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 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of Bluerock Residential Growth REIT, Inc. (the “Company”)
hereby certify, to such officers’ knowledge, that:



| | (i) | The accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) for the period ended December 31, 2016 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|March 31, 2017 | /s/ R. Ramin Kamfar                                           
|-------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------
|               | R. Ramin Kamfar                                               
|               | Chief Executive Officer and President                         
|               | (Principal Executive Officer)                                 
|               |                                                               
|March 31, 2017 | /s/ Christopher J. Vohs                                       
|               | Christopher J. Vohs                                           
|               | Chief Accounting Officer and Treasurer                        
|               | (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)



A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.



The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit
to the Report pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and, accordingly,
is not being filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as part of the Report and is not to be incorporated by reference
into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or
after the date of the Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing).
No. 55682.

protest 156375-K/13065 (New Orleans).

#### Van Waters & Rogers, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protest was dismissed.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-13-00887-CV

Aurora A. RODRIGUEZ, Israel Rodriguez, Edelmiro Romeo Alvarez, Silverio Simon Alvarez, 

Anita Irma Guerra, Emilio Roman Alvarez, Adrian Alvarez, Teodoro Alvarez, Jr., 

and Primitivo Alvarez,

Appellants

v.

Ventura HERNANDEZ,

Appellee

From the 381st Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC-11-423

Honorable Jose Luis Garza, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI, JUSTICE MARION, AND JUSTICE BARNARD

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that appellee recover his costs of this appeal from appellants.

SIGNED November 26, 2014.

_____________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER OF TRANSFER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

ANDRE HAYES, 

Petitioner,

v.

KEN QUINN,

Respondent.

Case No. C06-0507RSL

ORDER OF TRANSFER

This matter comes before the Court on petitioner’s letter requesting that the Court

suspend his sentence. Petitioner was previously warned that “[a]ny further requests for

relief contained in letters will not be considered.” (Dkt. #24).

Even if the Court were inclined to consider petitioner’s request, it is without

jurisdiction to do so. The Ninth Circuit has made clear that § 2254 is the exclusive

avenue for a state prisoner to challenge the constitutionality of his detention when the

prisoner is in custody pursuant to a state court judgment. White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d

1002, 1007 (9th Cir. 2004). Because petitioner is challenging his sentence, his current

motion must be construed as a request for relief pursuant to § 2254. However, Hayes’

prior petition challenging the same conviction was dismissed with prejudice. 

Accordingly, the instant petition must be deemed successive. This Court is without

Case 2:06-cv-00507-RSL-MJB Document 27 Filed 03/18/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER OF TRANSFER - 2

jurisdiction to consider a successive petition or motion until the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals has authorized its filing. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Accordingly, this case is

hereby TRANSFERRED to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in the interests of justice,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1631 and Ninth Circuit Rule 22-3.

Petitioner is advised that this transfer does not of itself constitute compliance with 

' 2244(b)(3) and Ninth Circuit Rule 22-3. Petitioner must still file a motion for leave to

proceed in the Court of Appeals and make the showing required by ' 2244(b)(2).

The Clerk of the Court is directed to transfer petitioner’s motion to suspend his

sentence (Dkt. #26) to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Clerk shall, however,

retain a copy of the motion and of this Order in the docket. 

DATED this 18th day of March, 2010.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00507-RSL-MJB Document 27 Filed 03/18/10 Page 2 of 2
From: ya_ya_peggy@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:50:36 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Pegy Sell

Salisbury, MD 21804
No. 64608.

#### Chelsea Import Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 59/26741 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the principles herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C.C.P.A. 112, C.A.D. 351), and that five cases of decorated chinaware (dinner sets), reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited, it was held that duty is not assessable upon the five cases of chinaware, which were reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protest was sustained to this extent.
II

Calendar No. 463

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 47

Disapproving the extension of the waiver authority contained in section 402(c)

of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to Vietnam.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 4 (legislative day, JUNE 2), 1998

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself and Mr. HELMS) introduced the

following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

JULY 10, 1998

Reported by Mr. ROTH, without amendment, unfavorably

JOINT RESOLUTION

Disapproving the extension of the waiver authority contained

in section 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect

to Vietnam.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That Congress does not approve the extension of the au4 thority contained in section 402(c) of the Trade Act of

5 1974 recommended by the President to Congress on June

6 3, 1998, with respect to Vietnam.
Calendar No. 463

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 47

JOINT RESOLUTION

Disapproving the extension of the waiver authority

1974 with respect to Vietnam.contained in section 402(c) of the Trade Act of

JULY 10, 1998

Reported without amendment, unfavorably
(October 30, 1995)

#### Sheryl Benjamin, Respondent, v David L. Cannold, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[633 NYS2d 197]

—In an action for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to have her married name, "Benjamin”, inscribed on the facade of the Cannold family mausoleum, the defendant David L. Cannold appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Collabella, J.), entered December 23, 1994, which denied his motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for entry of a judgment declaring that the plaintiff is not entitled to have her married name, "Benjamin”, inscribed on the facade of the Cannold family mausoleum.

The Cannold family mausoleum was built by Sidney Cannold. Upon his death, ownership devolved to the plaintiff and her brother, the appellant David L. Cannold. Under the governing statute, as well as the regulations of the cemetery where the mausoleum is located, the plaintiff has no legally cognizable right to alter the mausoleum’s facade without her brother’s consent *(see,*Not-For-Profit Corporation Law § 1512 [a], [b]; Rules & Regulations of Mount Pleasant Westchester Cemetery Corp. art VIII). Accordingly, the appellant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
Before the First Division,

January 20, 1954

No. 57768.

protest 716208-G (New York).

#### M. S. & J. A. Workman, Inc. *v.*United States,

*373Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise described on the invoice as “moufflons,” with or without other words of description or qualification, consists of goatskins from which, during the processing in China, the long guard hairs which cover the skin were plucked out by hand, leaving intact the relatively short hairs comprising the underfur, and that, otherwise, said moufflons were similar in all material respects to the goatskins the subject of *United States*v. *Winograd Bros., Inc.*(32 C. C. P. A. 153, C. A. D. 302). In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following *United States*v. *Wotton*(53 Fed. Rep. 344), it was held that plucking the skins is not a dressing process. The claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was therefore sustained.
Before the First Division,

July 28, 1954

No. 58293.

protest 214576-K (Philadelphia).

#### F. B. Vandegrift *&*Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

*329Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of transformers the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 57622, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. P69/113.

protests 66/6000-15242, etc. (Chicago).

#### Heads & Threads *v.*United States,

Newman, J.

In accordance with submission on agreed statement of facts that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of bolts similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Heads and Threads, Division of MSL Industries, Inc.*v. *United States*(60 Cust. Ct. 308, C.D. 3374), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 791 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 791

  Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives in support of 
    Federal and State funded home and community-based services for 
   individuals with disabilities of any age, especially the elderly.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 1, 2007

   Mr. Hastings of Florida (for himself, Mr. Wexler, and Ms. Castor) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                         on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives in support of 
    Federal and State funded home and community-based services for 
   individuals with disabilities of any age, especially the elderly.

Whereas Federal and State financial assistance is provided for nursing home care 
        under the Medicare and Medicaid programs for elderly individuals and 
        disabled individuals;
Whereas home and community-based services are a valuable cost-effective 
        alternative to institutional care that benefits both the individual 
        receiving such services and the Federal and State programs that fund 
        such services;
Whereas studies document improved outcomes and better quality of care and life 
        for elderly individuals and disabled individuals who are furnished 
        health care in the individuals' homes or other community settings in 
        contrast to nursing homes;
Whereas publicly funded programs that cover home and community-based services 
        for elderly individuals and disabled individuals have limited reach;
Whereas Federal and State programs provide limited support of home and 
        community-based services which serve as an alternative to institutional 
        care;
Whereas support is needed to develop consistent quality assurance measures for 
        home and community-based services;
Whereas individuals receiving home and community-based services deserve an 
        assurance of protection from abuse and neglect; and
Whereas home and community-based services benefit not only our parents and 
        grandparents, but also our children and grandchildren: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives 
that--
            (1) Federal and State financial assistance should be 
        increased, and access should be broadened, for publicly 
        supported home and community-based services for individuals 
        with disabilities; and
            (2) there should be implemented on both the Federal and 
        State levels more unified training and supervision standards 
        for certified nurse aides and homecare aides.
                                 <all>
```
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Banking Act of 1935

              																	United States. Congress. House. Committee on Banking and Currency, 1865-1974					 and 	Seventy-Fourth Congress, 1935-1937. 						*Banking Act of 1935 : Hearings Before the Committee on Banking and Currency, House of Representatives, Seventy-Fourth Congress, First Session, on H.R. 5357, February 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, March 1, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, April 2, 8, 1935*,												Washington: 								U.S. Government Printing Office, 										February 21-April 8, 1935,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/831,			accessed on September 9, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-20-00127-CV

CAROLYN WILLIAMS, Appellant

V.

LADERA, Appellee

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2

of Denton County (CV-2020-00600-JP)

January 21, 2021

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the 

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Brian Walker

 Justice Brian Walker
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,175
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       80
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,604
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,276
<PP&E>                                           8,090
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,015
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,032
<BONDS>                                          2,978
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            57
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,847
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,015
<SALES>                                          5,475
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,475
<CGS>                                            3,117
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,344
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  27
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,013)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (394)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (619)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (619)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)
        

</TABLE>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 ORDER REQUIRING PRODUCTION OF

PLAINTIFF’S DAMAGES SPREADSHEET - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

PETER TILTON, 

Plaintiff,

v.

THE MCGRAW-HILL COMPANIES, INC.,

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-0098RSL

ORDER REQUIRING PRODUCTION

OF PLAINTIFF’S DAMAGES

SPREADSHEET

Defendants, in their motion to dismiss (Dkt. #36), argued that plaintiff had refused to

produce a copy of a spreadsheet he created detailing the damages he seeks in this action. During

the oral argument on the motion, the Court ordered plaintiff to provide a copy of the spreadsheet

to the Court for an in camera review.

The Court has now reviewed the spreadsheet, and based on that review, ORDERS

plaintiff to produce a copy of the spreadsheet to defendants within ten days of the date of this

order. The spreadsheet does not contain or reference attorney-client communications. Although

plaintiff created the document at the direction of his counsel, the document does not contain

strategy or the mental impressions of counsel. Defendants have shown substantial need to

obtain the document. They are entitled to learn the nature of and basis for the damages plaintiff

Case 2:06-cv-00098-RSL Document 116 Filed 03/07/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 ORDER REQUIRING PRODUCTION OF

PLAINTIFF’S DAMAGES SPREADSHEET - 2

seeks. Defendants are unable to obtain its equivalent by other means. Plaintiff provided only

summary information on the topic during his deposition and in response to written discovery

requests.

 

DATED this 7th day of March, 2007.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00098-RSL Document 116 Filed 03/07/07 Page 2 of 2
No. 67149.

protests 60/22129, etc. (Charleston).

#### Transamerican Match Corporation *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *Falcon Sales Company*and *J. J. Murphy & Co.*v. *United States*(47 Cust. Ct. 129, C.D. 2292), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Manganesedeposits of the United States with sections on foreign deposits, chemistry, anduses**
 
Report | Plate
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:427
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000958894
 
August 1, 2018