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

Certification by Chief Executive Officer
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Advanstar Communications Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended
December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph Loggia, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



|By: |  | /s/JOSEPH LOGGIAJoseph Loggia
Chief Executive Officer |  | 
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---

QuickLinks
1 

### Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting

**Omni Hotel 675 L Street**  **, San Diego, California**  **July 18 -**  **19, 2006** 

### A **GENDA Meeting Theme**  **: Environmental Protection and Border Security** 

**Along the U.S. -**  **Mexico Border July 18, 2006**  **8:00 a.m. Registration**  **8:30 a.m. Welcome Remarks** 

Rafael DeLeon, Director, EPA Of fice of Cooperative Environmental Management Paul Ganster, Chair , Good Neighbor Environmental Board **Opening Remarks** Hon. Denise Moreno Duchen y, California State Senate, 40th District Secretary Enri que Villegas, Secretariat for Environmental Protection, Baja California **Self Introductions 9:00 a.m.**  **Speaker Presen tations**  **Begin** 9:00 a.m.

– Michael Hance, Agent, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Securit y Security Activities a long the U.S.
- Mexico Border 9:45 a.m.

– Diane Takvorian, Envir onmental Health Coalition Community Right
- to -Know and Border Security **10:30 a.m.**  **Break** 10:45 a.m **. –**  Ricardo Castellanos and Michael P. Dorsey **,** Border 2012 CA/B aja CA Emergency Response Taskforce Officials Emergency Response and Border Security : The Environmental Connection 11:30 a.m.

– Chris Aldridge , Director, Border Technology and Research Center Advanced Technology: Border Security with a Light Environmental Footprint2 

### Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting

**Omni Hotel 675 L Street, San Diego, California**  **July 18 -**  **19, 2006**
**12:15 p.m.**  **Public Co mment Session**  **12: 3**  **0 p.m. Lunc**  **h 2:0**  **0 p.m. Speaker**  **Presentations Continue**  2:0 0 p.m.

**–** Flavio Olivieri, Consejo Consultivo Update from Mexico’s Northern Border Environmental Advisors 2:4 5 p.m.
**–** In g. José Luis Sánchez, Grupo Ambiental del Noroe ste Building Security and Environmental Protection into the Supply Chain **3:3 0 p.m.**  **Break** 3:45 p.m.

– Mike White, Conservati on Biology I nstitute Potential Positive/ Negative Impacts of the Triple Fence on Flora and Fauna 4:30 p.m.

– Tina Terre ll, Forest Supervisor, Cleveland National Forest Effects of Undocumented Human Crossings on Na tional Forest W ork 5:15 p.m.

– Addi tional Business 5:30 p.m.

– Day

One of Meeting Ends (s ee next page for details o f Business Meeting on Day Two)3 

### Good **Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting**

**Omni Hotel 675 L Street, San Diego, California**  **July 18 -**  **19, 2006 July 19, 2006**  

### BUSINESS MEETING **7:30 a.m. Registration**  **8:00 a.m. Welcome**  **8:05 a.m**
. **Discussion/ Approval of Minutes from Last Meeting**  **8: 15**  **a.m. Tenth Report Preparation Report**  **- Outs** 

- Context Workgroup

- Human Crossings Workgroup

- Materials Crossings Workgroup

- Next Steps **9:00 a.m.**  **Discussion: Role of f ederal agency representatives**  **9:45 a.m.**  **Break 10:00**  **a.m. Board Member**  **Report -**  **out s**  **11:00 a.m**  **. D**  **iscussion: D raft Comment Letter: Triple Fence**  **11:15 a.m**
. **Discussion: Reporting to the President and Congress 11:45**  **a.m. Other Business**  **12:00 a.m**
. **Business Meeting/Day Two of Meeting Ends**  7/6 /06
#### SCHNIEDERMAN etc v SESSANSTEIN

Ohio Supreme Court

No 21290.

Decided May 29, 1929

Syllabus by

MATTHIAS, J.

AUTOMOBILES

(50 C2c) An ordinance of a municipality which prescribes a manner of driving or a rate of speed of automobiles in conflict with the provisions of the statute is invalid, valid.

The provision of an ordinance of a municipality, which makes unlawful a rate of speed exceeding fifteen miles per hour, regardless of whether such speed is great*350er than reasonable and proper, considering the width, traffic use and the general and usual rules of such road or highway, is in conflict with 12603, GC, and therefore invalid.

TRIAL

(590 W3g) A witness who testifies as to • facts cannot be discredited by evidence of the expression of an opinion relative to the merits of the case,

Kinkade, Robinson and Jones, JJ, concur. Allen, J, dissents.
§ 33.96 Engine tests in auxiliary power unit (APU) mode. If the engine is designed with a propeller brake which will allow the propeller to be brought to a stop while the gas generator portion of the engine remains in operation, and remain stopped during operation of the engine as an auxiliary power unit (“APU mode”), in addition to the requirements of § 33.87, the applicant must conduct the following tests: ( a ) Ground locking: A total of 45 hours with the propeller brake engaged in a manner which clearly demonstrates its ability to function without adverse effects on the complete engine while the engine is operating in the APU mode under the maximum conditions of engine speed, torque, temperature, air bleed, and power extraction as specified by the applicant.
( b ) Dynamic braking: A total of 400 application-release cycles of brake engagements must be made in a manner which clearly demonstrates its ability to function without adverse effects on the complete engine under the maximum conditions of engine acceleration/deceleration rate, speed, torque, and temperature as specified by the applicant. The propeller must be stopped prior to brake release.
( c ) One hundred engine starts and stops with the propeller brake engaged.
( d ) The tests required by paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section must be performed on the same engine, but this engine need not be the same engine used for the tests required by § 33.87.
( e ) The tests required by paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section must be followed by engine disassembly to the extent necessary to show compliance with the requirements of § 33.93(a) and § 33.93(b).
[Amdt. 33-11, 51 FR 10346, Mar. 25, 1986]
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      EXHIBIT 12



                 BRAND SCAFFOLD SERVICES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                 RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES CALCULATION
                       (In thousands except ratio amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                                  Year Ended       Year Ended      Year Ended
                                                                 December 31,     December 31,    December 31,
                                                                     1999            1998             1997
                                                                 ------------     ------------    ------------
<S>                                                              <C>              <C>             <C>
EARNINGS:
   Pretax income (loss)                                           $   (1,863)      $      584       $  (5,341)
   Fixed charges                                                      23,833           23,008          20,038
    Accretion of preferred stock dividends                            (5,497)          (4,767)         (4,172)
                                                                  ----------       ----------       ---------
           Earnings                                                   16,473           18,825          10,525
                                                                  ----------       ----------       ---------
FIXED CHARGES:
   Interest expense                                                   17,758           17,728          15,422
   Interest portion of rental expense                                    578              513             444
   Accretion of preferred stock dividends                              5,497            4,767           4,172
                                                                  ----------       ----------       ---------
           Total fixed charges                                     $  23,833       $   23,008       $  20,038
                                                                  ==========       ==========       =========

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges and preferred stock
   dividends                                                          .7               .8              .5

</TABLE>
#### EDWIN SCHIELE v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. K-341.

Decided November 6, 1933]

*330
      *Mr. Jesse I. Miller*for the plaintiff.

*Mr. John A. Rees,*with whom was *Mr. Assistant Attorney ■General Frank J. Wideman,*for the defendant. *Messrs. W. W. /Scott, J. H. Sheppard, T. H. Lewis, Jr.,*and *E. J. Dowd*were on the brief.

*332Green, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This action is begun to recover the sum of $6,611.68 with interest on account of taxes alleged to have been erroneously assessed and collected for the year 1919. On the submission of the case the parties agreed that the only issue in the case was whether a certain liquidating dividend of $8,000 which the Commissioner included in the taxable income of plaintiff for 1919 was properly taxable in that year. This depends on whether the dividend was received by plaintiff or placed under his control during the year 1919; or, on the other hand, whether it was not received by him and did not come under his control until the year 1920, as plaintiff alleges. This matter is wholly a question of fact to be determined from all of the evidence in the case. The commissioner of this court who heard the testimony and made a *333report tbereon has found in favor of the plaintiff on this, matter. His report recites:

> “ Not only was the dividend not paid plaintiff until January 19, 1920, as heretofore shown, but, also, it was not subject to his unqualified demand until subsequent to December 31, 1919.”

To this finding other findings on which it is in part based the defendant has excepted. We have carefully examined the testimony and from this examination conclude that the preponderance of the evidence sustains the commissioner’s findings and have, therefore, adopted them. While the testimony is not long, no useful purpose will be subserved by discussing it. It is sufficient to say that upon these findings and the stipulation of the parties as to the amount of overpayment, if the findings of the commissioner are sustained,, judgment must be rendered in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $3,094.60 with interest at six percent from September 28,1925, for the period provided by law. It is so ordered.

Whaley, *Judge;*Williams, *Judge;*LittletoN, *Judge;*and Booth, *Chief Justice,*concur.
#### In the Matter of Nicholas J. Camarata, Respondent, v Krista Caiola, Appellant.

[701 NYS2d 765]

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs for the reasons stated in decision at Herkimer County Family Court, LaRaia, J. (Appeal from Order of Herkimer County Family Court, LaRaia, J. — Custody.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Pigott, Jr., Scudder and Callahan, JJ.
§ 1208.7 Subpoenas and other requests for testimony and production of documents in legal proceedings where the NMB is not a party. ( a ) In legal proceedings between private litigants, a subpoena or other demand for the production of records held by the Agency or for oral or written testimony of a current or former NMB employee should be addressed to the General Counsel, National Mediation Board, 1301 K Street NW., Suite 250E, Washington, DC 20005. No other official or employee of the NMB is authorized to accept service of a demand or subpoena on behalf of the Agency.
( b ) No current or former employee may produce official records or information or provide testimony in response to a demand or subpoena unless authorized by the General Counsel.
( c ) The General Counsel may grant an employee permission to testify or produce official records or information in response to a demand or subpoena. In making this determination, the General Counsel shall consider whether: ( 1 ) Release of the requested records or testimony is prohibited under § 1208.5;
( 2 ) The disclosure is appropriate under the rules of procedure governing the case or matter;
( 3 ) The requested testimony or records are privileged under the relevant substantive law concerning privilege;
( 4 ) Disclosure would violate a statute or regulation;
( 5 ) Disclosure would reveal trade secrets without the owner's consent; and
( 6 ) Allowing testimony or production of records would be in the best interest of the NMB or the United States.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4611 

To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a grant program to address 

the effects of the COVID–19 pandemic on State and local fairs, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 17, 2020 

Mr. JONES introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a grant 

program to address the effects of the COVID–19 pandemic on State and local fairs, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting Fairs Dur5 ing Coronavirus Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. STATE AND LOCAL FAIR GRANT PROGRAM. 

7 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4611 IS

1 (1) COVERED ENTITY.—The term ‘‘covered en2 tity’’ means a State agricultural agency with respon3 sibility for operating a State or local fair. 

4 (2) PROGRAM.—The term ‘‘Program’’ means 

5 the program established under subsection (b). 

6 (3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

7 the Secretary of Agriculture. 

8 (4) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means— 

9 (A) a State; 

10 (B) the District of Columbia; and 

11 (C) a territory of the United States. 

12 (b) ESTABLISHMENT.—Not later than 180 days after 

13 the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall es14 tablish a program to address the effects of the COVID– 

15 19 pandemic on State and local fairs. 

16 (c) GRANT AUTHORITY AND ELIGIBLE ENTITIES.— 

17 In carrying out the Program, the Secretary may make, 

18 on a competitive basis, grants to States in accordance with 

19 this section. 

20 (d) APPLICATIONS.—To be eligible for a grant under 

21 the Program, a State shall submit to the Secretary an ap22 plication in such form, at such time, and containing such 

23 information as the Secretary determines appropriate. 

24 (e) GRANT USES.—A State may only use grant funds 

25 provided under the Program to assist a covered entity in 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4611 IS

1 addressing cost coverage issues relating to the effects of 

2 the COVID–19 pandemic on State and local fairs, includ3 ing by identifying opportunities to provide virtual edu4 cation and entertainment relating to agriculture. 

5 (f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is 

6 authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry 

7 out the Program $5,000,000,000 for each of— 

8 (1) fiscal year 2021; and 

9 (2) each fiscal year thereafter any portion of 

10 which occurs during the period of the national emer11 gency declared by the President under the National 

12 Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) with re13 spect to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID–19). 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
§ 1471.75 Do terms in this part have special meanings? This part uses terms throughout the text that have special meaning. Those terms are defined in subpart I of this part. For example, three important terms are— ( a ) *Exclusion or excluded,* which refers only to discretionary actions taken by a suspending or debarring official under this part or the Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4);
( b ) *Disqualification or disqualified,* which refers to prohibitions under specific statutes, executive orders (other than Executive Order 12549 and Executive Order 12689), or other authorities. Disqualifications frequently are not subject to the discretion of an agency official, may have a different scope than exclusions, or have special conditions that apply to the disqualification; and
( c ) *Ineligibility or ineligible,* which generally refers to a person who is either excluded or disqualified.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 12, 2018. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, October 12, 2018 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A19D0103. TERRY ANTHONY SARGENT v. OCTAVIA M. JOHNSON-SARGENT.
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 2018CV307751
ASSIGNMENTS.

[Hamilton Circuit Court,

January Term, 1898.]

Cox, Smith and Swing, JJ.

#### Hughes et al. v. Dale, Assignee.

Superiority oe Ríen of Execution Revied Prior to an Attachment to Craims of Operatives.

Where property is taken under an execution prior to an assignment, and, by agreement between the assignee and the execution creditor, is held and sold by the assignee for the benefit of the creditor, such property does not pass to the assignee and become assets in his hands, and the lien of the execution is superior to claims of operatives, for work and labor, filed with the assignee.

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton county.

The City Hall Bank obtained a magistrate’s judgment against E. E. Evans & Co. for $288.40 and costs, and made a levy thereunder upon machinery in the defendant’s factory previous to the making of the assignment. Thereafter an agreement was entered into between the bank and Ben B. Dale, assignee, that the property thus levied upon should be sold by the assignee, and the fund so derived should be held by the assignee for the bank to the extent of its judgment with costs, the lien of the bank being thus recognized to be the first and best against said property. At the hearing below Judge Sayler held that the lien of the bank as obtained was first and best, and was prior to the claims of the operatives who, subsequent to the assignment, filed with the county recorder itemized statements of the amount, kind and value of the work performed by them in the said factory within a period of three months preceding the assignment, with all credits and off-sets, and the amounts severally due therefor.

*Oliver B. Jones*and *Scott Bonham,*for the Operatives.

*Schwab & Schultz,*for the Bank.

Swing, J. ;

Cox, J., concurs; Smith, J., dissents.

A majority of the court are of the opinion that the judgment of the court of common pleas in this case should be affirmed, on the ground that the property levied upon by the bank did not pass to the assignee and become part of the assets of this trust by virtue of the assignment, but passed by virtue of an agreement between the bank and the assignee, and therefore did not become assets in his hands as such assignee, to be distributed according to law.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4684 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4684

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 440 Arapahoe Street in Thermopolis, Wyoming, as the ``Robert L. 
                          Brown Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. ROBERT L. BROWN POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 440 Arapahoe Street in Thermopolis, Wyoming, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Robert L. Brown Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Robert L. 
Brown Post Office''.

            Passed the Senate December 3, 2020.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
116th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 4684

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 440 Arapahoe Street in Thermopolis, Wyoming, as the ``Robert L. 
                          Brown Post Office''.
```
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 16, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31158]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12221]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2016-044]


City of Tacoma; Notice of Extension of Time To File Motions To 
Intervene and Protests, and Comments, Final Terms and Conditions, 
Recommendations and Prescriptions

May 10, 2000.
    By letter dated May 8, 2000, Martha Bean, mediator working with the 
City of Tacoma and other parties on the relicensing of the Cowlitz 
River Project, filed on behalf of eight federal, state, and local 
agencies and the City of Tacoma, a request for an extension of time 
until July 15, 2000, to file protests and motions to intervene, and 
comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions, as 
directed by the Commission's notice issued March 15, 2000, in the 
above-docketed project. The request for an extension of time included 
an Agreement in Principal (AIP) Regarding Passage, Production, Hatchery 
and Habitat, and Recreation for the Cowlitz Project that was supported 
by a majority of the agency participants in the relicensing process. In 
the motion, the parties request additional time for legal counsel to 
craft a final settlement document, based on the filed AIP.
    Upon consideration, notice is hereby given that an extension of 
time for the filing of protests and motions to intervene, and final 
comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions is 
granted to and including July 15, 2000.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-12221 Filed 5-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M