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 THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theAnnual Report of Cap Rock Energy Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/Afor the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David W. Pruitt,Co-Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

(2)                                  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

Dated:  October 3, 2005

 

 
|   |   | By:                                                  | /s/ David W. Pruitt |   |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|---------------------|--------|
|   |   | David W. Pruitt                                      |
|   |   | Co-Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   | (Principal Executive Officer)                        |

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Cap Rock Energy Corporation and will be retained by Cap Rock EnergyCorporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.

 

----
The Bureau of the Fiscal Service is pleased to offer an integrated solution for credit 

and debit card processing within OTCnet. OTCnet’s platform allows agencies to 

accept cash, check, and now in-person credit, debit, and Visa/Mastercard gift card 

payments in a one-stop-shop payment suite.

OTCnet’s card processing solution* supports the Verifone M440 multimedia card terminal, offering high definition color display, touch screen, and full audio and 

video capabilities. 

To read more about key feature and specifications visit: 

Verifone M440 | Verifone

BUREAU OF THE FISCAL SERVICE

Description Part Number Price

M440, 8" DISPLAY, 2GB RAM / 16GB M379-122-20-WWA-5 $538.75

Deployment with Application load and Key Encryption 999-DEP-00218 $18.00

Secure Commerce Architecture (SCA)/Pointe Enterprise 1 ENTERPRISE-PNT-NA $13.00 Per Device/Month

M440 Privacy Shield PPL379-014-01-A $9.20

Cable Assy, Ethernet Ice cube MSC445-010-00-A $65.00

PS +Ferrite, 120VAC/12VDC/1A, 5.5X2, USA M4xx PWR445-001-01-A $45.00

DESCRIPTION: Supply Chain Remediation MSC000-000-01-WWA

PS, 100-240VAC, 12VDC/1A PWR132-001-01-C $21.99

Shipping: estimated cost per unit Shipping $20.00

Total: $730.94

To purchase a terminal, please contact the OTCnet Deployment Team for the card processing hardware order form. 

Then submit the form to all the email addresses listed below and in the body of the email state that the requested 

terminal will be used with the OTCnet SCA solution. 

All orders are to be sent to:

• Sales Orders

NAPointOrders@Verifone.com 

CC: Verifone POC: Ashley Wells

Ashley.Wells@Verifone.com 

• CC: OTCnet Deployment Team

FiscalService.OTCDeployment@citi.com

Questions? 

For additional resources, visit the OTCnet Card Processing page:

https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/otcnet/card-processing.html

Or contact the OTCnet Deployment Team: 703-377-5586

or at Fiscalservice.OTCDeployment@citi.com

OTCnet Card Processing Hardware Overview

Card Terminal, Accessories, and Services Quotes

How to Purchase 

?

Verifone M440 Terminal

*Production of the Verifone MX925 card terminal has ended. Warranty and post-warranty support available through 4/31/27.
# C_2017382EN.01004401.xml

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2017 — Waldhausen v EUIPO (Representation of the silhouette of a horse’s head)

(Case T-717/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark representing the silhouette of a horse’s head - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 382/53)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Waldhausen GmbH & Co. KG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: V. Ekey, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 August 2016 (Case R 1195/2016-4), concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing the silhouette of a horse’s head as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Waldhausen GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Waldhausen GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.

1

---
# C_2018341EN.01001401.xml

| 24.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 341/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 341/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — PS v EIB

(Case T-612/16) (1)

((Civil service - EIB staff - Social security - Accident at work - Total and permanent invalidity - Occupational origin of the disease - System for the insurance of accidents at work and occupational diseases - Contributions to the pension scheme - Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff - Liability - Non-material harm))

(2018/C 341/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: PS (represented by: N. Lhoëst and G. Cludts, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: T. Gilliams, E. Raimond and G. Faedo initially, then T. Gilliams and G. Faedo, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant since November 2013.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders PS to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders PS to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-42/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).

---
1 Ngo, Dan (FAA)

From: Ngo, Dan (FAA)

Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 4:41 PM

To: 'Jesse Moore' Subject: Request for Information - FAA-2015-7197

Dear Mr. Moore:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2015-7197). This information is necessary for the Fe deral Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Describe the aircraft make(s), mode l(s), and type (s)(i.e. - fixed-wing,r otorcraft, lighter-than-air) for the proposed UAS operation. The description(s) should include the maximum weight (including payload) and power source (i.e. battery/gas/propane-powered). This information can be located in the aircraft manual(s).

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov . Once your information is submitted, please save your tracking nu mber and submit your tracking number along with the information submitted to the docket, and any proprietar y information electronically via e-mail to myself and 333exemptions@faa.gov . If you want us to process your request a ny further, we must receive the information described above by 2/17/16. If we do not receive the in formation, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

Dan Ngo

Office of Rulemaking, Aircraft and Airport Rules Division

Federal Aviation Administration
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1




                   DETROIT EDISON SECURITIZATION FUNDING LLC
               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)


<Table>
<Caption>
                                                      Twelve Months Ended
                                                      December 31, 2001
                                                      -----------------
 <S>                                                  <C>
        EARNINGS
        Pre-tax income............................        $      -
        Fixed charges.............................          86,928
                                                          --------
          Earnings................................        $ 86,928
                                                          ========

        FIXED CHARGES
        Interest expense..........................        $ 86,928
                                                          --------
          Fixed charges...........................        $ 86,928
                                                          ========

        Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges........            1.00
                                                              ====
</Table>
Before the

DEPARTM ENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

INTRA-ALASKA MAINLINE

SERVICE MAIL RATES Docket OST-2003-14695

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE COMMENTS ON

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ESTABLISHING NEW MAINLINE SERVICE MAIL RATES

Communications with respect to this

document should be addressed to:

Joseph Anzalone, Esq.

Office of General Counsel

United States Postal Service

475 L’Enfant Plaza SW Washington, DC 20260-1127 joseph.anzalone@usps.gov

Date Filed: September 30, 2011

12 The Postal Service presents brief comments in response to Show Cause Order 2011-9-6 (“the Order”). As to the substance of the rates pr oposed in the Order, the Postal Service has no general objection to the Department’s calcula tions or methodology. However, the Postal Service wishes to raise a concern arising from Lynden Air Cargo’s (LAC) cost data.

On the third page of the Order, under the heading “Nonfuel Line Haul Results,” the Department reports that:

“The increase in costs for LAC seem s to be driven by the significant decrease in airborne hours it ope rated. Those hours decreased by 41 percent, from 11,590 to 6,893 per the carrier’s Form 41, Schedule P5.1, while corresponding direct expenses, wh ich are often driven by airborne

hours, did not decrease as significantly. The re sulting increase in unit costs reflects management’s decision not to trim back personnel and other expenses commensurately with the decrease in hours.”

LAC had a dramatic decrease in operating hours. However, LA C’s direct expenses – which are driven by operating hours – did not have a significant decrease. Th is leads the Postal Service to believe that adopting the proposed rates may in effect put the Postal Service in a position to supplement LAC’s workforce in other areas. The Postal Se rvice questions LAC’s decision not to trim back pe rsonal and other expenses.

The Postal Service objects to the proposed new mainline service mail rates to the extent that LAC’s cost data have produced an inflated value for the new proposed rates. The Department’s proposal should not place the Post al Service in a position to supplement a carrier’s non-mail related operations.
Before the First Division,

August 18, 1948

No. 52503.

protests 131329-K, etc. (New York).

#### Roche-Organon, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question is the same in all material respects as the estrogenic hormone passed upon in *Roche-Organon*v. *United States*(35 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 378). The claim at 10 percent under paragraph 34 was therefore sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 10336)

Entry Nos. 922187; 922188.

#### Toms River Chemical Corp. *v.*United States

(Decided September 20, 1962)

*Eugene R. Piohrell*for the plaintiff.

*Joseph D. Guilfoyle,*Acting-Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

WilsoN, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation entered into between counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States that the merchandise marked “A” and initialed JJO by Examiner J. J. O’Connor, Jr., on the invoice covered by the appeals for reappraisement herein, consists of Anthracene (96/97%), a coal-tar chemical provided for in Paragraph 27(a) (1), Tariff Act of 1930 and appraised on the basis of American selling price as that is defined in Section 402(e), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the correct American selling price for this merchandise, defined as aforesaid, is *27‡*per lb., net packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPUATED AND AGREED that this appeal for reap-praisement be submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find American selling price, as that value is defined in section 402(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54165, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise in question and that such value is 27 cents per pound, net, packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### Edwin Bobb, petitioner, *vs.*State of Maine.

Opinion, June 17, 1942.

*Clarence Scott,*

*Hayden C. Covington,*Brooklyn, N. Y., for the petitoner.

Sitting: Sturgis, C. J., Thaxter, Hudson, Manser, Worster, Murchie, JJ.

Per Curiam.

This is a Petition and Motion to rectify alleged Errors in the Opinion in the case of *State of Maine*v. *Edwin Bobb*argued before the Law Court at the September Term, 1941, and appearing in 138 Me., 242, and 25 Atl. (2d), 229.

A careful examination of this Petition and Motion discloses no error which requires correction.

*Petition dismissed.*

*Motion denied.*
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, John F. Burke, certify that:
1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Annuity and Life Re(Holdings), Ltd.;
2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4.     The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
               (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
               (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as ofthe end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and
               (c) 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 in thecase of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
5.     The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
               (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably 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’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
Date: November 8, 2004 /s/ John F. BurkeName: John F. BurkeTitle: Chief Executive Officer
- 32 -
No. 07-14-00382-CR

Brunita Lilly Frausto

 Appellant

v.

The State of Texas

 Appellee

§

§

§

§

From the 64th District Court of

 Hale County

December 23, 2014

Opinion by Justice Hancock

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated December 23, 2014, it is ordered,

adjudged and decreed that this appeal is dismissed.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis, no costs beyond those that

have been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that inasmuch as the appeal is

dismissed at the appellant’s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and

our mandate will issue forthwith.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o

FILE COPY
No. 57217.

protests 30923-K, etc. (New York).

#### Murray Gottlieb and W. J. Byrnes & Co. of N. Y., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliyer, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the kidskin plates are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Kung Chen*
      *399
      *Fur Corpn.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 266, C. D. 1480), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

Ford, J., concurred.

Mollison, J., dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in C. D. 1480, *supra.*
# C_2017129EN.01000301.xml

| 24.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/3

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 February 2017 — Vedran Vidmar and Others v European Commission

(Case C-240/16 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Action for damages - Act of accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union - Commitments relating to a strategy for judicial reform - Creation followed by the abolition of the position of public bailiff - Damage suffered by persons appointed as public bailiffs - Monitoring of the Republic of Croatia’s commitments by the European Commission - Appeal dismissed - Appeal manifestly inadmissible))

(2017/C 129/03)

Language of the case: Croatian

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Vedran Vidmar, Saša Čaldarević, Irena Glogovšek, Gordana Grancarić, Martina Grgec, Ines Grubišić, Sunčica Horvat Peris, Zlatko Ilak, Mirjana Jelavić, Romuald Kantoci, Svjetlana Klobučar, Ivan Kobaš, Tihana Kušeta Šerić, Damir Lemaić, Željko Ljubičić, Gordana Mahovac, Martina Majcen, Višnja Merdžo, Tomislav Perić, Darko Radić, Damjan Saridžić (represented by: D. Graf, odvjetnik)

Appellants:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: S. Ječmenica and G. Wils, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Vedran Vidmar, Mr Saša Čaldarević, Ms Irena Glogovšek, Ms Gordana Grancarić, Ms Martina Grgec, Ms Ines Grubišić, Ms Sunčica Horvat Peris, Mr Zlatko Ilak, Ms Mirjana Jelavić, Mr Romuald Kantoci, Ms Svjetlana Klobučar, Mr Ivan Kobaš, Ms Tihana Ms Kušeta Šerić, Mr Damir Lemaić, Mr Željko Ljubičić, Ms Gordana Mahovac, Ms Martina Majcen, Ms Višnja Merdžo, Mr Tomislav Perić, Mr Darko Radić and Mr Damjan Saridžić are ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Vedran Vidmar, Mr Saša Čaldarević, Ms Irena Glogovšek, Ms Gordana Grancarić, Ms Martina Grgec, Ms Ines Grubišić, Ms Sunčica Horvat Peris, Mr Zlatko Ilak, Ms Mirjana Jelavić, Mr Romuald Kantoci, Ms Svjetlana Klobučar, Mr Ivan Kobaš, Ms Tihana Ms Kušeta Šerić, Mr Damir Lemaić, Mr Željko Ljubičić, Ms Gordana Mahovac, Ms Martina Majcen, Ms Višnja Merdžo, Mr Tomislav Perić, Mr Darko Radić and Mr Damjan Saridžić are ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.

1

---
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2012

- 0565 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2012

-NE

- 16

- AD If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into an d then out of the changed cell

. **Estimated Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- h ours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

co st ( @ $8 5 /h our) Part s Cost Total Costs ( labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U

. S

. Fleet



### Re move turbocharger from service 4.0 $ 340.00 $ 

### 0 $ 340.00 

### 80 $27,200.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 .00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### The known number of products in compliance: 

### 0 Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $27,200 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $ 

### 0
**On**
**- Condition Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- h ours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

( @ $8 5 /hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Us e this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulator y action”? YES * NO
* E xplanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES * NO
* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for either a Yes or No answer. YES NO 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? YES * NO


### * E xplanation 

### :