc

0,9800

ISK

Iceland króna

150,10

NOK

Norwegian krone

11,6470

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

23,439

HUF

Hungarian forint

375,15

PLN

Polish zloty

4,6055

RON

Romanian leu

4,9298

TRY

Turkish lira

21,3507

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6468

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4906

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6346

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7916

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4684

KRW

South Korean won

1 468,59

ZAR

South African rand

19,9476

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,5837

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 447,99

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,8821

PHP

Philippine peso

61,336

RUB

Russian rouble

THB

Thai baht

37,858

BRL

Brazilian real

5,5788

MXN

Mexican peso

19,8331

INR

Indian rupee

90,1255

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
## United States Court of Appeals
**For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________

No. 21

- 1043

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Michael K. Sinnawi

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of North Dakota - Western

____________

Submitted: July 2 7 , 2021 Filed: July 30 , 2021 [Unpublished]

____________ Before SHEPHERD, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Michael Sinnawi pleaded guilty to possessi on with intent to distribute oxycodone. See 18 U.S.C. § 2; 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). As part of his plea agreement, he waived his right to appeal his sentence unless, as relevant here, it
exceeded “ the upper limit of the [advisory] [S]entencing [G]uideline [s] range”-2- calculated by the district court. 1 The court gave him a 36

- month sentence, which was within the range it calculated

. In an Anders brief, Sinnawi’s counsel raises the substantive reasonableness of the sentence and requests permission to withdraw. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

We review the validity and applicability of an appeal waiver de novo. See
United States v. Scott , 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010). Upon careful review, we conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable and that it is applicable to the issue
raised o n appeal. See United States v. Andis , 333 F.3d 886, 889

– 92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (explaining that an appeal waiver will be enforced if the appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and the waiver, and enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice). We have also independently reviewed the record and
conclude that no other non

- frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75

, 82

– 83 (1988). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and grant counsel permission to
withdraw.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Daniel L. Hovland, United States District Judge for the District of North Dakota.
# C_2023060EN.01002701.xml

| 17.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 60/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/27

---

Publication of a vacancy for the function of Director for Digital Transformation (DIGIT.A) in the Directorate-General for Informatics (grade AD 14), Brussels

COM/2023/10425

(2023/C 60/15)

The European Commission has published a vacancy notice (reference COM/2023/10425) for the function of Director for Digital Transformation (DIGIT.A) in the Directorate-General for Informatics (grade AD 14).

To consult the text of the vacancy notice in 24 languages and to submit your application, please visit this dedicated webpage on the European Commission’s website: https://europa.eu/!hD8fNd

---
§ 150.440 When do I have to audit my fiduciary activities? ( a ) *Annual audit.* If you do not use a continuous audit system described in paragraph (b) of this section, then you must arrange for a suitable audit of all significant fiduciary activities at least once during each calendar year.
( b ) *Continuous audit.* Instead of an annual audit, you may adopt a continuous audit system. Under a continuous audit system, you must arrange for a discrete audit of each significant fiduciary activity (*i.e.,* on an activity-by-activity basis) at an interval commensurate with the nature and risk of that activity. Some fiduciary activities may receive audits at intervals greater or less than one year, as appropriate.