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



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the annual report of Aspen
Diversified Fund LLC (the “Fund”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 31, 2011 (the “Report”), I, Kenneth E. Banwart, Managing Partner of Aspen Partners, Ltd,
Managing Member of the Fund, 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
forgoing Report on Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|-- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. |  | the
information contained in the Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Fund.
|-- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





| | Date: March 31, 2011                         
| | ---------------------------------------------
| |                                              
| |                                              
| | /s/ Kenneth E. Banwart                       
| | Kenneth E. Banwart, Managing Partner         
| | Aspen Partners, Ltd.                         
| | Managing Member of Aspen Diversified Fund LLC
ORIGINA1 RLED 

MAY 3 0 2024 

Bowen Greenwood 

IN THE SUPREME COURT Ocnisanett MONTANA 

No. DA 24-0260 

CHOTEAU ACANTHA PUBLISHING, INC. and MONTANA FREE PRESS, 

Appellees/Petitioners, 

v. 

GREG GIANFORTE, in his official capacity as GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF 

MONTANA; and JENNIFER STUTZ, Chair of the Govemor's Advisory CoUncil 

for the Ninth Judicial District Vacancy, 

Appellants/Respondents. 

Grant of Extension 

For good cause appearing, Appellant Governor Greg Gianforte's Unopposed 

motion to extend the deadline for Appellant's opening brief is GRANTED. Mont. 

R. App. P. 26(1). Appellant's opening brief shall be due on July 3, 2024. 

05/30/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0260
### Regulatory Evaluation Docket No. fAA - 

### Directorate Identifier:

I! t'o/1 rnak,· c ·!rung,'.\ tu tlw ru lr r.• , in the ta hlc h e i/J\r. **_I'(I II**  **JIIII~ l'll\111"1'**  till · !olul . ' llflclclle oc ·c,.r.!iuglt · (I 111<'1' 

### c/11 JltJ/ . c

· /i, k trJ/' 'f uh) ill/11 ttJid then 11/11 ()/!lie' I'IUIII,'.!.r.!cl Ct'/1 . Estimated Costs: Action Costs per Product (e.g ., aircraft. engine. (e.g .. Inspection, prop eller, appliance) Wo rk-hours Labor P a rts Cost To tal Cos ts Number of Total Cost replacement) (i ncl ude cos t (labo r + 

## u.s. for U.S. Fl eet Do no/ include 011- condition costs here access. test ing, ( @$ 85/h parts) Registered and c l ose-up) our) Products Pressure 

### Decay 2.0 $0 

### 6.000 Test Ch eck two temperature 1.0 $0 

### 6.000 switches Check solenoid valve and 

### fuel 2.0 $0 

### 6.000 pump

The known number of product s in compliance: Total C osts of compliance for U . S. fleet : $2,550,000 Costs covered unde r warran ty 

### (if known) $



# -- On-Condition Costs:



## ~ Action W o rk-hours Labor c o st Parts Cost Cost per Product (e.g .. Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) testing. and close - replacement) up)

**~**

(,U)

**~** 

## ¥:!-d •1': 

## dN

**~f<.(Y)** \ 

### 7

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field 10 explain anything in the Estimated Custs table that was assumed or might no t he

**ohviou.~.** This field cw1 also he used to explain II'CifTWlfJ ' costs): 

### Executive Order 12866: Could the AD be considered a ..significant regulatory action .. ?@ YES* 

# 0

**NO~** 

### *Explanation: DOT 

### Regul a tory Polici es and Proce dures : Is the AD significant? 

## @ YES* 

# 0 NO 

### !8] *Explanation: 

### Reg ulato ry Flexibilit y Act: Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for either a Yes or No answer. 

# G YES 

# 0 NO 

### !8] Explanation: 

### Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska 

### where aviation might be the only mode of transportation ? 

# 0 YES*0

**NO~** 

### *Explanation:



### 8
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 202 (Friday, October 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 72428]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22599]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Article 1904; 
Binational Panel Review: Notice of Panel Decision

AGENCY: United States Section, NAFTA Secretariat, International Trade 
Administration, Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Panel Decision.

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

SUMMARY: On October 5, 2023, the Binational Panel issued its Decision 
in the matter of Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada: Final 
Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Affirmative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances (Secretariat 
File Number: USA-CDA-2017-1904-03). The Binational Panel affirmed in 
part and remanded in part the Department of Commerce's Final 
Determination.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vidya Desai, United States Secretary, 
NAFTA Secretariat, Room 2061, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 
DC 20230, (202) 482-2311.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter 19 of Article 1904 of NAFTA provides 
a dispute settlement mechanism involving trade remedy determinations 
issued by the Government of the United States, the Government of 
Canada, and the Government of Mexico. Following a Request for Panel 
Review, a Binational Panel is composed to provide judicial review of 
the trade remedy determination being challenged and then issue a 
binding Panel Decision. There are established Rules of Procedure for 
Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews, which were adopted by the three 
governments for panels requested pursuant to Article 1904(2) of NAFTA. 
The notice of this Binational Panel's Decision is being published 
pursuant to Rule 70. For the complete Rules, please see https://can-mex-usa-sec.org/secretariat/agreement-accord-acuerdo/nafta-alena-tlcan/rules-regles-reglas/article-article-articulo_1904.aspx?lang=eng.

    Dated: October 6, 2023.
Vidya Desai,
U.S. Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat.
[FR Doc. 2023-22599 Filed 10-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-GT-P
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

American Bancorp of New Jersey, Inc.
365 Broad Street
Bloomfield, New Jersey  07003

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.333-131398, 333-131397 and 333-137801 on Form S-8 filed by American Bancorp of New Jersey, Inc., of our
reports dated December 11, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
American Bancorp of New Jersey, Inc. and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting, which reports appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of American Bancorp of
New Jersey, Inc. for the year ended September 30, 2007.

Crowe Chizek and Company LLC

Livingston, New Jersey
December 11, 2007
No. 54428.

#### Casso, Guerra & Company et al. *v.*United States,

protests 126834-K, etc. (Laredo).

Johnson, Judge:

The merchandise the subject of this action consists of laundry-soap in three grades, the “Grayson,” the “Gander,” and “30-30.” Each grade is-packed in boxes of 80 bars each. The entries covered by protests 126834-K,. 126833-K, and 126835-K were invoiced, entered, and appraised at a unit of an 18-kilo box, net packed. The entries covered by protests 125235-K and 125236-K were invoiced and entered at the same prices per box but appraised at units of a. *219case of “18 kilos net packed..” No appeals for a reappraisement were filed by the importers. The plaintiffs claim that the collector illegally reappraised the merchandise. Further, it is claimed that the liquidation by the collector is contrary to law in that the collector failed to liquidate according to the entered and appraised value per unit of quantity, to wit, a box or case containing 80 bars at the invoice price per case, unit value.

At the trial counsel for the plaintiffs contended that the rate of duty was figured by the collector in an arbitrary and illegal manner; that the soap was actually bought and sold on the per box basis of 80 bars each, as entered and appraised.

Two witnesses testified for the plaintiffs, the American buyer and the foreign-1 seller. Each of these witnesses testified that the soap was bought and sold in' units of a box of “so many pieces,” that is, 80 pieces to the box or case. All of the invoice and entry papers were admitted in evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs. The weight returned by the weigher was not shown to be erroneous.

Plaintiffs’ contention that the collector illegally appraised the merchandise when he took the total weight returned by the weigher and divided it into units of 18 kilos in order to assess duty upon such units at the ad valorem rate applicable thereto, is not in accordance with the facts as shown by the invoices. The unit of value was not “per case” or “per box” as claimed but rather “per 18 kilo case” or “per 18 kilo box.” In the two entries heretofore mentioned, where the unit value appeared upon the invoice as “per box,” the appraiser advanced the value by making a return of value at units of an 18-kilo box. In other words, the invoice prices, and the prices, as appraised, are in units of 18 kilos. Therefore, the collector was acting in accordance with law and with the value returned by the appraiser when he arrived at the total value of the shipment by dividing the net weight as returned by the weigher by the appraised unit of value, to wit, 18 kilos.

For the reasons stated judgment will be entered in favor of the Government.
#### Varnum M. KRUMM, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Howard PAINTER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 00-7416.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 2001.

Decided July 19, 2001.

Varnum M. Krumm, Jr., pro se. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Dawn Ellen Warfield, Office of the Attorney General of West Virginia, Charleston, WV, for appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Varnum J. Krumm, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 *&*Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See Krumm v. Painter,*No. CA-99-89-5 (N.D.W.Va. Sept. 25, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented *207in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
No. 56809.

#### Alexanders Dept. Stores, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 172122-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of wooden boxes similar in all material respects to those the subject of *X-Acto Crescent Products Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(27 Cust. Ct. 190, C. D. 1368), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
**Exhibit 4.20**
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 ON MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

DAMION NATHANIEL BROMFIELD, 

Petitioner, 

v.

A. NEIL CLARK, et al., 

Respondents. 

CASE NO. C06-757RSM

ORDER ON MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION 

This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s June 11,

2007 Order denying him bond. Dkt. # 34. Such motions are disfavored and will be denied in the

absence of “a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority

which could not have been brought to its attention earlier. . . .” Local Rule CR 7(h)(1). The Court

deems it unnecessary to direct respondent to respond to the motion. 

Petitioner has demonstrated no manifest error in the previous ruling, nor facts or legal authority

which could not have been brought to the Court’s attention earlier. His motion amounts to re-argument

of issues presented earlier. The motion for reconsideration is accordingly DENIED. All subsequent

motions filed by petitioner, namely the motion for judicial notice (Dkt. # 35), the amended motion for

bond (Dkt. # 36) and the Motion for change of custody status (Dkt. # 38) are STRICKEN. 

The Clerk shall close the file. Petitioner is advised that he shall file no further motions, apart from

a Notice of Appeal. 

DATED this 4 Day of September 2007.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:06-cv-00757-RSM Document 39 Filed 09/04/07 Page 1 of 1
#### Anthony S. FAIR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Patrick CONROY; Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 01-6566.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 21, 2001.

Decided July 5, 2001.

Anthony S. Fair, pro se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Celia Anderson Davis, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, for appellees.

Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Anthony S. Fair seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 *&*Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See Fair v. Conroy,*No. CA-00-604 (D.Md. Mar. 29, 2001). 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.

*DISMISSED.*
#### C.S. MCCROSSAN CONSTRUCTION, INC., Appellant, v. Joseph W. WESTPHAL, Acting Secretary of the Army, Appellee.

No. 00-1207.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 9, 2001.

*950Before MICHEL, BRYSON and LINN, Circuit Judges.

Judgment

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [B-39-2023]

      ( print page 70640)    
On June 8, 2023, GE Vernova Operations, LLC submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within FTZ 121, in Schenectady, New York.

                    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     inviting public comment (88 FR 39400, June 16, 2023). On October 6, 2023, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including section 400.14.                

Dated: October 6, 2023.

Elizabeth Whiteman,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2023-22571 Filed 10-11-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Before the Third Division,

September 28, 1959

No. 63398.

protests 58/8567, etc. (New York).

#### Quality Brands, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the facts and issues 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 the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importers. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited, it was held that duty and internal revenue tax are not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protests were sustained to this extent.
No. 66109.

#### Paul E. Sernau, Inc. *v.*United States,

#### protests 58/24286, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of plastic back scratchers the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(45 Cust. Ct. 161, C.D. 2218), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
**AD Economic Evaluation**



### Docket No . FAA - 2013 - 0022 Directorate ID : 2012 - SW - 004 - AD Helicopter Model: Bell Model 206L , 206L - 1, 206L - 3, and 206L - 4 Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 695 Helicopters in the US Registry . Reason : The actions of this AD are intended to detect loose or misaligned parts of the servo to prevent failure of the servo and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. Costs : Parts per Helicopter $ 0 Labor per Helicopter ( .5 work-hour x 

### $ 8 5 /workhour for the inspection) $ 42.50 for the inspection Other (Explain) A servo will take about 2 work hours to replace x $85/work hour for a total replacement cost of $170 and parts costing 33,000 for a total cost per helicopter of $33,170. Total Cost per Helicopter $ 42.50 To tal US Fleet Cost $29,538 Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory Flexibility Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : Matt Wilbanks
---

|Coded Tables | 
|------------ | 



|These data are released whenever there are code changes.                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Complete file (3 MB PDF)Cover page and table of contents (500 KB PDF)
Summary tables (205 KB PDF)
Flows tables (700 KB PDF)
Level tables (700 KB PDF)
Balance sheet tables (70 KB PDF)
Supplementary tables (35 KB PDF)
Integrated macroeconomic accounts table (450 KB PDF)

|These files are available in Acrobat (PDF 3) format only.Obtaining the free Acrobat Reader from the Adobe Web Site
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Release dates | 
Announcements | 
Coded tables | Historical data | About| Technical Q&AsCurrent release | 
Screen reader |  
PDF (3 MB) | 
Data Download Program (DDP)  | Preliminary Z.1 Code Updates

Statistical releases

---

Home Economic research and data  Accessibility Contact Us  Last update: December 10, 2015
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

JAMES E. PIMPTION,

Plaintiff,

v.

KAREN NYGAARD, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C06-0629-RSM-MAT

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS

Plaintiff has filed a “motion to set aside for counsel.” (Dkt. #19). In the motion, plaintiff

asks the Court to set aside these proceedings so that he may seek counsel to represent him.

Plaintiff states that he has communicated with “university legal assistance” in Spokane,

Washington and that that organization is willing to represent him if the Court grants permission.

(Dkt. #19 at 1). Having reviewed plaintiff’s motion and the balance of the record, the court does

hereby find and ORDER as follows:

(1) Plaintiff is advised that he may obtain counsel through his own efforts without the

Court’s permission. The Court, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), can request counsel to represent

a party, such as plaintiff, proceeding in forma pauperis, but, as has been previously explained to

Case 2:06-cv-00629-RSM Document 20 Filed 09/12/06 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS

PAGE -2

plaintiff, the Court may do so only in exceptional circumstances. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d

1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984); Aldabe

v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980). The Court has previously ruled that plaintiff has not

demonstrated that this case involves exceptional circumstances that warrant appointment of

counsel. (Dkt. #18). Therefore, the Court will not request that “university legal assistance”

represent plaintiff in this matter. That organization is free to represent plaintiff pro bono, or on

other terms, if it so chooses.

(2) Plaintiff’s request that the Court “set aside” these proceedings so he may obtain

counsel is construed as a request to stay this action. So construed, the request (Dkt. #19) is

DENIED. If plaintiff succeeds in obtaining counsel, counsel may renew the motion or file a

motion to extend the deadlines for discovery previously set by the Court.

(3) The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this Order to plaintiff, to counsel

for defendant, and to the Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez.

DATED this 12th day of September, 2006.

A

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00629-RSM Document 20 Filed 09/12/06 Page 2 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the WESTERN DISTRICT of WASHINGTON

TONY G. HAUGEN,

 

 Plaintiff, 

 

 vs. 

THE FISHING COMPANY OF ALASKA,

INC., et al.,

 Defendant.

 C06-713 RSL

 MINUTE ORDER

 REASSIGNING CASE

Pursuant to the Amended General Order entered by the Chief Judge on

November 3, 2004, this action has been reassigned to the Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, United

States District Judge. 

All future documents filed in this case must bear the cause number C06-713 RSL and bear

the Judge’s name in the upper right hand corner of the document.

Dated this 28th day of June, 2006

BRUCE RIFKIN

Clerk of Court

by: /s/ PETER H. VOELKER

 Peter H. Voelker, Deputy Clerk

Case 2:06-cv-00713-RSL Document 5 Filed 06/28/06 Page 1 of 1