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











Certification
      by the Co-Presidents


of


Boardwalk
      GP, LLC


pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


(as
      adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)








Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned Co-Presidents of Boardwalk GP, LLC
      hereby certify, to such officers’ knowledge, that the quarterly report on Form
      10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006, (the "Report") of Boardwalk Pipeline
      Partners, LP (the “Partnership”) fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information
      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the Condensed
      Consolidated Balance Sheets and Statements of Income of the
      Partnership .











May
      2,
      2006




*/s/
      Rolf A. Gafvert*


Rolf
      A.
      Gafvert


Co-President
      and Director


( co-principal
      executive officer)







*/s/
      H. Dean Jones II*


H.
      Dean
      Jones II


Co-President
      and Director


(co-principal
      executive officer)
September 16, 2009

u 17’

Mr. William C. Early (3RAOO) RECEIVEDActing Regional AdministratorU. S. Environmental Protection Agency SEP 2’t 2009

Region III

1650 Arch Street DivisOfl Director (SAPOO)

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029

Dear Mr. Early:

I am pleased to submit the enclosed Amendment to the State Implementation Plan (SIP)

Revision for Ozone, Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5),NAAQS, and Visibility (as submitted on

December, 2007). The purpose of this amended SIP is to respond to the EPA’s requests for

Delaware to clarify and provide supplemental language to Delaware’s State Implementation

Plan Revision for Oione, Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5),and Visibility, which was originally

submitted on December 17, 2007. The effective date ofthis amended Revision is September 1,

2009.

In this amended SIP revision, Delaware addresses those requirements of Section 110(a)

and Section 11 0(a)(2) of the CAA which have not been specifically addressed in other SIP

revisions. It remains a compilation of certain elements that describe how Delaware demonstrates

that the 1997 eight-hour ozone and the 1997 annual PM2.5National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS) are being implemented, maintained and enforced. The elements of this SIP

revision, once approved by EPA, will provide a federally enforceable written confirmation ofhow Delaware will continue to comply with the Section 1 10(a)(2) requirements of the CAA.

Many of the miscellaneous requirements of Section 11 0(a)(2)(A)-(M) of the CAA relevant tothe eight-hour ozone and annual PM2.5NAAQS are already contained in Delaware’s SIP or in

SIP revisions which have been submitted to, but not yet approved by EPA.

This SIP revision met public hearing process requirements established by the State of

Delaware, and as required by EPA, with proper notification (30 days) prior to the convening of

the public hearing. The hearing was held on August 27, 2009. Attachments A and B are copies

Ve€44a’ze Øood tat’wze áftec’idd o øaf
important work. As always, feel free to contact me or Ali Mirzakhalili, Program Administrator,(302) 739-9402, if you have any questions concerning the enclosed documents.

Sincerel

Collin P. O’MaraSecretary

cc: Diane Esher, EPA w/encl.

Dave Arnold, EPA w/encl.

Ali Mirzakhalili
#### Bertha N. JACKSON v. Dr. George WHITFIELD, Administrator, Louisiana Department of Employment Security and Ascension Parish School Board.

No. 87-C-0665.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1987.

In re Jackson, Bertha N.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 86-CA-0778; Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court, Div. “A”, No. 35598.

Prior report: La.App., 503 So.2d 1198.

Denied.

CALOGERO and DENNIS, JJ., would grant the writ.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 1820

ERIC J. BONETTI , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. CITY OF ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA; ROBERT HILLER MALM; EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF VIRGINIA; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF MASSACHUSETTS; ST. GABRIEL ’ S EPISCOPAL CHURCH , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Claude M. Hilton , Senior District Judge. ( 1:21

- cv - 00190

- CMH

- JFA )

Submitted : October 6, 2021 Decided: October 20, 2021

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WILKINSON , and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Eric J. Bonetti, Appellant Pro Se. George Arthur McAndrews, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia; Wayne F. Cyron, CYRON & MILLER, LLP, Alexandria, Virginia; Diane Elizabeth DiBlasio, Matthew James Youssef, NILE S , BARTON & WILMER, LLP, Baltimo re, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Eric J. Bonetti sued the City of Alexandria, Virginia; Robert Malm; the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia; the Commonwealth of Virginia; the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts ; and St. Gabriel’s Episcopal Church (collectively Defendants), alleging in an amended complaint that Defendants violated his civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3), and engaged in acts of civil conspiracy in violat ion of Virginia law. The district court dismissed Bonetti’s claims and denied Bonetti’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration . On appeal, Bonetti asserts that the city engaged in a pattern and practice of violating his civil rights and that De fendants conspired to deprive him of his civil rights. We review de novo a district court’s order granting a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), “accept[ing] the factual allegations in the complaint as true and constru[ing] them in the lig ht most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Rockville Cars, LLC v. City of Rockville , 891 F.3d 141, 145 (4th Cir. 2018). To survive a motion to dismiss, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, “a plaintiff must provide sufficient detail to show that he has a more

- than

- conceivable chance of success on the merits.” Upstate Forever v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. , 887 F.3d 637, 645 (4th Cir. 2018) (cleaned up), vacated on other grounds , 140 S. Ct. 2736 (2020). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing Bonetti’s claims and denying reconsideration. Accordingly, we deny3 Bonetti’s motion for injunctive relief and stay pending appeal and affirm the district court’s orders . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                          ELECTRO-OPTICAL SYSTEMS CORP.
                             FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000846005
<NAME>                        Electro-Optical Systems Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     0
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         454,537
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               555,506
<PP&E>                                         8,356
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (232)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 583,570
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          704,523
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       2,109
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   583,570
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  354,555
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (354,555)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.017)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.017)
        

</TABLE>
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT January Term 2014

LORENA VARGAS HERRERA

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 13

- 4723

[July 2, 2014 ]

A ppeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Charles E. Burton

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502010CF008981A

.

Robert Sauerheber of Robert Sauerheber, P.A., Orlando, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, a nd Heidi L. Bettendorf, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

On Concession of Error

P ER C URIAM

.

The State concedes that appellant’s amended postconviction motion, which she filed following our decision in Herrera v. State , 126 So. 3d 445 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013), should not have been denied as untimely. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

S TEVENSON

, C IKLIN and C ONNER

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely fi led motion for rehearing.
#### Janelle Marie DUPLECHIN v. John Joseph TOCE.

No. 86-C-2372.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 9, 1987.

In re Toce, John Joseph; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 85-1243; Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court, Div. “D”, No. 82-0024.

Prior report: La.App., 497 So.2d 763.

Denied.

CALOGERO, MARCUS and DENNIS, JJ., would grant the writ.
### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs F eb ru ar y 1, 200 6 I N RE 

### G IOR GIA NNA 

### H., S TUART 

### H., S ABRINA 

### H., S AVANNAH 

### H., V ICTO RIA 

### H.,

B ENJ AMIN 

### H., & S ARAHANNA 

### H. Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for P err y County No. 3358 Robert

E. Lee Davies, Judge

No. M2005- 01697-COA-R 3-P T - F iled March 21, 2006

W I L L I AM B. C A IN , J

. , co n cu rr i n g. I adher e to my

longsta ndi n g v iew that a “ preponde ranc e of the evidenc e” sta ndard a nd a “cle ar a nd convincing evidenc e” standard are incompatible with e ach other and cannot be re conciled either in the tria l court or in appe llate courts. The ef fort to make the se standar ds co m patible, as asserted in Ray v . Ray , 83 S.W .2d 726 (Tenn.Ct.App.2001), and its prog eny are in my view incor

rec t for reasons stated at leng th in Estate of Acuff v. O’Linger , 56 S.W .3d 527 (Tenn.Ct.App.2001) a nd In re Z.J.S. and M

.J.P. , No. M2002-02235-COA- R3 -J V, filed June 3, 2003 (Tenn.Ct.App.2003- Cain, concur

ring ).
R ega rd l es s o f t h i s d i s agr ee m en t , t h e e x h au s t i v e a n d s ch o l a r l y o p i n i o n au t h o re d b y J u d ge Koch f or the majority

discloses a c ase tha t w ould w ithstand sc rutiny under any definition of cle ar, c og e nt andc on vin c ing e vid e nc e . I the re fo re c on c ur

in the jud g me nt.

___________________________________ WI LL I AM B. CAIN, J UDGE
EXHIBIT 21

                  Subsidiaries of Bremer Financial Corporation

   Name of Subsidiaries and State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation as of
                                 March 12, 1999:

State of Minnesota:

       Bremer Business Finance Corporation
       Bremer Financial Services, Inc.
       Bremer Insurance Agencies, Inc.
       Bremer Services, Inc.
       Bremer Trust, National Association

State of Wisconsin:

       Dunn County Bankshares, Inc., parent of Bremer Bank, National Association
          (Menomonie, WI)
       Bremer Premium Finance Corporation

State of Arizona:

       Bremer First American Life Insurance Company

United States (National Bank Act):

       Bremer Bank, National Association (Alexandria, MN)
       Bremer Bank, National Association (Brainerd, MN)
       Bremer Bank, National Association (Breckenridge, MN)
       Bremer Bank, National Association (Crookston, MN)
       Bremer Bank, National Association (Detroit Lakes, MN)
       Bremer Bank, National Association (Grand Forks, ND)
       Bremer Bank, National Association (International Falls, MN)
       Bremer Bank, National Association (Marshall, MN)
       Bremer Bank, National Association (Menomonie, WI)
       Bremer Bank, National Association (Minot, ND)
       Bremer Bank, National Association (Moorhead, MN)
       Bremer Bank, National Association (St. Cloud, MN)
       Bremer Bank, National Association (South Saint Paul, MN)
       Bremer Bank, National Association (Willmar, MN)


                                       64
#### STATE ex rel. Nelson R. CHARLES v. Frank C. BLACKBURN, Warden.

No. 86-KH-2476.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 9, 1987.

In re Charles, Nelson R.; applying for remedial writs; Parish of Jefferson Davis, 31st Judicial District Court, No. CR-1410-78.

Denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2352 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2352

  To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on Rhenogran Diuron-80.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

  Mr. Voinovich (for himself and Mr. Brown) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on Rhenogran Diuron-80.

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

SECTION 1. RHENOGRAN DIURON-80.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.12.75 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Rhenogran Diuron-80) is 
amended by striking the date in the effective column period and 
inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
## April 3, 2012, SC DHEC SIP Amendment

Attachment B ‐ SC Attorney General’s November 5, 1993, Opinion

in the Title V SubmittalThis page intentionally left blank

## ~tate 

# nf**~nut4GIarnIi1ta** (Office of**t~t** 

### (iautrnar

CARROLL A. CAMPBELL • ..JR. POST O

.... 'CE Box 11369

GOVE.RNOR COLUMBIA 29211

November 12, 1993

Patrick M. Tobin, Acting Administrator
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IV 345 Courtland Street, N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30365

Dear Mr. Tobin:

Attached is South Carolina's program submittal package addressing the requirements of Section 507 of the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act
and 40 CFR 70. Additional copies are being submitted under separate cover directly to your Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division.

This regulatory program covers the entire geographic area of the State of
South Carolina, including the Catawba Indian Reservation. Although the
reservation may adopt environmental standards which are more stringent
than state standards, the reservation is subject to all federal and state environmental laws. The Catawbas have not adopted any standards of their

own to date. No local air pollution control programs exist in the state.

South Carolina has all of the statutory and regulatory authority necessary for
full approval of South Carolina's Title V Operating Permit Program. All

necessary staff and resources are either presently available or will be available
when EPA authorizes South Carolina's implementation of this program. A
transition plan for program implementation is also provided.

South Carolina requests EPA approval of this program. Any suggestions or
comments your staff may have concerning South Carolina's Title V program submittal should be addressed to either Mr. R. Lewis Shaw, Deputy 

# •

### Commissioner for Environmental Quality Control, or Mr. James A. Joy, III, Chief, Bureau of Air Quality, Department of Health and Environmental Control.

Carroll A. Campbell, r. Governor

CACjr/tad



# •
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-123549 on Form S-3 and in Registration Statement No.’s 333-23237, 333-41327,333-41291, 333-62157, 333-62151, 333-71892, 333-129391 and 333-129392 on Forms S-8 of our reports dated March 4, 2008, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule of Radiant Systems, Inc (which report expresses anunqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs relating to the Company’s adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R), *Share-Based Payment* and Financial Accounting Standards Board InterpretationNo. 48, *Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes*), and the effectiveness of Radiant Systems, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Radiant Systems, Inc. for the yearended December 31, 2007. 

*/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP*

Atlanta, Georgia 

March 4, 2008
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2428 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain men’s non-work footwear. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

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

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain men’s non-work 

footwear. 

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 MEN’S NON-WORK FOOTWEAR. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Other footwear with outer 

soles and uppers of rubber or 

plastics, the foregoing for 

men, other than house slippers, work footwear, tennis 

shoes, basketball shoes, gym 

shoes, training shoes, and the 

like (provided for in subheading 6402.99.31) ............. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2428 IS

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

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

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

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE MARIA DELGADILLO

- MEJIA

,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND , Attorney

General,

Respondent. No. 21

- 1201

Agency No. A205

- 467

- 286

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 11, 2023 **

San Francisco, California

Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and FRIEDLAND and BENNETT , Circuit

Judges

.

Jose Maria Delgadillo

- Mejia petitions for review of a Board of

Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order refusing to sua sponte reopen his removal

proceedings. “ When the BIA denies sua sponte reopening

. . . as a matter of

discretion, we lack jurisdiction to review that decision, although we retain

jurisdiction to review the denial of sua sponte reopening for ‘legal or

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not

precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

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

# FILED

MAY 15 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 1201

constitutional error.’” Rubalcaba v. Garland , 998 F.3d 1031, 1035 (9th Cir.

2021 ) (quoting Lona v. Barr

, 958 F.3d 1225, 1229 ( 9th Cir. 2020)).

Delgadillo

- Mejia argues only that the BIA legally erred by determining

that the Notice to Appear (“NTA”), which omitted the time and location

information required under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1)(G)(i) , did not deprive the

immigration judge of jurisdiction over his removal proceedings. This argument

is foreclosed by United States v. Bastide

- Hernandez , 39 F.4th 1187 , 1191

– 92

(9th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (holding that an NTA’s failure to comply with the

requirements under § 1229(a)(1)(G)(i) does not deprive the immigration court

of jurisdiction )

, cert. denied, No. 22

- 6281, 2023 WL 350056 (U.S. Jan. 23,

2023)

.

PETITION DENIED

.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2330 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2330

     To suspend temporarily the duty on certain woven mesh fabric.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

  Mr. Kerry (for himself and Mr. Kirk) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To suspend temporarily the duty on certain woven mesh fabric.

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

SECTION 1. WOVEN MESH FABRIC.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.01.00       Woven mesh fabric,  Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/ ''.
                          certified by the                                                   31/2011.......
                          importer as made
                          of
                          perfluoroalkoxy
                          copolymer resin
                          formed into
                          fibers measuring
                          100 to 120
                          microns in
                          diameter
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          5407.71.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```