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


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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Merrill Lynch Preferred
Capital Trust IV (the "Trust") and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding IV, L.P.
for the period ended April 1, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Haig J. Nargesian,
Regular Trustee of the Trust, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
    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 results of operations of the Trust.





                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST IV


                              By:  /s/ HAIG J. NARGESIAN
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    Haig J. Nargesian *
                              Title:   Regular Trustee









Dated: May 12, 2005
_____________________

* Haig J. Nargesian functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
  and Chief  Financial  Officer of the Trust for  purposes  of Section  906
  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA - 2014 - 0170 Directorate Identifier: 2013NM169AD

747 - 53A2443, R1 --- 6/25/09

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 0 3/05/2008
Judicial Conference of the United Sta

administrative governing board of the federal judicia

Duties and Responsibilities

The Judicial Conference makes policy for the administration of the U.S. courts. It surveys court operations, makes 

long-range plans, and suggests management procedures to the courts to promote uniformity and efficiency. It also 

studies the operation and impact of rules of practice and procedure, as prescribed by the U.S. Supreme Court, and 

consults with the U.S. Marshals Service regarding court security. In addition, the Conference reviews matters related 

to judicial conduct and disability.

The Conference operates through an executive committee and 24 policy-advisory committees assigned to different administrative areas. The Conference convenes twice a year, usually at the Supreme Court building.

Membership

• Chief Justice of the United States (presiding officer)

• Chief judges of the 13 courts of appeals

• One district judge from each circuit (elected)

• Chief judge of the Court of International Trade

• Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (secretary)

Policy-Advisory Committees

The Chief Justice has sole authority to make committee appointments. Matters to be considered are suggested 

by, among others, the Chief Justice, the Executive Committee, Congress, federal judges, circuit judicial councils, and other Conference committees. Acting committees of the Judicial Conference are listed below.

• Committee on Audits and Administrative Office

Accountability

• Committee on the Budget

• Committee on Court Administration & Case

Management

• Committee on Defender Services

• Committee on Financial Disclosure

• Committee on Intercircuit Assignments

• Committee on the Judicial Branch

• Committee on Judicial Resources

• Committee on the Administration of the Magistrate Judges System

• Committee on the Administration of the Bankruptcy System

• Committee on Codes of Conduct

• Committee on Criminal Law

• Committee on Federal-State Jurisdiction

• Committee on Information Technology

• Committee on International Judicial Relations

• Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability

• Committee on Judicial Security

• Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure

• Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules

• Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules

• Advisory Committee on Civil Rules

• Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules

• Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules

• Committee on Space and Facilities

Federal Judicial Center

International Judicial Relations Office

One Columbus Circle NE

Washington DC 20002-8003

www.fjc.gov
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES T. DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O KISSINGER; et al,

Defendants.

No. 2:04-CV-0878-TLN-DAD

ORDER

The Court is in receipt of Defendants’ Objection to Plaintiff’s Application for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum re: Kerry Thrower (ECF No. 291) and Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Defendants’ Application to Submit Amended Joint Pretrial Conference Statement (ECF No. 292).

Both documents are improperly filed motions in limine disputing the admissibility of a specific 

witness and a specific piece of evidence. The Court will not rule on admissibility in a piecemeal 

fashion. The parties are instructed to resubmit these requests as properly titled motions in limine 

in accordance with the schedule stated in the Final Pretrial Conference on September 11, 2014,

and reiterated in the Court’s Final Pretrial Order.1 (ECF No. 295 at 13.) Further failure to 

comply with the Court’s orders in this regard may constitute a violation of the standards of 

professional conduct pursuant to Local Rule 180(e) and thus make the parties subject to sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 6, 2014

 

1 The Court will extend the submission deadline for motions in limine on only these two issues to October 9, 2014. 

All deadlines for oppositions and replies remain the same.

Case 2:04-cv-00878-TLN-DAD Document 297 Filed 10/06/14 Page 1 of 1
# sec5_scnp_2021

&L&"Arial"&10&BBulletin No. 2020-15	&"Arial,Bold"&10V SCNP - &P	&R&"Arial"&10&BJune 2020
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 9/4/2023 1

Redistricting the Bibb County School District 

Miller v. Bibb County School District 

(Hugh Lawson, M.D. Ga. 5:12-cv-239) 

A June 26, 2012, federal complaint alleged malapportionment for a 

county board of education. The district judge delayed the pending 

primary election until the day scheduled for a possible runoff primary election to give the county enough time to adopt a precleared 

redistricting plan. By consent order, the judge awarded the plaintiffs attorney fees and costs. 

Subject: District lines. Topics: Malapportionment; enjoining 

elections; section 5 preclearance; attorney fees. 

Three voters, including a school board member and two school board candidates, filed a federal complaint in the Middle District of Georgia on June 26, 

2012, alleging malapportionment of districts for the Bibb County Board of 

Education.1

 With their complaint, the plaintiffs filed a motion for an injunction against planned July 31 elections until the county adopted a precleared 

redistricting plan adopted by Georgia’s legislature.2

Judge Hugh Lawson set the matter for hearing on June 29.3 That day, he 

enjoined the county from using old district lines for the school board, and he 

delayed the primary elections for the school board from July 31 until August 

21, the day for primary runoffs for other offices.4

By consent order, on December 7, Judge Lawson awarded the plaintiffs 

$60,000 in attorney fees and costs.5

1. Complaint, Miller v. Bibb Cty. School Dist., No. 5:12-cv-239 (M.D. Ga. June 26, 2012), 

D.E. 1; Stipulation, id. (June 28, 2012), D.E. 7; see Andrea Castillo, Suit Challenging Bibb 

BOE Voting Maps Filed in Federal Court, Macon Telegraph, June 26, 2012. 

2. Injunction Motion, Miller, No. 5:12-cv-239 (M.D. Ga. June 26, 2012), D.E. 3, 2012 WL 

2529440; see also Andrea Castillo, Department of Justice Approves Bibb School Board Maps, 

Macon Telegraph, June 19, 2012 (reporting that the school district had qualified candidates 

for the upcoming election under the old map while preclearance of the new map was pending). 

3. Order, Miller, No. 5:12-cv-239 (M.D. Ga. June 26, 2012), D.E. 4. 

4. Injunction, id. (June 29, 2012), D.E. 9; see id. at 5 (finding that a runoff primary election would be unlikely for the school board but setting September 18 as the date for one if 

necessary); see also Georgia Senate, Bibb School Board, Other Runoff Races on Tuesday’s Ballots, Macon Telegraph, Aug. 21, 2012; Amy Leigh Womack, Bibb County School Board Elections Delayed, Macon Telegraph, June 29, 2012. 

5. Consent Order, Miller, No. 5:12-cv-239 (M.D. Ga. Dec. 7, 2012), D.E. 33; see Andrea 

Castillo, Bibb BOE, County Government Expected to Split Attorneys Fees, Macon Telegraph, 

Dec. 4, 2012.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1545 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide the same level 

of Federal matching assistance for every State that chooses to expand 

Medicaid coverage to newly eligible individuals, regardless of when such 

expansion takes place. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 12, 2017 

Mr. WARNER (for himself, Mr. CARPER, Mr. COONS, Mr. NELSON, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. KAINE, Mr. KING, Mr. PETERS, Mr. TESTER, and Ms. STABENOW) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide 

the same level of Federal matching assistance for every 

State that chooses to expand Medicaid coverage to newly 

eligible individuals, regardless of when such expansion 

takes place. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘States Achieve Med5 icaid Expansion Act of 2017’’ or ‘‘SAME Act of 2017’’. 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1545 IS

1 SEC. 2. INCREASED FMAP FOR MEDICAL ASSISTANCE TO 

2 NEWLY ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1905 of the Social Secu4 rity Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d) is amended— 

5 (1) in subsection (y)(1)— 

6 (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking 

7 ‘‘2014, 2015, and 2016’’ and inserting ‘‘each of 

8 the first 3 consecutive 12-month periods in 

9 which the State provides medical assistance to 

10 newly eligible individuals’’; 

11 (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking 

12 ‘‘2017’’ and inserting ‘‘the fourth consecutive 

13 12-month period in which the State provides 

14 medical assistance to newly eligible individuals’’; 

15 (C) in subparagraph (C), by striking 

16 ‘‘2018’’ and inserting ‘‘the fifth consecutive 12- 

17 month period in which the State provides med18 ical assistance to newly eligible individuals’’; 

19 (D) in subparagraph (D), by striking 

20 ‘‘2019’’ and inserting ‘‘the sixth consecutive 12- 

21 month period in which the State provides med22 ical assistance to newly eligible individuals’’; 

23 and 

24 (E) in subparagraph (E), by striking 

25 ‘‘2020 and each year thereafter’’ and inserting 

26 ‘‘the seventh consecutive 12-month period in 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1545 IS

1 which the State provides medical assistance to 

2 newly eligible individuals and each such period 

3 thereafter’’; and 

4 (2) in subsection (z)(2)(B)(i)(II), by inserting 

5 ‘‘(as in effect on the day before the enactment of the 

6 States Achieve Medicaid Expansion Act of 2017)’’ 

7 after ‘‘subsection (y)(1)’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

9 subsection (a)(1) shall take effect as if included in the en10 actment of Public Law 111–148. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TODD W. AVARA,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1044 MCE DAD P

vs.

WARDEN ADAMS, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

TODD W. AVARA,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-1433 GEB DAD P

vs.

DARREL G. ADAMS, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner in the above-captioned cases is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Case

No. CIV S-04-1044 MCE DAD is a habeas proceeding that was stayed on May 6, 2005. On July

18, 2005, petitioner submitted a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

The Clerk of the Court has opened a new case and assigned it number CIV S-05-1433 GEB

DAD. Both cases concern petitioner’s 2002 conviction in the Yolo County Superior Court.

Case 2:04-cv-01044-ALA Document 23 Filed 07/20/05 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

2

In the stayed case, petitioner was ordered to file a motion to lift the stay, along

with a proposed amended petition, within thirty days after the California Supreme Court ruled on

petitioner’s state exhaustion petition. On June 30, 2005, petitioner informed the court and

respondents’ counsel that the California Supreme Court denied the exhaustion petition on June

22, 2005. Petitioner stated that he was preparing a motion to lift the stay and a proposed

amended petition. On July 18, 2005, petitioner’s motion to lift the stay was filed in case No. CIV

S-04-1044. Although the motion refers to an attached proposed amended petition, no petition is

attached to the motion as filed in the stayed case.

The court finds that the petition filed in the new case should have been filed as an

attachment to the motion filed July 18, 2005, in the stayed case. The Clerk will be directed to refile the petition as an attachment to the motion filed in the stayed case. The new case will be

closed, and the $5.00 filing fee will be refunded to petitioner. After the proposed amended

petition has been properly filed in the stayed case, the court will rule on petitioner’s motion and

make such further orders as are appropriate.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The petition filed in case No. CIV S-05-1433 GEB DAD on July 18, 2005,

shall be re-filed by the Clerk of the Court in case No. CIV S-04-1044 MCE DAD as an

attachment to petitioner’s motion to lift stay (docketed as #22);

2. Case No. CIV S-05-1433 GEB DAD shall be closed;

3. The $5.00 filing fee paid for case No. CIV S-05-1433 GEB DAD shall be

refunded to petitioner; and

4. A copy of this order shall be served on the Financial Department of the court.

DATED: July 20, 2005.

DAD:13

avar1433.cls

Case 2:04-cv-01044-ALA Document 23 Filed 07/20/05 Page 2 of 2
# Bulletin No. 2023-11

&"Arial,Bold"&12U.S. Standard General LedgerSummary of Changes	

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2023-11	&"Arial,Bold" &P	&"Arial,Bold"September 2023

# Additional Information

&"Arial,Bold"&12U.S. Standard General LedgerSummary of Changes	

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2023-11	&"Arial,Bold" &P	&"Arial,Bold"September 2023
(Reap. Dec. 10372)

Entry No. 49882, etc.

#### Radio Corporation of America et al. *v.*United States

(Decided November 20, 1962)

*Sharretts, Paley £ Garter (Howard Glare Garter of*counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*Joseph D. Guilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General *(Samuel D. Spector,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “B,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the parties hereto that the merchandise which is the subject of the appeals for reappraisement listed in Schedule B, hereto attached and made a part hereof, consists of phonograph records exported from Mexico after March 18, 1959.

> IT IS EURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that phonograph records are not on the list of articles published in T.D. 54521 and are subject to ap-praisement under the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (Public Law 927- — 84th Congress 2nd Session).

> IT IS EURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the prices, at the time of exportation to the United States of the merchandise undergoing reappraisement, at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold or, in the absence of sales, offered for sale in the principal markets of the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the prices shown on Schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof for each of the items enumerated therein with or without qualifying words and with or without additional symbols.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeals for re-appraisement listed in Schedule B are hereby submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the phonograph records in question is statutory export value and hold that such value therefor is the prices shown on schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, for each of the items enumerated therein with or without qualifying words and with or without additional symbols.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Case No. 13,127.

#### SMITH v. WILLIAMS et al.

[9 Betts, D. C. MS. 33.]

District Court, S. D. New York.

March 20, 1847.

Depositions — Certificate of Magistrate — Persons Authorized to Take Depositions — Admiralty Law.

[1. The certificate of the proper magistrate to a deposition taken under the act of September 24, 1789 (1 Stat. 73), is competent evidence to prove that the requirements of the act have been fulfilled in taking and certifying the deposition.]

[2. The appellations of “Judge” or “Justice," In respect to members of courts, are the same; and a justice of a county court is, within the meaning of the statute, a .judge of such court, and competent to take testimony under its provisions.]

[3. A suit cannot be maintained in admiralty upon a charter party or contract of affreightment, entered into by one of the parties upon representations of the other, not true in fact, and which misled the party first named to his injury.]

[This was a libel for breach of charter-party, by Daniel Smith against John G. Williams and Edward F. Northam.]

BETTS, District Judge.

It is considered 'by the court that the certificate of the proper magistrate to a deposition taken under the Act of congress of September 24, 1789, is •competent evidence to prove the requirements of the act have been fulfilled in taking and certifying the deposition. It is considered by the court, that the appellation of “Judge” or “Justice,” in respect to members ■of courts of justice, is of the same import, •and that a justice of a county court is, within the meaning of the said act of congress, a judge of such court, competent to take the testimony of witnesses out of court, pursuant to the provisions of the 30th section of said act. It is considered by the court, that the depositions of Samuel W. Wallace and John Burgoyne, offered in evidence in this case by the respective parties, are both authenticated conformably to the requirements of the act of congress, and are admissible in evidence. It is considered by the court, that the allegations in the libel, if supported by the proofs, that the contract of affreightment or charter-party in the pleadings mentioned was entered into by the libellant upon representations of the respondents not true in fact, and which misled and deceived the li-bellant to his great injury, would not authorize and support an action thereupon in this court. And it appearing to the court, upon the pleadings and proofs in this case, that the contract of affreightment or charter-party in the pleadings mentioned was not executed or entered into by the respondents in their own behalf, or any way guarantied or made personally obligatory on them, but was executed and entered into by them as agents of John Burgoyne thereto duly authorized by him, and was received and accepted by the libellant as such with full knowledge of their authority in that behalf, it is considered by the court that no right of action has accrued to the libellant in this court, against the respondents personally, by means of the premises.

Wherefore it is ordered and decreed by the court, that the libel in this cause be dismissed, with costs to be taxed.
- Bureau of the Fiscal Service
- Financial Innovation & Transformation
- Updates
- Distributed Ledger Technology’s Transformational Impact on Federal Financial Management

# Distributed Ledger Technology’s Transformational Impact on Federal Financial Management

          Date: October 27, 2017        

          The Bureau of the Fiscal Service's Office of Financial Innovation and Transformation (FIT) has launched a          pilot project to explore the potential of distributed ledger technologies (DLT).        

          This pilot will use the example of the asset management use case to learn about DLT, educate Fiscal Service programs about its potential,          and better understand how DLT could be used to improve the way Fiscal Service manages the government’s finances.        

          Craig Fischer, FIT Innovation Program Manager, started researching DLT during          FIT’s government-wide Financial Management Strategy Study.          The study identified those emerging technologies with the most potential impact and feasibility for government-wide Federal Financial Management improvement.        

          Craig attended the Association of Government Accountants (AGA) 2017 Professional Development Training which inspired him to contribute an article to the          Journal of Federal Financial Management Fall 2017 issue.        

          "The Blockchain Buzz," identifies some of the key features of DLT that make it worth experimentation in the Federal Financial Management community.        

          Read the article*          and e-mail FIT@fiscal.treasury.gov if your agency is interested in learning more.        

Last modified 06/01/20
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

1

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

Create Check Capture Override and Online Authentication Password

To create check capture override and online authentication password, complete the following 

steps:

1. From the Administration tab, select Manage Users>Create Check Capture Override and 

Online Authentication Password. The Create Password screen displays as shown in 

Figure 1. 

2. Enter and confirm your password. 

The Check Capture Administrator can create a new password that is either the same 

or different from their old password. The password must satisfy the flowing 

requirements:

• Must be at least 12 characters long.

• Must not be longer than 64 characters.

• Must not have more than two repeating characters.

• Must not be a word in a language, slang, dialect, or jargon.

• Must not be related to personal identity, history, environment, or other personal 

associations.

• Must not be shared or displayed in plain view.

3. Select the Submit button to process the data. 

Figure 1: Create Check Capture Override and Online Authentication Password

Application Tip
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

2

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

If your password does not comply with the Fiscal Service password policy 

requirements, you will get an error message to try again. The password requirements 

will be displayed on the screen.

4. A Confirmation page displays, as show in Figure 2, stating that you have successfully 

created your Check Capture Override and Online Authentication Password.

5. Select OK to return to the OTCnet Homepage. 

Figure 2: Confirmation Page (Check Capture Override/Online Authentication)

Additional Buttons