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 Quarterly Report of Evergreen Solar, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 2, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard M. Feldt,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to my knowledge:

(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.

/s/ Richard M. Feldt
------------------------------------
Richard M. Feldt
Chief Executive Officer
August 11, 2005

                                       44
<TABLE> <S> <C>
 
<ARTICLE>      5 
<LEGEND>       THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
               FROM THE ACCOMPANYING CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
               STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
               SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000 
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                      93,856
<SECURITIES>                                 9,795
<RECEIVABLES>                               22,286
<ALLOWANCES>                                   649
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           131,696
<PP&E>                                      11,110
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             146,570
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       28,427
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                        25
<OTHER-SE>                                  48,639
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               146,570
<SALES>                                     51,808
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            79,621
<CGS>                                          512
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               15,975
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            49,914
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (6,256)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 5,492
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (11,748)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               (11,748)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               ($0.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               ($0.48)

         

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of CERTIFICATE FROM STATE OF OHIO TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE OF WITNESS.

No. 70-447.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 22, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; L. Clayton Nance, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
260 La. 706

#### Suit by Gus FITZGERALD to Confirm Title.

No. 52109.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 11, 1972.

In re: Gus Fitzgerald applying for Cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Plaque-mines. 256 So.2d 132.

Writ denied. The judgment is correct.
#### Michael Francis WHALEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-66.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 14, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Edwin W. PERRY, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF PASCO COUNTY, Florida, and Chester W. Taylor, Jr., as Superintendent of Public Instruction of Pasco County, Florida, Respondents.

No. 70-263.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 8, 1970.

Certiorari dismissed.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32
 
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 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 as of the
dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.
 Date:  August 2, 2005
    /s/Jeffrey S. GormanJeffrey S. GormanPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)/s/Robert E. KirkendallRobert E. KirkendallSenior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)  19
251 La. 739

#### Mike Pat ODOM, Jr., et al. v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 49027.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 2, 1968.

In re: Mike Pat Odom, Jr., et al applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Rapides. 203 So.2d 752.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, we find no error of law in the judgment complained of.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 136 (Monday, July 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 32896]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15112]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Natural Resources Revenue

[Docket No. ONRR-2016-0001; DS63644000 DR2000000.CH7000 189D0102R2]


Withdrawal of Temporary Physical Address Change for General 
Ledger Team

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Office of Natural Resources Revenue, 
Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) is withdrawing 
the temporary physical address change published in the Federal Register 
on April 27, 2016 for courier services and personal deliveries.

DATES: The cancellation takes effect on July 16, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Darrel Redford, Supervisory 
Accountant, at (303) 231-3085, or email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#246045565641480a764140424b5640644b4a56560a434b52"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0743667575626b2955626361687563476869757529606871">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As of July 16, 2018, all courier services 
and deliveries should be made to ONRR, at the Denver Federal Center, 
Building 85, Entrance N-1, West 6th Ave. and Kipling St., Denver, 
Colorado 80225. Visitor parking is available in the north parking lot 
near Entrance N-1, which is the only entrance on the north side of 
Building 85. To request service, please use the courtesy phone and call 
Janet Giron at (303) 231-3088.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 1505.

Gregory J. Gould,
Director for Office of Natural Resources Revenue.
[FR Doc. 2018-15112 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4335-30-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          13,395
<SECURITIES>                                       477
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,310
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,642
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,852
<PP&E>                                          12,876
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,042
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  35,488
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,572
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        69,102
<OTHER-SE>                                    (61,241)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    35,488
<SALES>                                         14,275
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                49,696
<CGS>                                            1,421
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   31,984
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                28,352
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  27
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,429)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (11,429)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,429)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.55)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.55)
        

</TABLE>
#### The WOLF ENVELOPE COMPANY, Appellant, v. PEVELY DAIRY COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 7656.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

March 4, 1937.

Kwis, Hudson & Kent, of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.

Before HICKS, SIMONS, and ALLEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

It appearing to the court that an agreed motion to docket and dismiss appeal has been filed, accompanied by certificate of the clerk of the District Court as provided by rule 18; on consideration whereof, it is ordered that the appeal be, and the same is, docketed and dismissed.
-  Freedom of Information Act      -  Submit & Check Status of FOIA Requests 
  -  FOIA Contacts & Requester Service Centers and Privacy Act Contacts 
  -  HHS FOIA Reports        -  Annual Reports 
    -  Quarterly Reports 
    -  Chief FOIA Officer Report 
    -  Open Pending FOIA Request Reports 
  -  FOIA Library / Electronic Reading Room        -  2016/2017 HHS Presidential Transition Documents 
  -  FOIA Exemptions & Exclusions 
  -  FOIA & Privacy Act Statutes & Resources        -  The Privacy Act 
    -  HHS System of Records Notices (SORNs) 
    -  HHS Computer Matching Agreements (CMAs) 
  -  FOIA FAQS 
  -  FOIA Appeals 
  -  FOIA Fees 
  -  COVID-19 Contracts 

                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   

# What can I do if my appeal is denied?

If HHS denies your appeal, or does not respond within 20 working days, you may file a lawsuit. You may file a FOIA lawsuit in the U.S. District Court where you live, where you have your principal place of business, where the documents are kept, or in the District of Columbia. In court, HHS will have to prove that any withheld information is covered by one of the exemptions or exclusions listed in the FOIA or is prohibited from release by some other law. If you win a substantial portion of your case, the court may require the government to pay your court costs and reasonable attorney fees.

Content last reviewed September 17, 2015
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 7890** 

RODNEY EUGENE JONES , Petitioner

– Appellant ,

v. LAWRENCE PARSONS, Administrator, Lanesboro Correctional Institution , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Asheville

. Robert J. Conrad, Jr. , District Judge. ( 1:12

- cv - 00175

- RJC )

Submitted : July 24, 2014 Decided: July 28, 2014

Before FLOYD and THACKER , Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Rodney Eugene Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Rodney Eugene Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the court’s order denying Jones’ 28 U.S.C . § 2254 (2012) petition

. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bow les v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court’s order was entered on the docket

on May 17, 2013 . The notice of appeal was filed on November 8, 2013 . Because Jones failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopen ing of the appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Jones’ second motion to reopen the appeal as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented i n the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Constance EDWARDS, Appellant, v. Margaret Simmons BARRON, Appellee.

No. 71-988.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 20, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 of Day International Group, Inc
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Dennis R. Wolters, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

         (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 position and results of operations of the
Company.





/s/ Dennis R. Wolters
---------------------------
Dennis R. Wolters
Chief Executive Officer
November 11, 2002
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6055** 

RONALD DE ’ RAY SKIPPER , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. JOSEPH MCFADDEN, Warden , Respondent

– Appellee , and
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA , Respondent
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence
. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. ( 4:14

- cv - 04061

- TLW )

Submitted : April 18, 2016 Decided: April 29, 2016

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN , and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Ronald De’Ray Skipper, Appellant Pro Se. Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Ronald De’Ray Skipper seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or w rong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable , and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Skipper has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certific ate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately4 presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisi onal process.
DISMISSED
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [Investigation No. 731-TA-894 (Third Review)]

# AGENCY:

United States International Trade Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Commission instituted the subject five-year review in May 2018 to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on Ammonium Nitrate from Ukraine would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. On June 18, 2018, the Department of Commerce published notice that it was revoking the order effective June 12, 2018, because no domestic interested party filed a notice of intent to participate. Accordingly, the subject review is terminated.

# DATES:

June 29, 2018.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Lawrence Jones (202-205-3358), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (                        *https://www.usitc.gov*).                    

*Authority:*                         This review is being terminated under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 and pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). This notice is published pursuant to section 207.69 of the Commission's rules (19 CFR 207.69).                    

By order of the Commission.

Issued: July 6, 2018.

Jessica Mullan,

Attorney-Advisor.

[FR Doc. 2018-14883 Filed 7-11-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
_________________ 

_________________ 

(Slip Opinion) Cite as: 591 U. S. ____ (2020) 1 

Per Curiam 

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 

preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to 

notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that 

corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

No. 17–1107 

TOMMY SHARP, INTERIM WARDEN, PETITIONER v. 

PATRICK DWAYNE MURPHY 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

[July 9, 2020]

 PER CURIAM. 

The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Tenth Circuit is affirmed for the reasons stated in 

McGirt v. Oklahoma, ante, p. ___. 

It is so ordered.

 JUSTICE GORSUCH took no part in the consideration or 

decision of this case.

 JUSTICE THOMAS and JUSTICE ALITO dissent.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                   EXHIBIT 11

                        Golden West Financial Corporation
        Statement of Computation of Basic and Diluted Earnings Per Share
                 (Dollars in thousands except per share figures)


                                                          Three Months Ended                    Nine Months Ended
                                                             September 30                         September 30
                                                   ----------------------------------   ----------------------------------
                                                        2000               1999              2000               1999
                                                   ----------------   ---------------   ----------------   ---------------

<S>                                                  <C>               <C>                <C>               <C>
Net Earnings                                         $     137,403     $     118,071      $     396,599     $     360,826
                                                   ================   ===============   ================   ===============

Weighted Average Shares                                158,032,942       164,094,096        158,661,510       167,146,773
    Add:  Options outstanding at period end              6,545,529         6,226,950          6,545,529         6,226,950
    Less:  Shares assumed purchased back with
              proceeds of options exercised              4,483,405         4,831,866          4,992,171         4,844,703
                                                   ----------------   ---------------   ----------------   ---------------
Diluted Average Shares Outstanding                     160,095,066       165,489,180        160,214,868       168,529,020
                                                   ================   ===============   ================   ===============

Basic Earnings Per Share                             $         .87     $         .72      $        2.50     $        2.16
                                                   ================   ===============   ================   ===============

Diluted Earnings Per Share                           $         .86     $         .71      $        2.48     $        2.14
                                                   ================   ===============   ================   ===============
</TABLE>