alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.1
                                  ------------


                             CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO
                             -----------------------
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             -----------------------
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                             ----------------------
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                  ---------------------------------------------

         In connection with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Integrated
Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2006,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
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 the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act
                  of 1934; and

         2.       the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and result of
                  operations of the Company at the dates and for the period
                  indicated.

         This Certificate has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.



Dated: November 6, 2006                            By: /s/ Bruce Mogel
                                                     -----------------------
                                                      Bruce Mogel
                                                      Chief Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 : CIVIL ACTION NOS.

SMYTHE : 02-4185

WALLACE : 02-4186

COLLINS : 02-4230

WOLFSON : 02-4253

STARMAN : 02-4261

MAXWELL : 02-4275

CLAUNCH : 02-4309

FONOONI : 02-4326

:

vs. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION, ET AL :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 8th day of July , 2002, the court having been

previously advised that the above action cannot proceed to trial and

disposition because of the following reason:

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending disposition of a

related action.

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending determination of

arbitration proceedings.

[ ] - Interlocutory appeal filed 

[x] - Other: Case is placed into suspense pending receipt of the

Case Transfer Order from the Judicial Panel on Multi

District Litigation transferring case to District of

Minnesota.

it is

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this action closed for statistical

purposes and place the matter in the Civil Suspense File, and it is 

FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction; and that the

case be restored to the trial docket when the action is in a status so that it

may proceed to final disposition; this order shall not prejudice the rights of

the parties to this litigation.

BY THE COURT:

 

JOHN R. PADOVA, J.

Case 2:02-cv-04309-JP Document 2 Filed 07/08/2002 Page 1 of 2
Civ. 13 (8/80)

Case 2:02-cv-04309-JP Document 2 Filed 07/08/2002 Page 2 of 2
p. 1 of 2

From: Backfisch Don (NORALNM) [ mailto:Don.Backfisch@noralinc.com ]
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 3:18 PM
To: Putney, David Subject: RE: TF emissions data

David,

Attached is a file with the TF emissions for the te sting done so far this year for the same areas that were tested as part of the ICR. This includes the primary/stack emissions and the monthly secondary/roof emissions. The sheet with the secon dary emissions includes the total emissions when both sources are combined. Let me know if you need anything else.

Don Backfisch Environmental Superintendent Noranda (NYSE: NOR) P. O. Box 70 New Madrid, MO 63869 Phone: (573) 643-2361 x2126 Fax: (573) 643-6721 Email: don.backfisch@noralinc.com Website: www.norandaaluminum.com

From: Putney, David [ mailto:putney.david@epa.gov ]
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 10:08 AM
To: Backfisch Don (NORALNM) Subject: TF emissions data

Hello Don,

We (EPA) are finishing up our review of the emissio ns test results you submitted in response to the Information Collection Request (ICR) sent out in Ma rch of 2013. Thank you so much for the time and eff ort you dedicated to conducting those tests and submitting the results. The next step in the residual risk ana lysis is to develop the risk modeling files for your facility. It is essential that we use the best, most accurate estimates of your facility’s emissions in these files so as to m ost accurately estimate the residual risk from your facility (i.e., the risk remaining after application of the MACT st andards). Through the 2013 ICR we have obtained rec ent, reliable data for emissions of metals and POM from the primary aluminum industry.

However, we did not collect TF data via the 2013 IC R. Since TF affects the multipathway risk assessmen t, the ecological risk assessment, and the acute risk asse ssment a reduction in the estimates of emissions of that pollutant can have a significant impact on the esti mate of residual risk associated with your facility

.

With that in mind, I am asking for some recent data on TF emissions from your facility (e.g., from NES HAP compliance reports). If possible, could you please send me some data (a summary table of values cited in NESHAP compliance reports) for a few recent, repres entative TF emission rates for your facility by COB thisp. 2 of 2

Friday (09/20/13)? This data would allow me to avoi d using the emission rates allowed under the NESHAP to estimate your TF emissions (which would likely over estimate your facility’s TF emissions and the assoc iated risks).

Thanks so much,

David Putney, Environmental Engineer U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Sector Policies and Programs Division 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, RTP, NC 27711 Mail Drop D243-02 Ph: (919) 541-2016 Fax: (919) 541-3207
Email: putney.david@epa.gov
No. 67746.

#### Cajo Trading, Inc., and Advance Shipping et al. *v.*United States,

protests 62/14678, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, 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 plaintiffs was sustained.
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Melinda S. Urion, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer andTreasurer of AmerUs Group Co., certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of AmerUs Group Co.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared; b) [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and34-47986]; c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
a) All significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Dated: August 6, 2004   By /s/ Melinda S. Urion   Melinda S. Urion   Executive Vice President,   Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer   AmerUs Group Co.
47
# C_2017063EN.01001701.xml

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 7 December 2016 — Anstar Oy

(Case C-630/16)

(2017/C 063/24)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Referring court

Helsingin hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Anstar Oy

Applicant:

Other party: Turvallisuus- ja kemikaalivirasto (Tukes)

Other party:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Are mandate M/120 and harmonised standard EN 1090-1 (:2009+A1:2011) drawn up on the basis of that mandate to be interpreted as meaning that the products to be fixed into concrete before it sets (suspension system products used for fixing shell elements and brickwork supports to the building frame, and certain foundation bolts, fastening plates and standard steel parts, bracing systems, column shoes and wall shoes, and balcony connections) listed in points 1 to 4 of the decision of Tukes do not fall within their scope? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are mandate M/120 and harmonised standard EN 1090-1 (:2009+A1:2011) drawn up on the basis of that mandate to be interpreted as meaning that the products to be fixed into concrete before it sets (suspension system products used for fixing shell elements and brickwork supports to the building frame, and certain foundation bolts, fastening plates and standard steel parts, bracing systems, column shoes and wall shoes, and balcony connections) listed in points 1 to 4 of the decision of Tukes do not fall within their scope?

| 2. | Do the Construction Products Regulation, (1) the Commission mandates mentioned in the present case, or EU law otherwise preclude Tukes’s interpretation that the aforesaid products are outside the scope of mandate M/120 and standard EN 1090-1? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do the Construction Products Regulation, (1) the Commission mandates mentioned in the present case, or EU law otherwise preclude Tukes’s interpretation that the aforesaid products are outside the scope of mandate M/120 and standard EN 1090-1?

1

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC (OJ 2011 L 88, p. 5).

1

---
EXHIBIT 31.1


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Kevin S. Kim, certify that:


|   |                                                                               
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | I have reviewed this periodic report on Form 10-K/A of Hope Bancorp, Inc.; and




|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.










|                     |                 
|-------------------- | ----------------
|Dated: April 9, 2018 | /s/ Kevin S. Kim

_____________________________________________________


Kevin S. Kim


President and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2017402EN.01003501.xml

| 27.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 402/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 402/35

---

Order of the General Court of 27 September 2017 — Gaki v Europol

(Case T-366/16) (1)

1

((Action for annulment and damages - Failure to comply with procedural requirements - Applications seeking an injunction - Manifest inadmissibility - Manifest lack of jurisdiction - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2017/C 402/46)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Anastasia-Soultana Gaki (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: initially by A. Heinen, and subsequently by G. Keisers, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) (represented by: D. Neumann and S. Ryder, acting as Agents, and by R. van der Hout and P. Lux, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU requesting that, in essence, Europol be ordered to undertake certain actions, and seeking annulment of the decision of the Joint Supervisory Body of Europol of 4 May 2016 concerning a complaint filed by the applicant, and application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Ms Anastasia-Soultana Gaki is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ms Anastasia-Soultana Gaki is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.

1

---
Case No. 13,073.

#### SMITH v. McCLEOD et al.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 43.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Oct. Term, 1801.

Pleading at Law — Plea to Jurisdiction — When Allowed.

In a court of a limited jurisdiction a plea, that the cause of action did not arise within the jurisdiction of the court, is a plea in bar, and good after office judgment.

Debt, in the court of hustings [by Smith against McCleod & Braden]. Plea to the jurisdiction that the cause of action did not arise within the town of Alexandria.

Plaintiff demurred generally, and contended that the plea was not a proper plea after an office judgment.

Mr. Paw, for defendant,

cited Downman v. Downman, 1 Wash. [Va.] 28; Chumley v. Broom, Carth. 402; 1 Bae. Abr. 35. This is a plea in bar and not in abatement; it is not a dilatory plea — not necessary to be sworn. The plaintiff’s remedy is not by demurrer. He ought to have objected to receiving the plea at the time the office judgment was set aside. The plea is good both in form and substance. Several terms have passed since it was filed. The court cannot now go back and say the plea ought not to have been received. They cannot correct their own errors after the term. But this plea was received in the court of hustings, before the existence of this court.- Gordon v. Prasier, 2 Wash. [Va.] 135.

Mr. Swann, contra,

contended it was a dilatory plea, and if put in at an improper time, the plaintiff might demur, and cited-Imp. PI. 294; Barnes, Notes Cas. 264.

Judgment for defendant, on the demurrer quod breve cassetur.
# C_2016326EN.01002802.xml

| 5.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/28

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 20 July 2016 — Director-General of OLAF v Commission

(Case T-251/16 R)

((Interim measures - Law governing the institutions - Decision to waive the immunity from legal proceedings of the Director-General of OLAF - Measure liable to call into question the independence of the Director-General - Application for suspension of operation - Lack of urgency))

(2016/C 326/50)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Director-General of the European Anti-Fraud Office (represented by: L. Jelínek, Agent, assisted by G.M. Roberti and I. Perego, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Banks, J.-P. Keppenne and J. Baquero Cruz, Agents)

Defendant:

Subject matter

Subject matter

Application based on Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU, seeking to obtain suspension of the operation of Commission Decision C(2016) 1449 final of 2 March 2016 concerning an application for waiver of immunity.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The order of 6 June 2016 made in Case T-251/16 R is set aside. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The order of 6 June 2016 made in Case T-251/16 R is set aside.

| 3. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The costs are reserved.

---
Exhibit 24

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY
THESE PRESENTS:

WHEREAS,
Agere Systems Inc., a Delaware corporation (hereinafter referred to as the  Company),
proposes to file with the Securities and Exchange  Commission, under the provisions of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as  amended, an Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended September 30,  2003; and

WHEREAS,
the undersigned is a Director and/or Officer of the Company, as indicated below  his or
her signature:

NOW,
THEREFORE, the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints John W. Gamble, Jr.,  as
attorney for and in the name, place and stead of the undersigned, and in the  capacity of
the undersigned as a Director and/or Officer of the Company, as  indicated, to execute
and file such Form 10-K and any amendments or supplements  thereto, hereby giving and
granting to said attorney, full power and authority  to do and perform each and every act
and thing whatsoever requisite and  necessary to be done in and about the premises, as
fully, to all intents and  purposes, as the undersigned might or could do if personally
present at the  doing thereof, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorney may
or  shall lawfully do, or cause to be done, by virtue hereof.

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Power of Attorney this 5th day of
December, 2003.

|   |                                          | 
|-- | ---------------------------------------- | 
|By | /s/ Richard L. Clemmer                   | 
|   | Name:  Richard
      L. Clemmer          | 
|   | Title:    Director                       | 
|   |                                          | 
|By | /s/
      John T. Dickson                | 
|   | Name:  John
      T. Dickson             | 
|   | Title:    Chief
      Executive Officer, | 
|   | President
      and Director             | 
|   |                                          | 
|By | /s/
Rajiv L. Gupta                       | 
|   | Name:  Rajiv
      L. Gupta              | 
|   | Title:    Director                       | 
|   |                                          | 
|By | /s/
Richard S. Hill                      | 
|   | Name:  Richard
      S. Hill             | 
|   | Title:    Director                       | 
|   |                                          | 
|By | /s/
Krish A. Prabhu                      | 
|   | Name:  Krish
      A. Prabhu             | 
|   | Title:    Director                       |
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 22, 2020

No. 04

- 19

- 00464

- CR

Troy David CAMPEAU,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 451st Judicial District Court , Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16

- 755

- CR

Honorable Kirsten Cohoon, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s motion for extension of time is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief is

due June 5, 2020.

_________________________________ Liz a A. Rod riguez , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 22nd day of April, 2020

.

___________________________________ MICHAE L A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
Before the Third Division,

October 2, 1946

No. 51336.

#### Protest 3606-K of Suzuki & Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Nippon Co.*(32 C. C. P. A. 164, C. A. D. 303). In accordance therewith the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1540 was sustained.
NAVY CASH® 

SOP CHANGE NOTICE

NAVSUP PUB 727

Navy Cash Fleet Support Groups

NAVSUP Fleet Logistics Centers 

Norfolk 

San Diego 

Yokosuka 

Navy Cash SOP Change Notice 2020-001 

Subject: SHIP’S STORE PROFITS TRANSFER TO MWR MERCHANT PROCEDURES

Attention: Supply Officers / Disbursing Officers / Navy Cash Accountable Officers / Navy Cash Deputies 

THIS CHANGE NOTICE HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO 

THE CURRENT NAVY CASH SOP 2.0 DATED MAY 21, 2020.

CANCELLED 5.21.2020