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

                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Birner Dental Management
Services, Inc., a Colorado corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned, who are the Chief Executive Officer
and the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, do each hereby
certify, pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss.
1350), that to his 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 result of operations of
         the Company.

                             Date: August 12, 2005.


                                           By:    /s/ Frederic W.J. Birner
                                                  ------------------------
                                         Name:    Frederic W.J. Birner
                                        Title:    Chief Executive Officer


                                           By:    /s/ Dennis N. Genty
                                                  ------------------------
                                         Name:    Dennis N. Genty
                                        Title:    Chief Financial Officer
#### James E. BARRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 71-368 to 71-370.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 8, 1971.

Robert E. Jagger, Public Defender, and Frank H. White, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Warren H. Petersen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The notice of appeal in this case having been untimely filed, the appeal is hereby dismissed *ex mero motu.*

Dismissed.

LILES, A. C. J., and MANN and Mc-NULTY, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Edwin A. PARKFORD, Bankrupt. In re Petition of Mildred RESTORICK et al. for allowance of appeal.

No. 8491.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

March 18, 1937.

David R. Faries and Clyde Thomas, both of Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioners.

Rupert B. Turnbull, of Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent.

Before WILBUR, GARRECIIT, and MATHEWS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of petition for appeal under section 24b of the Bankruptcy Act, as amended, 11 U.S.C.A. § 47 (b), and by direction of the court, it is ordered that said petition be, and hereby is, denied.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.1

                           PAGEMART WIRELESS, INC.                           
                                                                          
                                                                   
<TABLE>                                                                      
<CAPTION>                                                             
                                                                          THREE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996    
                                                                          ---------------------------------------- 
                                                                           NUMBER         PERCENT      EQUIVALENT  
                                                                          OF SHARES     OUTSTANDING      SHARES    
                                                                          ----------    -----------    ----------- 
COMMON STOCK                                                                                                       
   <S>                                                                    <C>              <C>        <C>          
   From Founders' Stock                                                    2,300,000       100.00%       2,300,000 
   Stock Options Exercised                                                   553,164        99.96%         552,943 
   Preferred Stock Converted to Common Stock                              15,310,943       100.00%      15,310,943 
   1994 Common Stock Offerings                                            11,242,857       100.00%      11,242,857 
   1995 Common Stock Offerings                                             4,323,874       100.00%       4,323,874 
   1996 Common Stock Offering                                              6,000,000       100.00%       6,000,000 
                                                                          ----------                  ------------ 
                                                                          39,730,838                    39,730,617 
                                                                                                                   
WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING                                                                     39,730,617 
                                                                                                                   
NET LOSS                                                                                              ($11,986,000)
                                                                                                                   
NET LOSS PER SHARE                                                                                          ($0.30)
                                                                                                      ============

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

** **

 

**Certification**

** **

 

I, Tommy A. Moore, Jr., certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of First Investors Financial Services Group, Inc.

 

2.     Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.     The Company’s other certifying officer(s)and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for theCompany and based on such evaluation:

 

a)   Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared; and

b)  Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisreport (based on such evaluation); and

c)   Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting;

 

5.     The registrant’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal controls over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

 

a)   All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b)  Any fraud, whetheror not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 

Date: March 14, 2005

 
|   | By: /s/ TOMMY A. MOORE, JR. |   |
|--------|-----------------------------|--------|
|   | Tommy A. Moore, Jr.         |
|   | Chief Executive Officer     |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1186 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1186

            To reauthorize the Essex National Heritage Area.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 19, 2013

 Ms. Warren (for herself and Mr. Cowan) introduced the following bill; 
   which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
            To reauthorize the Essex National Heritage Area.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Essex National Heritage Area 
Reauthorization Act''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF ESSEX NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA.

    Division II of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 
1996 (16 U.S.C. 461 note; Public Law 104-333) is amended--
            (1) in section 507, by striking ``September 30, 2012'' and 
        inserting ``September 30, 2027''; and
            (2) in section 508(a), by striking ``$10,000,000'' and 
        inserting ``$20,000,000''.
                                 <all>
```
#### James L. STEWART, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-320.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 5, 1971.

PER. CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Herman Henry MILLS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-649.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 2, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>
 
 
                                 Exhibit 23.1
                                 ------------


        Consent of Deloitte & Touche, LLP, Independent Public Auditors



<PAGE>

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

Board of Directors and Stockholders
Bush Industries, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.'s 33-
77820, 33-77814, 33-69846, 33-69848, 33-66540, 33-66542, 33-63723 and 333-02617
of Bush Industries, Inc. on Form S-8 and 333-14819 and 333-09291 of Bush
Industries, Inc. on Form S-3 of our report dated February 7, 1997, appearing in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Bush Industries, Inc. for the year ended
December 28, 1996.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Buffalo, New York

March 14, 1997
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

Ma y 6 , 2016 

# Order

Clerk Ma y 6 , 2016

152035 (7 6 )

CITY OF HUNTINGTON WOODS and CITY

OF PLEASANT RIDGE,

Plaintiffs/Counter

- Defendants

- Appellants,

SC: 152035

v COA: 321414

Oakland CC: 2013

- 135842

- CZ

CITY OF OAK PARK,

Defendant/Counter

- Plaintiff

- Appellee,

and

45TH DISTRICT COURT,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice , the motion to strike plaintiffs

- appellants’

supplemental brief or, alternatively, to strike all rebuttal/reply arguments is DENIED

.
#### James H. SPURLOCK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-966.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth, District.

July 13, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Ethel Pauline Dubois GUIN et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. EMPLOYERS MUTUAL LIABILITY INSURANCE CO. OF WISCONSIN et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 6489.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

May 24, 1978.

Daniel E. Broussard, Jr., Stephen'E. Everett, Gold, Little, Simon, Weems & Bruser; Henry B. Bruser, III, Alexandria, for plaintiff s-appellants.

William J. Doran, Jr., Baton Rouge, for defendants-appellees.

Before GUIDRY, FORET and CUTRER, JJ.

GUIDRY, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in the companion case of *Guin v. State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Highways, et al.,*our Docket No. 6486, 360 So.2d 1185, the judgment appealed from is affirmed at appellants’ cost.

AFFIRMED.
#### Earl VANCE, and wife, Anita L. Vance, Petitioners, v. FLORIDA REDUCTION CORPORATION, etc., and H. B. Lewis and D. M. Lewis, individually, Respondents.

No. 42631.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 28, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 263 So.2d 585.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
1 

### King, Melanie

From: Higgins, Cortney <Cort ney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 4:03 PM

To: King, Melanie

Subject: Tribal Supplemental NPRM -- Follow up to Interagency Question

Hi Melanie,

Here’s the response to the clarifying question on the statement on the following comment:

• On page 30, the proposal states “The EPA is not aware of any affected EGUs that are owned or operated by tribal

governments.” Suggest including additional text explaining the significance of this statement with respect to this proposal.

Response: I believe the comment suggests the relevance of whether an affected EGU is tribally

‐ owned, especially since

there are none now. I know the Navajo Nation has an option, in their lease, to buy into the NGS power plant (an affected

EGU), so NGS could become at least partially tribally owned. But, again, what is the relevance

‐‐ would it require Navajo

to have a TIP, would it change the EPA approach to this, or would there be a difference in their calculations?

Can EPA elaborate in the text to clarify what it would mean if an affected EGU was owned or operated by tribal govts.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Regards,

Cortney
#### Claude ALEXANDER v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 49890.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Sept. 14, 1977.

J. Steve Chustz, Jackson, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Billy L. Gore, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Grenada County; Clarence E. Morgan, Jr., Judge.

Before INZER, P. J., and ROBERTSON and BOWLING, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1474 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1474

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 to 
 repeal a special rule for the State of Alaska, and for other purposes.

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

REPEAL OF SPECIAL RULE FOR STATE OF ALASKA.

    Section 910 of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 
2013 (18 U.S.C. 2265 note; Public Law 113-4) is repealed.

            Passed the Senate December 9, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 1474

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To amend the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 to 
 repeal a special rule for the State of Alaska, and for other purposes.
```
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 136 (Monday, July 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 32932]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15233]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of 
the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the 
Securities and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on July 
18, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: The meeting will be held in the Auditorium, Room LL-002 at the 
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS: This meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. (ET) and will be open to 
the public. Seating will be on a first-come, first-served basis. 
Visitors will be subject to security checks. The meeting will be 
webcast on the Commission's website at http://www.sec.gov.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The subject matters of the Open Meeting will 
be the Commission's consideration of:
    1. Whether to adopt an amendment to Securities Act Rule 701(e), as 
mandated by the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer 
Protection Act.
    2. Whether to issue a concept release requesting comment on 
potential revisions to Securities Act Rule 701 and Securities Act Form 
S-8.
    3. Whether to propose amendments to the disclosure requirements in 
Rule 3-10 and Rule 3-16 of Regulation S-X.
    4. Whether to adopt amendments to Rule 3a1-1 and Regulation ATS and 
new Form ATS-N under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 related to 
certain alternative trading systems.

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the 
scheduling of meeting items.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information, please 
contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-
5400.

    Dated: July 11, 2018.
Lynn M. Powalski,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-15233 Filed 7-12-18; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Consolidated
Capital Properties VI 1997 Year-End 10-KSB and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such 10-KSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000755908
<NAME> CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL PROPERTIES VI
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,949
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      349
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                           9,866
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,641)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,020
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                          4,407
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,309
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,020
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,598
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,239
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 680
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,359
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    18.49<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the ADOPTION OF Charles Thomas STEADMAN and Mary Virginia Steadman, Minors. James Webb STEADMAN v. Dean Price MEADOR and Rosemary Turner Meador.

No. 49714.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Nov. 30, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Jan 16, 1978.

Gray, Montague, Jackson & Pittman, Frank D. Montague, Jr., Hattiesburg, John G.Corlew, Pascagoula, for appellant.

Zachary *&*Gillespie, Frank T. Zachary, Hattiesburg, for appellee.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Forrest County; Michael Sullivan, Chancellor.

Before INZER, P. J., WALKER and BROOM, JJ., and J. D. THAMES, Commissioner.

REVERSED AND RENDERED.

PATTERSON, C. J., SMITH, P. J., and ROBERTSON, SUGG, LEE and BOWLING, JJ., concurring.