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

                                                                    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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Ameriprise Certificate
Company (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
William F. Truscott, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Brian J.
McGrane, as Principal and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each 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 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 Company.


/s/ William F. Truscott
-------------------------------------
Name: William F. Truscott
Title: Chief Executive Officer
       (Principal Executive Officer)
Date: March 2, 2009


/s/ Brian J. McGrane
-------------------------------------
Name: Brian J. McGrane
Title: Chief Financial Officer
       (Principal Financial Officer)
Date: March 2, 2009

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
and is not being "filed" as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure
document for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the "Exchange Act"), or otherwise subject to liability under that
section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference
into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange
Act except to the extent that this Exhibit 32.1 is expressly and specifically
incorporated by reference in any such filing.

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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ERGOWERX INTERNATIONAL LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

MAXELL CORPORATION OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2014-1641

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of New York in No. 1:13-cv-05633-PAE, 

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

JAY P. NELKIN, Nelkin & Nelkin, P.C., Houston, TX, 

argued for plaintiff-appellant. 

HILARY L. PRESTON, Vinson & Elkins LLP, New York, 

NY, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by 

AJEET P. PAI, Austin, TX; NICKOU OSKOUI, Dallas, TX.

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is
 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (DYK, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

September 11, 2015 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Date Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court
Order filed February 16, 2016

In The 

### Court of Appeals For The 

### First District of Texas

___________ NO. 01 - 15 - 00220 - CR 01 - 15 - 00221 - CR 01 - 15 - 00222 - CR

____________ GARY JAMES COX , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 122nd District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 13 - CR - 0183 , 13 - CR - 1084, 14 - CR - 3651 

### ORDERThis court has determined, pursuant to T exas Rule of Appellate Procedure

34.5(f) and 34.6(g)(2), that it must inspect the original of State ’ s Exhibit 2 and State ’ s Exhibit 7 . The exhibit clerk of the 122nd District Court is directed to deliver to the Clerk of this court the original of State ’ s Exhibit 2 and State ’ s Exhibit 7 , on or before February 19, 2016 . The Clerk of this court is directed to receive, maintain, and keep safe this original exhibit; to deliver it to the justices of this court for their inspection; and, upon comp letion of inspection, to return the original of State ’ s Exhibit 2 and State ’ s Exhibit 7 , to the clerk of the 122nd District Court.

PER CURIAM
Before the First Division,

February 14, 1945

No. 50012.

#### Protests 949019-G, etc., of Seaboard Import Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the beads in question are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Eitinger Bead Co.*v. *United States*(13 Cust. Ct. 50, C. D. 867), certain of the items were held dutiable at 35 percent under paragraph 1503 and others at 20 percent under the same paragraph as modified by T. D. 49458. The protests were sustained to this extent.
Before the Second Division,

January 31, 1950

No. 54003.

#### American Express Company et al. *v.*United States,

protests 737712-G, etc. (Boston).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

By virtue of the decision in *T. M. Duche & Sons, Inc.*v. *United States*(36 C. C. P. A. 19, C. A. D. 391), the protests were dismissed.
No. 52584.

protest 47443-K (Baltimore).

#### Woodward & Lothrop *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on entries 1000, 978, and 996. The protest was sustained to this extent.
Part 1

SUPPLEMENT

DRAFT 

No Name Description Rule Attribute Combination

82 Limited Use of USSGL 439701

The use of USSGL 439701 is limited to specific Treasury TAS. Fail

USSGL 

ACCOUNT 

NUMBER

=439701

82E Limited Use of USSGL 439701

The use of USSGL 439701 is limited to specific Treasury TAS.

CONCATENATE

D TAS

Pass 011 X8242000

U.S. Standard General Ledger

Data Validations - Detail

Bulletin No. 2016-XX DRAFT VII VDR - 1
Case No. 8,424.

#### The LIZZIE WESTON.

[Blatchf. Pr. Cas. 144.] 1

District Court, S. D. New York.

April Term, 1862.

Prize — Violation- or Blockade.

Vessel and carao condemned as enemy property. and for a violation of the blockade.

In admiralty.

BETTS. District Judge.

This vessel sailed from Apalachicola, in January. 1862, under the rebel flag, laden with a cargo of cotton. She and her cargo were owned by residents of Florida, one of the Confederate States. She also had on board an English ensign, which the master was to hoist whenever directed to do so by the supercargo. She was documented by the Confederate States. Her destination was to Cuba, and back to a port in tlie Confederate States. She, however, has no specific limitation in her destination, but was to obey the directions of the supercargo as to her course. The owners of the vessel and cargo were on board of the vessel when she was captured. The seizure was made in the Gulf of Mexico, about one hundred and twenty miles off Apalachicola, by the United States gunboat Itasca. All on board of the schooner knew of the blockade of that port at the time she left it. The vessel on her capture was ordered to Philadelphia or New York, with her cargo for adjudication; but while on that course was compelled, by stress of weather and damage to the vessel, to put into Key West, where she arrived January 2S, '1862. The schooner was there surveyed by authority of the United States officer, and reported to be in a bad condition to be navigated North. The cargo was transshipped to New York on board of the merchant vessel George W. Hull. The crew of the prize were dispatched to the same port, as witnesses, by the United States steamer Massachusetts, and were here examined in preparatorio. The vessel was left at Key West. A libel was filed in this court against the vessel and cargo March IS, 1SC2.

Upon the proofs, the vessel and cargo are subject to condemnation and forfeiture as enemy property. No claim was interposed in defence to the libel, and the cause was regularly defaulted in court; and if any objection might be offered because of a proposed outstanding interest of neutrals in the vessel and cargo, the testimony is conclusive of a wilful evasion of the blockade of the port of Apalachicola by both vessel and cargo in their egress from it. A decree of confiscation must be entered accordingly.

[At the next term of the court a motion to open the decree was denied, upon the ground that the court had no power to do this; its power over the judgment ending with the term of the court when rendered. Case No. 8,423.]
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

 Plaintiff’s prior “request for clarification” was addressed in an order filed October 20,

2005.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD GILMAN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0035 DFL KJM P

vs.

EDWARD S. ALAMEDIA,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has filed a request for leave to file an amended opposition to defendant’s

August 26, 2005 motion to dismiss.

1

 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s October 20, 2005 request for leave to file an amended opposition to

defendant’s August 26, 2005 motion to dismiss is granted; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file and

serve an amended opposition to defendant’s August 26, 2005 motion to dismiss.

DATED: October 26, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

/kf gilm0035.36a

Case 2:04-cv-00035-DFL -KJM Document 21 Filed 10/27/05 Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT 23.3**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-114063 on Form S-3 of our report dated March 1, 2006, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule of Wisconsin Power and Light Company, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Wisconsin Power and Light Company for the year ended December 31, 2005.

 

 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

 

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

March 1, 2006
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

MICHAEL D. BURCH and THE

BANKRUPTCY ESTATE OF MICHAEL

D. BURCH,

NO. CIV. S-04-0038 WBS GGH

Plaintiffs,

v.

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

CALIFORNIA; LARRY VANDERHOEF;

GREG WARZECKA; PAM GILL-FISHER;

ROBERT FRANKS; and LAWRENCE

SWANSON, 

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

 ORDER

A further status conference was held in this matter,

pursuant to the provisions of Rule 16(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure and Local Rule 16-282, on August 28, 2006. 

Kristen Galles appeared telephonically for plaintiff. Dan Siegel

also appeared on behalf of plaintiffs. Nancy Sheehan appeared on

behalf of defendants. Following the hearing, the court hereby

orders the following:

1. A Settlement Conference is scheduled before the

Case 2:04-cv-00038-WBS-GGH Document 282 Filed 08/30/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Honorable Garland E. Burrell on November 3, 2006 at 1:00 p.m. 

in Courtroom No. 13. Each party is ordered to have a principal

with full settlement authority present at the conference or be

fully authorized to settle the matter on any terms. Bankruptcy

Trustee Richard Hanf shall also attend the Settlement Conference. 

2. Plaintiffs shall submit their Pretrial Conference

Statement by no later than October 23, 2006. The court will

thereafter enter the final Pretrial Order without the need for a

further conference with counsel.

3. The jury trial is set for December 5, 2006 at 9:00

a.m. before the Honorable William B. Shubb in Courtroom No. 5.

DATED: August 29, 2006

 

Case 2:04-cv-00038-WBS-GGH Document 282 Filed 08/30/06 Page 2 of 2
Do both parent and child approve the TA Action Request form?

Yes. Both parent and child need to approve the form prior to submission.

Central Accounting and Reporting System (CARS) 

Treasury Account (TA) Action Request Forms 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ)

Yes. For more than four (4) TAS, please fill out an additional form – do not attach 

the additional accounts on Word or Excel documents to accompany the form. 

Contact the BAAS Group directly at BAASGroup@fiscal.treasury.gov for guidance 

on large numbers of TA actions.

When filling out a Treasury Account Action Request form, do 

I fill out a second form if I have more than four TAs?

Does the agency still need to submit a request letter with the 

new forms?

No. Only submission of the TA Action Request form is required. Beginning, 

October 1, 2021, only the new forms will be accepted.

How long does it take to establish a new Treasury Account 

Symbol (TAS)?

On average, 5-7 business days. However, the BAAS Group does not establish new 

accounts during the Monthly Treasury Statement (MTS) window, which is between 

the third and eighth business days of the month.

What is the difference between the Treasury Account (TA) 

Amendment form and Treasury Account (TA) Action request form?

The TA Amendment form is making a change to the account title, bureau, and/or 

Extended Disbursing Authority (EDA). The TA Action Request form is to establish, 

suspend, discontinue, or reactivate an account.
EXHIBIT 32
 
 **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-QSB (the Report) of Vitasti, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended November 30, 2004, the undersigned Tammy Lynn McNabb, both the Chief Executive Officer of the Company and the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of the undersigneds knowledge and belief:
 
 (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 Company.
 
 
 
 Dated: January 20, 2005      /s/ Tammy-Lynn McNabb
 Tammy-Lynn McNabb
 Chief Executive Officer
 
 
 Dated: January 20, 2005     /s/ Tammy-Lynn McNabb
 Tammy-Lynn McNabb
 Chief Financial Officer
# sec5_sf133_schp_2019

&L&"Arial"&10&B&L&"Arial"&10&B&L&"Arial"&10&BBulletin No. 2020-08	&"Arial,Bold"&9V SF 133/Sch P - &P	&R&"Arial"&10&B&R&"Arial"&10&B&R&"Arial"&10&BDecember 2019
Welcome
 Training Module Topics Below are the training topics you need to search, view and approve deposits, and view reports in OTCnet. Click **Expand All** to view all resources for your role, or click the arrow next to a module to view the lesson(s) and resources. You can choose to view Web Based Training (WBT) modules, certificates are assigned for critical tasks and are noted by the certificate icon Certificate icon. You can also review Printable Job Aids (PJAs) and Videos that support your OTCnet user training.  Expand All
  GETTING STARTED MODULE 1: OTCNET OVERVIEW 1.1 OTCnet Overview
            PJA
            VideoOTCnet Overview
 MODULE 2: ACCESSING OTCnet Certificate icon2.1 Start and Stop the OTCnet Local Bridge (OLB) Application
            PJA
            VideoStart and Stop the OTCnet Local Bridge (OLB) ApplicationCertificate icon2.2 Request Your OTCnet AccessSelf-Register/Create an Account in SailPoint IIQRequest Your OTCnet Access in SailPoint IIQCertificate icon2.3 Log In to OTCnet OnlineLog In to OTCnet Online
 DEPOSIT PROCESSING MODULE 10: SEARCHING DEPOSITS Certificate icon10.1 Search for a Deposit
            PJA
            VideoSearch for a DepositDownload Search Results for a Deposit
 MODULE 11: VIEWING DEPOSITS Certificate icon11.1 View a Deposit
            PJA
            VideoView a Deposit
 MODULE 12: SEARCHING ADJUSTMENTS Certificate icon12.1 Search for and View an Adjustment
            PJA
            VideoSearch for and View an AdjustmentDownload Search Adjustment Results for a Deposit
 MODULE 14: APPROVING DEPOSITS Certificate icon14.1 Approve or Return a Deposit to Draft
            PJA
            VideoApprove or Return a Deposit to Draft
 MODULE 17: VIEWING DEPOSIT PROCESSING AND HISTORICAL REPORTS 17.1 View a Business Report
            PJA
            VideoView Business Reports: Adjustment Activity (FI)View Business Reports: Adjustments by OTC EndpointView Business Reports: Daily Voucher ReportView Business Reports: Deposit Activity (FI)View Business Reports: Deposits by Accounting CodeView Business Reports: Deposits by OTC EndpointView Business Reports: Deposit History by StatusView Business Reports: Non-Reporting OTC EndpointsView Business Reports: Processing Options by OTC Endpoints17.3 View an Administration ReportView Administrative Reports: CIR File StatusView Administration Reports: View Vouchers CompletedView Administrative Reports: Vouchers in Progress17.4 View Historical ReportsDeposit Historical ReportAdjustment Historical ReportView Previously Generated Historical Reports
 Welcome
# 4

&"Calibri,Bold"&16&KFF0000DRAFT	

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2023-11	&"Arial,Bold"&10&KFF0000DRAFT &K01+000VII EDR - &P      	&"Arial,Bold"&10IRC Handout 8/23/23

# 24

&"Calibri,Bold"&16&KFF0000DRAFT	

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2023-11	&"Arial,Bold"&10&KFF0000DRAFT &K01+000VII EDR - &P      	&"Arial,Bold"&10IRC Handout 8/23/23
#### Charles B. WELLS III, Claimant-Appellant, v. Anthony J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 01-7043.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 27, 2001.

Before MICHEL, CLEVENGER, and SCHALL, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

CLEVENGER, Circuit Judge.

Charles B. Wells III moves for reconsideration of this court’s rejection of his appeal as untimely and for an extension of the statutory filing deadline.

On April 14, 2000, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims denied Wells’s petition for a writ of mandamus. Wells submitted an appeal to this court in December 2000, which was rejected by the clerk as untimely on December 18, 2000. In his motion for reconsideration and for an extension of the filing deadline, Wells argues that he did not receive notice of his appeal rights and seeks to reopen the time for appeal.

Regardless of the particular circumstances of this case, this court is without authority to extend the statutory filing deadline. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 26(b) (court of appeals may not extend the time to file a notice of appeal); *see also Bailey v. West,*160 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed.Cir.1998) (en banc).

Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), review of a final decision by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims “shall be obtained by filing a notice of appeal ... within the time and in the manner prescribed for appeal to the United States courts of appeal from United States district courts.” In district court cases involving the United States, the time period for filing a notice of appeal is within sixty days after entry of judgment. Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1). “The time for appeal is ‘mandatory and jurisdictional.’ ” *Kraft, Inc. v. United States,*85 F.3d 602, 604 (Fed.Cir.1996), quoting *Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co.,*486 U.S. 196, *948203, 108 S.Ct. 1717, 100 L.Ed.2d 178 (1988). Thus, under the federal rules, the notice of appeal in this case was due within 60 days of the April 14, 2000 order of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, i.e., June 13, 2000. Because the notice of appeal was submitted in December 2000, over 60 days after issuance of the final order, we must deny Wells’ motion for reconsideration and for an extension of the filing deadline.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) Wells’s motion for reconsideration and for an extension of the filing deadline are denied. This appeal is dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
Defendant Valerie Jones (“Jones”) argues that as 1

Christopher Weller’s Child Advocate (“CA”) she is absolutely

immune from any liability. This is so because her

responsibilities as a CA in this case were indistinguishable from

those of a guardian ad litem (“GAL”). And the Third Circuit has

held that a GAL is absolutely immune from liability when

“exercising functions such as testifying in Court, prosecuting

custody or neglect Petitions, and making reports and

recommendations to the Court in which the [GAL] acts as an actual

functionary or arm of the Court, not only in status or

denomination, but in reality.” Gardner v. Parson, 874 F.2d 131,

146 (3d Cir. 1989). But the Third Circuit has never held that a

GAL is absolutely immune from liability in all cases. Rather, a

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Christopher Weller 

v.

Cheryl Ransom-Garner,

Commissioner, Philadelphia Dept.

Human Services

and

Valerie Jones

and

Defender Association of

Philadelphia

and

City of Philadelphia

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

CIVIL ACTION

05-2758

ORDER

AND NOW, this 28th day of March, 2007, upon consideration of

Defendant Valerie Jones, Esquire’s Motion for Summary Judgment,

Defendant Defender Association of Philadelphia Motion for Partial

Summary Judgment (Doc No. 33), and Plaintiff’s Response (Doc. No.

35), the Court DENIES both motions.1

Case 2:05-cv-02758-JCJ Document 36 Filed 03/29/07 Page 1 of 2
GAL enjoys absolute immunity when acting as an “integral part of

the judicial process.” Hughes v. Long, 242 F.3d 121, 125 (3d Cir.

2001) (immunity provided only for actions involving the

initiation and prosecution of child custody or dependency

proceedings). On the record before the Court, it is unclear as

to exactly what Jones did in her role as Christopher’s CA (i.e.

which functions she performed). Jones has proffered no evidence

(assertions made in a brief do not qualify as evidence) that she

was functioning as an “integral part of the judicial process”

that would entitle her to absolute immunity under Gardner. Cf

Harris v. Lehigh County Office of Children & Youth Services, 418

F. Supp. 2d 643, 648-50 (E.D. Pa. 2005); see also Fed. R. Civ.

56(e). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Jones’ Motion for Summary

Judgment. The Court also DENIES the Defender Association of

Philadelphia’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment because it is

predicated on the claims against Jones being dismissed. 

-2-

BY THE COURT:

 s/J. Curtis Joyner 

J. CURTIS JOYNER, J. 

Case 2:05-cv-02758-JCJ Document 36 Filed 03/29/07 Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT 21**

 

**ALLIANT ENERGY CORPORATION**

**SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT**

 

The following are deemed to be significant subsidiaries of Alliant Energy Corporation as of Dec. 31, 2005:

 

| Name of Subsidiary | State or Country of Incorporation |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------|

 

| Interstate Power and Light Company | Iowa |
|------------------------------------|------|

 

| Wisconsin Power and Light Company | Wisconsin |
|-----------------------------------|-----------|

 

| Alliant Energy Resources, Inc. | Wisconsin |
|--------------------------------|-----------|

 

||
||