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

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofiParty Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 27, 2004,as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, that to my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  May 10, 2004 | /s/ SAL  PERISANO        |   |
|--------------------------|--------------------------|--------|
|                     | Sal Perisano             |
|                     | Chief  Executive Officer |

 

1

----
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3447 

To reauthorize the program to support residential treatment programs for 

pregnant and postpartum women, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 7, 2023 

Mr. LUJA ́N (for himself, Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina, Mrs. CAPITO, Ms. 

KLOBUCHAR, and Mr. TILLIS) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 

and Pensions 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the program to support residential treatment 

programs for pregnant and postpartum women, and for 

other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Pregnant and 

5 Postpartum Women Treatment Reauthorization Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF PROGRAM. 

7 Section 508 of the Public Health Service Act (42 

8 U.S.C. 290bb–1) is amended— 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3447 IS

1 (1) in subsection (d)(11)(C), by striking ‘‘pro2 viding health services’’ and inserting ‘‘providing 

3 health care services’’; 

4 (2) in subsection (g)— 

5 (A) by inserting ‘‘a plan describing’’ after 

6 ‘‘will provide’’; and 

7 (B) by adding at the end the following: 

8 ‘‘Such plan may include a description of how 

9 such applicant will target outreach to women 

10 disproportionately impacted by maternal sub11 stance use disorder.’’; and 

12 (3) in subsection (s), by striking ‘‘$29,931,000 

13 for each of fiscal years 2019 through 2023’’ and in14 serting ‘‘$38,931,000 for each of fiscal years 2024 

15 through 2028’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

REBECA RODRIGUEZ,

Appellant,

v.

MARIO RODRIGUEZ,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-19-00041-CV

Appeal from the

388th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2010CM2088)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be 

dismissed for want of jurisdiction. We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We 

further order Appellant pay all costs of this appeal, and this decision be certified below for 

observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MATTHEW MARK MOORE,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

JOE SCHMIDT,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 12-35668

D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00002-SLG

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Alaska

Sharon L. Gleason, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 13, 2013** 

Anchorage, Alaska

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, BERZON and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

1. The Alaska Court of Appeals concluded that Moore was not

constructively denied counsel. This was not “contrary to, or [] an unreasonable

application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme

FILED

AUG 15 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
page 2

Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Failure to subject a

prosecutor’s case to adversarial testing will only constitute constructive denial of

counsel when “‘counsel entirely fails to subject the prosecution’s case to

meaningful adversarial testing.’” Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 697 (2002) (quoting

United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 659 (1984)). Moore’s lawyer presented his

desired intoxication defense at trial. Additionally, the Supreme Court has never

found that a criminal defendant has a right to a meaningful relationship with his

attorney. Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 13–14 (1983). In any event, the

proposition that a serious breakdown in the attorney-client relationship may rise to

a constructive denial of counsel is not “clearly established” by Supreme Court

precedent.

2. Moore cites no Supreme Court case to support his claim that the trial

court’s inquiry into his motion to substitute counsel was inadequate. As such, he

failed to satisfy AEDPA’s threshold for reviewing a state court adjudication on the

merits. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                    1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JAN-03-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 DEC-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   JAN-03-1997
<CASH>                                          93,100
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,900
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     40,800
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               196,400
<PP&E>                                         591,700
<DEPRECIATION>                                 346,600
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 535,900
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          203,800
<BONDS>                                        408,200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (130,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   535,900
<SALES>                                      1,139,600
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,139,600
<CGS>                                          335,900
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,079,500
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              40,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 22,200
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,900
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,900
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
**President**

**Section 906 Certification under Sarbanes Oxley Act**

 

 

 

I, Michael G. Clark, certify that: 

 

| 1. | I have reviewed this report, filed on behalf of DWS Strategic Income Fund, on Form N-CSRS; |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| 2. | Based on my knowledge and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the periodic report on Form N-CSRS (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of § 13 (a) or §15 (d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

| July 1, 2009 | /s/Michael G. Clark       |
|--------------|---------------------------|
|         | Michael G. Clark          |
|         | President                 |
|         | DWS Strategic Income Fund |

 

 

 

 

 

**Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer**

**Section 906 Certification under Sarbanes Oxley Act**

 

 

 

I, Paul Schubert, certify that: 

 

| 1. | I have reviewed this report, filed on behalf of DWS Strategic Income Fund, on Form N-CSRS; |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| 2. | Based on my knowledge and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the periodic report on Form N-CSRS (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of § 13 (a) or § 15 (d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| July 1, 2009 | /s/Paul Schubert                      |
|--------------|---------------------------------------|
|         | Paul Schubert                         |
|         | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |
|         | DWS Strategic Income Fund             |
#### Sylvester THOMAS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-400.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 19, 1971.

*309Walter N. Colbath, Jr., Public Defender, and Alan R. Parlapiano, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Rodney Durrance, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

WALDEN, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of Grand Larceny by a jury on September 5, 1968. On October 17, 1969, appellant moved for a new trial based on an admission of perjury from the chief witness against appellant at trial. The trial court denied the motion based on lack of jurisdiction. Appellant appeals this denial.

The time limit for filing a motion for a new trial is at most 15 days, F.R.Cr. P. 1.590, 33 F.S.A. This time limit is jurisdictional and strictly enforced. The trial court has no discretion to grant the motion after the expiration of the time limit. Farrior v. State, Fla.1954, 76 So.2d 148; Long v. State, Fla.1957, 96 So.2d 897; Miller v. State, Fla.App.1961, 134 So.2d 513; Murray v. State, Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d 292.

Since the motion in this case was made without the time limit it was proper to dismiss the motion without hearing the merits. We affirm.

This decision shall operate without prejudice to appellant to pursue relief through appropriate channels, such as F.R.Cr.P. 1.850.

Affirmed.

OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3539 

To amend the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to remove the exclusion 

of certain small business concerns from the disadvantaged business enterprise program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 14, 2023 

Mr. OSSOFF introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To amend the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to 

remove the exclusion of certain small business concerns 

from the disadvantaged business enterprise program, and 

for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Small Business Con5 tracting Fairness Act’’. 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3539 IS

1 SEC. 2. DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISES. 

2 Section 11101(e)(2)(A) of the Infrastructure Invest3 ment and Jobs Act (Public Law 117–58; 135 Stat. 449) 

4 is amended to read as follows: 

5 ‘‘(A) ‘SMALL BUSINESS CONCERN’.—The 

6 term ‘small business concern’ means a small 

7 business concern (as the term is used in section 

8 3 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 

9 632)).’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit (h)(1)

**AMENDED AND RESTATED**

**ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AGREEMENT**

 

AGREEMENT, dated as of October 1, 2008, among Cash Reserve Fund, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the “Corporation”), on its own behalf and on behalf of each of the Funds listed on Schedule I to this Agreement (each a “Fund” and together, the “Funds”), and Deutsche Investment Management Americas Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Administrator”), effective with respect to each Fund as of the date set out with respect to such Fund on Schedule I to this Agreement, as may be amended from time to time.

WHEREAS, the Corporation is engaged in business as an open-end investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “Investment Company Act”); 

WHEREAS, the Corporation desires to retain the Administrator and its permitted designees to provide certain administrative and fund accounting (the “Services”) to the Corporation and the Funds on the terms set out in this Agreement, and the Administrator and its designees are willing to provide the Services to the Corporation and each Fund on the terms set out in this Agreement; and

WHEREAS, the Corporation and the Administrator desire to amend and restate the Administrative Services Agreement dated June 1, 2006 and revised on October 1, 2007.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the covenants contained in this Agreement, the Corporation, each Fund, and the Administrator agree as follows:

|   | 1. | *Appointment and Services*. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------|

(a)       The Corporation appoints the Administrator to provide the administrative services set out in Appendix A to this Agreement (the “Administrative Services”) for the benefit of the Corporation and the Funds.  The Administrator accepts its appointment and agrees to provide the Administrative Services for the compensation set out in this Agreement.

(b)       The Corporation appoints the Administrator to provide the fund accounting services set out in Appendix B to this Agreement (the “Fund Accounting Services”) for the benefit of the Corporation and the Funds.  The Administrator accepts its appointment and agrees to provide the Fund Accounting Services for the compensation set out in this Agreement.

|   | 2. | *Fees*. |
|--------|----|---------|

(a)       For all Administrative Services and Fund Accounting Services provided under this Agreement, the Administrator will be compensated as set out on Appendix C.  

(b)       The Administrator may from time to time agree not to impose all or a portion of its fee otherwise payable under this Agreement and/or undertake to pay or 

 

----
SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY CONVERSION

INJURY CODE CONVERSION DEFINITIONS / INSTRUCTIONS / NOTES SOURCE LOCATION

Suspected Serious Injury 2011 - Present WA Traffic Collision Report Instruction 

Manual 2011

5 – Disabling injury A

Disabling injury: Any injury which prevents the injured person from walking, driving, or 

continuing normal activities at the time of the collision. Includes: severe lacerations, broken 

or distorted limbs, skull or chest injuries, abdominal injuries, etc. Excludes: momentary 

unconsciousness, etc.

Injury Class codes & definitions found on pg13 

(PDF pg21)

PEDESTRIAN AND PEDALCYCLIST (NON-MOTORIZED) CONVERSION

PERSON TYPE CODE STATE DEFINITIONS / INSTRUCTIONS / NOTES SOURCE LOCATION

Pedestrian 2011 - Present

WA Police Traffic Collision Report 

Instruction Manual 2015,

WA Police Traffic Collision Report 

Instruction Manual 2011

Person on foot 3 No definition found. STATUS OF PEDESTRIAN/PEDALCYCLIST 

code found on Manual pg11 (PDF 

pg19), pgChapter9-2 (PDF pg68) in 

2015. 

Roller Skater/Skateboarder 4 No definition found. STATUS OF PEDESTRIAN/PEDALCYCLIST 

code found on Manual pg11 (PDF 

pg19), pgChapter9-2 (PDF pg68) in 

2015. 

Non-Motorized Wheelchair 5 No definition found. STATUS OF PEDESTRIAN/PEDALCYCLIST 

code found on Manual pg11 (PDF 

pg19), pgChapter9-2 (PDF pg68) in 

2015. 

Motorized Wheelchair 6 No definition found. STATUS OF PEDESTRIAN/PEDALCYCLIST 

code found on Manual pg11 (PDF 

pg19), pgChapter9-2 (PDF pg68) in 

2015. 

Flagger 7 No definition found. STATUS OF PEDESTRIAN/PEDALCYCLIST 

code found on Manual pg11 (PDF 

pg19), pgChapter9-2 (PDF pg68) in 

2015. 

Roadway Worker 8 No definition found. STATUS OF PEDESTRIAN/PEDALCYCLIST 

code found on Manual pg11 (PDF 

pg19), pgChapter9-2 (PDF pg68) in 

2015. 

Emergency Response 

Personnel 9 No definition found. STATUS OF PEDESTRIAN/PEDALCYCLIST 

code found on Manual pg11 (PDF 

pg19), pgChapter9-2 (PDF pg68) in 

2015. 

Pedalcyclist 2011 - Present

Bicyclist 1 No definition found. STATUS OF PEDESTRIAN/PEDALCYCLIST 

code found on Manual pg11 (PDF 

pg19), pgChapter9-2 (PDF pg68) in 

2015. 

Tricyclist 2 No definition found. STATUS OF PEDESTRIAN/PEDALCYCLIST 

code found on Manual pg11 (PDF 

pg19), pgChapter9-2 (PDF pg68) in 

2015. 

Washington
#### William McCULLER v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 45910.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Oct. 5, 1970.

Roy O. Parker, William F. Randle, Tu-pelo, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Velia Ann Mayer, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity
as an officer of International Fuel Technology Inc. ("IFT"), that, to his
knowledge, the Quarterly Report of IFT on Form 10-Q for the period ended June
30, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the report
fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operation of IFT.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to IFT and will be retained by IFT and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

By: /s/ Jonathan R. Burst               Date: August 12, 2003
   --------------------------------
   Jonathan R. Burst
   Chief Executive Officer


                                       16
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: REESTABLISHMENT OF THE 

MAGISTERIAL DISTRICTS WITHIN THE 

42nd JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

:

:

:

:

NO. 497 

MAGISTERIAL RULES DOCKET 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 12th day of July 2022, upon consideration of the Petition to 

Reestablish the Magisterial Districts of the 42nd Judicial District (Bradford County) of the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, it is hereby ORDERED AND DECREED that the 

Petition, which provides for the reestablishment of Magisterial District 42-3-02 within 

Bradford County as it currently exists, to be effective immediately; and that the 

realignment of Magisterial Districts 42-3-01, 42-3-03, and 42-3-04, to be effective 

November 1, 2022, is granted

Said Magisterial Districts will be reestablished as follows:

Magisterial District 42-3-01

Magisterial District Judge Jonathan W. Wilcox

Alba Borough

Armenia Township

Canton Borough

Canton Township

Columbia Township

Granville Township

LeRoy Township

Ridgebury Township

Smithfield Township

South Creek Township

Springfield Township

Sylvania Borough

Troy Borough
Troy Township

Ulster Township

Wells Township

West Burlington Township

Magisterial District 42-3-02

Magisterial District Judge Larry J. Hurley

Athens Borough

Athens Township

Sayre Borough

South Waverly Borough

Magisterial District 42-3-03

Magisterial District Judge Todd A. Carr

Albany Township

Burlington Township

Burlington Borough

Franklin Township

Monroe Borough

Monroe Township 

New Albany Borough

North Towanda Township

Overton Township

Towanda Borough

Towanda Township

Magisterial District 42-3-04

Magisterial District Judge Fred M. Wheaton

Asylum Township

Herrick Township

LeRaysville Borough

Litchfield Township

Orwell Township

Pike Township

Rome Borough

Rome Township

Sheshequin Township

Standing Stone Township

Stevens Township

Terry Township

Tuscarora Township

Warren Township

Wilmot Township

Windham Township

Wysox Township

Wyalusing Borough

Wyalusing Township
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Douglas St. ROMAIN et al.

No. 62176.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 19, 1978.

In re: State of Louisiana, through the District Attorney, Harry Connick, applying for writ of certiorari. Parish of Orleans.

Writ denied.

SANDERS, C. J., and DIXON, J., would grant the writ.
Order entered January 3, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00847-CR

WESLEY MON MATHEWS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F17-45865-S

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s January 2, 2020 second motion for extension of time to 

file his brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER appellant’s brief due on or before February 

5, 2020. Appellant is cautioned that further extensions are disfavored.

/s/ CORY L. CARLYLE 

JUSTICE
#### Michael Edward BALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-177.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 18, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BRAY JIBRIL MURRAY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. ) C.A. No. 08-264 Erie

)

PAUL A. ENNIS, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Plaintiff’s civil rights complaint was received by the Clerk of Court on 

September 22, 2008 was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise

Baxter for report and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. 

The Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, entered orally on the record

on July 23, 2010, recommends that the Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction [60]

be denied due to Plaintiff’s inability to show a substantial likelihood of success on the

merits. The parties were allowed ten (10) days from the date of service to file

objections. No objections have been filed to date.

After de novo review of the Complaint and the documents in the case, together

with the Magistrate Judge’s oral Report and Recommendation, the following order is

entered:

AND NOW, to wit, this 16 day of August, 2010, th

IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction [60]

be, and hereby is, DENIED. 

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:08-cv-00264-SJM Document 65 Filed 08/16/10 Page 1 of 2
The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Baxter, verbally entered

on the record on July 23, 2010, is adopted as the opinion of this Court.

s/ Sean J. McLaughlin 

SEAN J. McLAUGHLIN

United States District Judge

cm: all parties of record.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter

Page 2 of 2

Case 1:08-cv-00264-SJM Document 65 Filed 08/16/10 Page 2 of 2