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

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

The undersigned hereby certify that pursuant to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 1350(a), the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2007 (the "Form 10-K") of Hearst-Argyle Television, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company at and for the periods indicated.

Dated:
February 25, 2008

| |  | By:                                                        | /s/DAVID J. BARRETT
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------
| |  | Name: David J. Barrett                                    
| |  | Title:President and Chief Executive Officer               
| |  | By:                                                        | /s/HARRY T. HAWKS  
| |  | Name: Harry T. Hawks                                      
| |  | Title:Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 21.1

INCOME OPPORTUNITY REALTY INVESTORS, INC.

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

The following is a list of all subsidiaries and partnership interests of Income Opportunity Realty Investors, Inc. and the state or other jurisdiction of
organization or incorporation:



|                                     |  |             |  |                                            
|------------------------------------ |  | ----------- |  | -------------------------------------------
|NAME OF ENTITY                       |  | OWNERSHIP % |  | JURISDICTION OFORGANIZATION ORINCORPORATION
|Corporations                         |  |             |  |                                            
|IORI Centura, Inc.                   |  | 100%        |  | Nevada                                     
|IORI Falcon Point, Inc.              |  | 100%        |  | Nevada                                     
|IORI Enclave 5, Inc.                 |  | 100%        |  | Nevada                                     
|IORI Keller Springs Tech, Inc.       |  | 100%        |  | Nevada                                     
|IORI Minerals, Inc.                  |  | 100%        |  | Nevada                                     
|IORI Valley View, Inc.               |  | 100%        |  | Nevada                                     
|IORI Tristar Tech, Inc.              |  | 100%        |  | Nevada                                     
|Midland Odessa Properties, Inc.      |  | 19.9%       |  | California                                 
|Transcontinental Brewery, Inc.       |  | 100%        |  | Nevada                                     
|Transcontinental Parkway Corporation |  | 100%        |  | Nevada                                     
|                                     |  |            
|Partnerships                         |  |             |  |                                            
|Nakash Income Associates             |  | 40%         |  | Georgia                                    
|TCI Eaton Square LP                  |  | 10%         |  | Texas
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-41146

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JESUS ALBERTO DE LEON

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:06-CR-1501 ALL

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Jesus Alberto De Leon has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). De Leon has not filed a response. Our independent review

of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 20, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
#### CIMMARON HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. et al. v. CIMMARON, INC., et al.

No. 89-C-0002.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 17, 1989.

In re Cimmaron Homeowners Assn.;— Plaintiffs); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CA87 0973; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “L”, No. 238282.

Denied.
# L_2006086EN.01001801.xml

| 24.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 86/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 86/18

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 485/2006

of 23 March 2006

concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the export of common wheat issued in Regulation (EC) No 1059/2005

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of common wheat to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1059/2005 (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of common wheat to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1059/2005 (2).

| (2) | Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

| (3) | On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed.

| (4) | The Management Committee for Cereals has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The Management Committee for Cereals has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 17 to 23 March 2006 in response to the invitation to tender for the refund for the export of common wheat issued in Regulation (EC) No 1059/2005.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 24 March 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 23 March 2006.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005, p. 11).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 174, 7.7.2005, p. 15.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7. Regulation as last modified by Regulation (EC) No 777/2004 (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 50).

3

---
|   | 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: November 5, 2007 | By:                                                                                                                                    | /s/  Katherine A. Ostruszka |
|-------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|
|                    | Katherine                A. OstruszkaChief                Financial Officer And Controller(Principal                Financial Officer) |

----
EXHIBIT 31.2

Certification

I, Kevin L. Thompson,
certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period
covered by this report on Form 10-K of the American Express Credit Account Master Trust (the Exchange Act periodic reports);

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing or other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements
required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities
and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18
have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The Bank of
New York Mellon and TransCentra, Inc. (formerly known as Regulus Group LLC).



|       |  |                                                                                                                  
|------ |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date:  |  | March 20, 2014                                                                                                   
|       | 
|By:    |  | /s/ Kevin L. Thompson                                                                                            
|Name:  |  | Kevin L. Thompson                                                                                                
|Title: |  | President American Express Receivables Financing Corporation III LLC
(senior officer in charge of securitization)
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 14784]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6026]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9645-7]

Notice of Proposed Administrative Settlement Pursuant to the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 122 (i) of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended 
(``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given of a proposed 
administrative settlement concerning the Arkansas Waste to Energy 
Superfund Site, located in Osceola, Mississippi County, Arkansas.
    The settlement requires the six (6) settling parties to pay a total 
of $118,503.00 as payment of response costs to the Hazardous Substances 
Superfund, as well as remove the remaining 708 drums still onsite. The 
settlement includes a covenant not to sue pursuant to Section 106 and 
107 of CERCLA, 42, U.S.C. 9606 and 9607.
    For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this 
notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to this 
notice and will receive written comments relating to the settlement. 
The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or 
withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose 
facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is 
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any 
comments received will be available for public inspection at 1445 Ross 
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before April 12, 2012.

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement and additional background 
information relating to the settlement are available for public 
inspection at 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. A copy of the 
proposed settlement may be obtained from Cynthia Brown at, 1445 Ross 
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 or by calling (214) 665-7480. Comments 
should reference the Arkansas Waste to Energy Superfund Site, located 
in Osceola, Mississippi County, Arkansas, and EPA Docket Number 06-11-
08, and should be addressed to Cynthia Brown at the address listed 
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia Brown 1445 Ross Avenue, 
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 or call (214) 665-7480.

    Dated: February 29, 2012.
Al Armendariz,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-6026 Filed 3-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1899 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on yttrium oxide phosphor. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 26, 2009 

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

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on yttrium 

oxide phosphor. 

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

3 SECTION 1. YTTRIUM OXIDE PHOSPHOR. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.22.63 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 yttrium oxide phosphor) is amended by striking the date 

7 in the effective period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

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

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1899 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch

, 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.

January 4, 2021 

# Order

Clerk January 4, 2021

160 457

In re T.J. DIEHL, Minor

.

_________________________________________

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Petitioner

- Appellant,

SC: 160457

v COA: 345672

Oakland CC Family Div:

2017

- 855352

- DL

T.J. DIEHL,

Respondent

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the case is ADJOURNED from the January 2021 oral

argument session of the Court

.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2269 

To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to clarify 

the temporary suspension of duty for certain DVD readers and writers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 

States to clarify the temporary suspension of duty for 

certain DVD readers and writers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN DVD READERS AND WRITERS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The article description for sub5 heading 9902.23.36 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 

6 the United States is amended to read as follows: ‘‘Multi7 format mini-DVD camcorder with photo frame-grab capa8 bility and internal hard drive (specifically, readability in 

9 DVD–R, DVD–RW, DVD–RAM and DVD+RW for10 mats), whether or not containing other features such as 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2269 IS

1 USB 2.0 port, memory card slot (provided for in sub2 heading 8525.40.80).’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.— 

4 (1) IN GENERAL.—The amendment made by 

5 this section applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

6 from warehouse for consumption, on or after Janu7 ary 1, 2007. 

8 (2) RETROACTIVE APPLICATION.—Notwith9 standing section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 

10 U.S.C. 1504) or any other provision of law, upon 

11 proper request being filed with U.S. Customs and 

12 Border Protection before the date that is 90 days 

13 after the date of the enactment of this section, any 

14 entry, or withdrawal from warehouse for consump15 tion of an article described in subheading 

16 9902.23.36 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 

17 the United States (as amended by subsection (a)) 

18 that was made— 

19 (A) after December 31, 2006, and 

20 (B) before the date of the enactment of 

21 this section, 

22 shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though the 

23 amendment made by subsection (a) applied to such 

24 entry or withdrawal. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2269 IS

1 (3) PROPER REQUESTS.—For purposes of para2 graph (2), a proper request means a request for liq3 uidation or reliquidation that contains sufficient in4 formation to enable the U.S. Customs and Border 

5 Protection— 

6 (A) to locate the entry; or 

7 (B) to reconstruct the entry if it cannot be 

8 located. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1



                         Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
Clean Diesel Technologies, Inc. of our report dated March 20, 1997, included in
the 1996 Annual Report to Shareholders of Clean Diesel Technologies, Inc.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-16939) pertaining to the 1994 Incentive Plan of Clean Diesel
Technologies, Inc. of our report dated March 20, 1997 with respect to the
financial statements of Clean Diesel Technologies, Inc. incorporated by
reference in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1996.





                                          /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Stamford, Connecticut

March 28, 1997
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leroy Carter, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (West, J.), rendered August 2, 1989, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree (two counts), and attempted grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence as a second felony offender.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted in 1985 in New Jersey for the theft of $623 by deception in 1983. This New Jersey conviction was the basis of his adjudication as a second felony offender. On appeal, the defendant contends that the sentencing court erred in sentencing him as a second felony offender because the predicate felony upon which his second offender status is based was obtained in another State and is not a felony in this State. We disagree. At the time the defendant committed the theft in New Jersey and at the time judgment was rendered in New Jersey, the crime would have been classified as grand larceny in the third degree, a class E felony, under the New York Penal Law *(see,*L 1986, ch 515, § 1). Generally, whether a prior conviction is a predicate felony conviction is to be determined by applying the provisions of the law which were in effect at the time the crime was committed *(see, People v*
      *632
      *Oliver,*1 NY2d 152, 158; *People v Griffin,*97 AD2d 481; *People v McAtee, 53*AD2d 791). Further, the amendments enacted in Laws of 1986 (ch 515), although ameliorative in nature, have only been applied to cases where the judgment was rendered after their effective date *(see, People v Behlog,*74 NY2d 237; *People v Bergos,*170 AD2d 611). Because the defendant’s conviction in New Jersey of theft by deception carried a sentence of imprisonment in excess of one year in the foreign jurisdiction and its elements are equivalent to what was a felony in New York at the time the crime was committed and at the time the New Jersey judgment was rendered, this prior out-of-State conviction is a predicate felony conviction in New York *(see,*NJ Stats § 2C:20-2 [b] [2]; § 2C:43-6; Penal Law § 70.06 [1] [b] [i]; *People v Sailor,*65 NY2d 224, 237; *People v Gonzalez,*61 NY2d 586, 589).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit *(see, People v Rivera,*71 NY2d 705; *People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137; *see also, People v Pavao,*59 NY2d 282; *People v Bennette,*56 NY2d 142, 146; *People v Sandoval,*34 NY2d 371, 377-378; *People v Portalatin,*126 AD2d 577). Kooper, J. P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.