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

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of The Boyds Collection, Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jan L. Murley, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1)             The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

2)             The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

*A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, orotherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within theelectronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has beenprovided to The Boyds Collection, Ltd. and will be retained by The BoydsCollection, Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.*

 

 
| /s/ Jan L.  Murley            |   |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Jan L. Murley                 |   |
|  Chief Executive Officer |   |
| May 14, 2004                  |   |

 

1

----
Exhibit
      32.1














**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
      SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**








Each
      of
      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 this Quarterly
      Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 fully complies with
      the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
      as amended, and the information contained in such report fairly presents, in
      all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.








This
      12th
      day of May, 2006.








/s/
                Charles M. Jones, IIICharles
                M. Jones, IIIChief
                Executive Officer/s/
                David J. BarankoDavid
                J. BarankoChief
                Financial Officer
§ 4050.101 Purpose and scope. ( a ) *In general.* This subpart describes PBGC's missing participants program for single-employer defined benefit retirement plans covered by title IV of ERISA. The missing participants program is a program to hold retirement benefits for missing participants and beneficiaries in terminated retirement plans and to help them find and receive the benefits being held for them. For a plan to which this subpart applies, this subpart describes what the plan must do upon plan termination if it has missing participants or beneficiaries who are entitled to distributions. This subpart applies to a plan only if it is a single-employer defined benefit plan that— ( 1 ) Is described in section 4021(a) of ERISA and not in any paragraph of section 4021(b) of ERISA and
( 2 ) Terminates in a standard termination or in a distress termination described in section 4041(c)(3)(B)(i) or (ii) of ERISA (“sufficient distress termination”).
( b ) *Plans that terminate but do not close out.* This subpart does not apply to a plan that terminates but does not close out, such as a plan that terminates in a distress termination described in section 4041(c)(3)(B)(iii) of ERISA (“insufficient distress termination”).
( c ) *Individual account plans.* This subpart does not apply to an individual account plan under section 3(34) of ERISA, even if it is described in the same plan document as a plan to which this subpart applies. This subpart also does not apply to a plan to the extent that it is treated as an individual account plan under section 3(35)(B) of ERISA. For example, this subpart does not apply to employee contributions (or interest or earnings thereon) held as an individual account. (Subpart B deals with individual account plans.)
(75 South. 1004)

#### ALEXANDER v. STATE.

(6 Div. 152.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

May 8, 1917.)

Appeal from Criminal Court, Jefferson County; H. P. Heflin, Judge. George Alexander was .convicted of crime, and appeals.

Affirmed.

W. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.

BROWN, P. J.

The appellant reserved no bill of exceptions, and prosecutes this appeal on the record proper. We find no error in the record. Affirmed.
#### Robert L. SWANSON *v.*STATE of Arkansas

5580

471 S.W. 2d 351

Opinion delivered October 11, 1971

*Robert L. Swanson,*pro se.

*Ray Thornton,*Attorney General; *Gene O’Daniel,*Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Conley Byrd, Justice.

Appellant Robert L. Swanson was convicted of burglary and sentenced to 19 years in the penitentiary. For reversal he contends among other things that the court erred in failing to try him within two terms of court as required by Ark. Stat. Ann. § 43-1708 (Repl. 1964), and that the court erred in allowing proof of other crimes.

*148The record shows that appellant was arrested on August 17, 1968, in the night time in the walk-in cooler of the Warehouse Market, West Memphis, Arkansas, while in the act of peeling the Warehouse Market’s safe. The State at that time sought an early trial date, but appellant escaped. He was later arrested in Michigan where detainers were placed upon him by the State of Arkansas and other jurisdictions. As a result, he was turned over to the federal authorities and eventually placed in the federal reformatory at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, on April 13, 1969. In May the State filed a detainer warrant. On August 29, 1969, the Leavenworth authorities at appellant’s request informed the State that appellant was an inmate there, serving a ten year sentence for bank burglary. As a result of a petition for writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum filed on September 5, 1970, appellant was returned to the State and tried at the September 1970 term of court upon the charge of burglarizing the Warehouse Market. During that trial the State was permitted to prove that appellant had also burglarized Stimson’s Super Market. The trial court permitted such evidence on the theory that it showed criminal intent.

The terms of the Crittenden Circuit Court criminal division begin on the third Monday in February and September of each year. Before appellant, a fugitive, could invoke the benefits of the two term provisions of Ark. Stat. Ann. § 43-1708, it is necessary for him to show that he has made demand for a trial, *Merritt*v. *State,*244 Ark. 921, 428 S. W. 2d 66 (1968). We find the information forwarded by the Leavenworth officials to be woefully inadequate to constitute a demand for trial.

The trial court erred in admitting proof of the burglary of Stimson’s Super Market, see *Alford*v. *State,*223 Ark. 330, 266 S. W. 2d 804 (1954). The proof here leaves no doubt of appellant’s intention to burglarize the Warehouse Market since he was inside, peeling the safe when he was apprehended. The injustice of permitting the State to prove the Stimson burglary in the Warehouse burglary trial, when such evidence is not otherwise admissible, is demonstrated by the fact that *149appellant can still be tried on the Stimson charge and receive yet another penalty, even though the jury may have been led to increase the sentence in the Warehouse trial.

Appellant raises other issues, most of which involve the proof introduced as to the Stimson burglary. Since they are not apt to arise on a new trial, we omit any discussion of the same.

Reversed.

Fogleman, J., not participating.
#### James S. Colburn and Another *versus*Shubael Downes.

A bail bond was holden sufficient, although the Christian names of both the plain tiffs were mistaken in the bond.

This was a *scire facias*to have execution against the defendant as bail for one *Thomas Burton.*The plaintiffs allege that they, *James S. Colburn*and *William Gill,*commenced their action against *Burton,*and that the defendant, *Downes,*with one *John T. Downes,*since deceased, was bail and surety for said *Burton,*not only foi his appearance to answer the plaintiffs, by the names of *John S*
      *28
      *Colburn*and *George W. Gill,*upon the process aforesaid, but also for his abiding the judgment, &c.

* The defendant pleaded that he never became bail, and tendered.an issue to the country ; and the same, being joined by the plaintiffs, came on for trial at the last November term in this county, before *Parker,*J.

The plaintiffs produced the bail bond, in which was the misnomer above recited; but the plaintiffs were therein truly described as “ of *Boston-,*in the county of *Suffolk,*merchants and copartners in trade, jointly negotiating in business under the firm of *Colburn fy Gill.”*The objection of the defendant to reading the same in evidence being overruled by the judge, the cause was taken from the jury; the defendant suffered a default, subject to the opinion of the Court on the above direction of the judge.

*Per Curiam.*

The bond is unquestionably sufficient to hold the defendant. Notwithstanding the extreme carelessness of the sheriff, or his clerk, the bond contains a sufficient description of the plaintiffs. Let the execution issue, as prayed for. *(a)*

ADDITIONAL NOTE.

[A bail bond with blank condition is void. — *Perny*vs. *Dobbins, 2 Bai.*343. — Acc. *Holding*vs. *Raphael,*5 *Nev. M.*655.

See *Bay*vs. *Hall, 7 Holst.*204. — *Handley*vs. *Ewins,*4 *Bibb,*505.— *Saunders*vs. *Hughes, 2 Bai.*504.— *Grottick*vs. *Phillips,*9 *Bing.*721. — F. H.]

**[ *Willis*vs. *Barrett, 2 Stark,*c. 29. — *Moller*vs. *Lambert,*2 *Camp.*548. — *Craig*vs. *Brown,*1 *Peters's Rep.*139. — *Scandover*vs. *Warne,*2 *Camp.*270. — Ed.]
NUMBER 13-16-00449-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

EX PARTE JOSE ISAI CALVILLO RAMOS

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 206th District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Jose Isai Calvillo Ramos, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal 

seeking to challenge an order denying a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus. On 

August 15, 2016, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it appeared that the order 

from which the appeal was taken was not an appealable order, and requested correction 

of this defect within ten days or the appeal would be dismissed. Appellant has failed to 

respond to the Court’s directive. 
2

Jurisdiction to grant post-conviction habeas corpus relief in felony cases rests 

exclusively with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 

11.07, § 5 (West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.); Bd. of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene 

v. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); In 

re McAfee, 53 S.W .3d 715, 717–18 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. 

proceeding). Therefore, we are without jurisdiction to grant the requested relief.

The appeal is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

6th day of October, 2016.
PROMISSORY NOTE



$1,000.00                                                         March 5, 1999


        The undersigned, Navis Technologies, LTD ("Payor"), promises to pay to
John R. Varsames ("Payee") or order the principal sum of one thousand and 00/100
DOLLARS ($1,000.00) with interest accruing on the unpaid principal balance at
the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum, the entire principal balance plus
accrued interest being due and payable on demand.

        Such payment(s) shall be made at Payee's residence located at
Burlington, Vermont, or at such other place as the Payee hereof may designate in
writing, and such payments and any other sum due hereunder shall be made in
lawful money of the United States of America.

        This Note may be prepaid without penalty.

        In the case of default, the Payor agrees to pay the reasonable cost of
collection, including reasonable attorneys' fees.

        Every maker, guarantor and endorser waives presentment, demand, protest,
and notice and agrees that the time of payment may be extended without notice or
previous consent.

                                                 Navis Technologies, LTD




ATTEST:    /S/                                   By:  /S/
       ---------------------------                  ---------------------------
       Peter M. Doremus, Secretary                  John R. Varsames, President




Paid in Full

Date:_____________________


Signature:________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S AUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER
31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,998,059
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   88,540
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,276,834
<PP&E>                                         181,765
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,582,495
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,085,898
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       161,468
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,335,129
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,582,495
<SALES>                                      1,377,770
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,377,770
<CGS>                                        3,087,736
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,442,834
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (305,366)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             422,049
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,181,747)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,181,747)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,181,747)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.27)


</TABLE>
cmsrenewalnotice.htm


    Back to From 8-K

    Exhibit 10.1

     

     

    CMS LOGO

     

     

    
      	
              Date:

            	
              October 28, 2009

               

            
	
               

               

            	
               

               

            
	
              To:

            	
              Medicare Advantage and Section 1876 Cost Plan
  Organizations

            
	
              From:

               

            	
              Teresa DeCaro, RN, M.S.

              Acting Director 

              Medicare Drug and Health Plan Contract Administration
  Group

            
	
               

               

            	
               

               

            
	
              Subject:    

               

            	
               2010 Service Area Expansion & Contract
      Renewal [contract number]

               

               

               

            

                                                                                       


    The
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is pleased to inform you that
we are renewing your contract and have approved your organization’s service area
expansion application effective January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010. This
approval/renewal is issued based on our receipt of your 2010 benefit
attestation, all applicable contract addenda, and our approval of your
bid.  CMS approves each benefit plan for a particular service area. 
Your organization’s contractual authority to offer benefits in its CMS-approved
service area is documented by your signed benefit attestation. 


    


    If your
organization offers a prescription drug plan benefit package, an executed copy
of your new Part D addendum is included as an attachment to this memo.  If
your organization applied for and was found qualified to offer new 2010
Employer/Union-Only Group Waiver Plans (EGWP)/ “800 series” plan benefit
packages, an executed EGWP addendum is included as an attachment to this memo.


    


    CMS will
continue to provide Medicare Advantage and Prescription Drug Benefit program
information (including information about your CMS Central Office and Regional
Office contacts) to contracting organizations through the Health Plan Management
System (HPMS) and the CMS website.  It is imperative that you monitor both
websites to stay current on program requirements and information.  In
addition, you must ensure that your organization’s contact information in HPMS
remains up-to-date since this is our primary source for contacting our
contracting organizations.

    


    We look
forward to continuing to work with you in serving Medicare beneficiaries in your
service area.  If you have any questions, please contact your Regional
Office Account Manager.  

    


    Attachment(s)
#### § 452.76 Campaigning by union officers.

Unless restricted by constitutional provisions to the contrary, union officers and employes retain their rights as members to participate in the affairs of the union, including campaigning activities on behalf of either faction in an election. However, such campaigning must not involve the expenditure of funds in violation of section 401(g). Accordingly, officers and employees may not campaign on time that is paid for by the union, nor use union funds, facilities, equipment, stationery, etc., to assist them in such campaigning. Campaigning incidental to regular union business would not be a violation.
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 43 

Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate, and a 

conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 3, 2007 

Mr. REID submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was considered 

and agreed to 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the 

Senate, and a conditional adjournment of the House 

of Representatives. 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That when the Senate recesses or adjourns 

3 on any day from Friday, August 3, 2007, through Friday, 

4 August 31, 2007, on a motion offered pursuant to this 

5 concurrent resolution by its majority leader or his des6 ignee, it stand recessed or adjourned until 12 noon on 

7 Tuesday, September 4, 2007, or such other time on that 

8 day as may be specified by its majority leader or his des9 ignee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until the time 

10 of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent 


cnoel on PRODPC75 with BILLS
2 

SCON 43 ATS 

1 resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the 

2 House adjourns on any legislative day from Friday, Au3 gust 3, 2007, through Wednesday, August 8, 2007, on a 

4 motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by 

5 its majority leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until 

6 2 p.m. on Tuesday, September 4, 2007, or until the time 

7 of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent 

8 resolution, whichever occurs first. 

9 SEC. 2. The majority leader of the Senate and the 

10 Speaker of the House, or their respective designees, acting 

11 jointly after consultation with the minority leader of the 

12 Senate and the minority leader of the House, shall notify 

13 the Members of the Senate and House, respectively, to re14 assemble at such place and time as they may designate 

15 if, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it. 

Æ 


cnoel on PRODPC75 with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 7 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  1st Session
S. J. RES. 7

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Providing for the reappointment of Roger W. Sant as a citizen regent of 
          the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That, in accordance with 
section 5581 of the Revised Statutes (20 U.S.C. 43), the vacancy on the 
Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, in the class other 
than Members of Congress, occurring because of the expiration of the 
term of Roger W. Sant of Washington, D.C., is filled by the 
reappointment of Roger W. Sant, for a term of 6 years, effective 
October 25, 2007.

            Passed the Senate July 31, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              S. J. RES. 7

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

Providing for the reappointment of Roger W. Sant as a citizen regent of 
          the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.
```