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



Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350



The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the
Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.



Louis R. Tomasetta, the Chief Executive Officer and Yatin Mody, the Chief
Financial Officer of Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation, each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: February 7, 2006



|                                                                                                                             
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                             
|/s/ LOUIS R. TOMASETTA                                                                                                       
|Louis R. Tomasetta President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)                                       
|                                                                                                                             
|/s/ YATIN MODY                                                                                                               
|Yatin Mody Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting
Officer)
# C_2018341EN.01000701.xml

| 24.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 341/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 341/7

---

Appeal brought on 2 July 2018 by Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 23 April 2018 in Case T-675/15: Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel v European Commission

(Case C-436/18 P)

(2018/C 341/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel Co. Ltd (represented by: E. Vermulst, J. Cornelis, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Eurofer, Association Européenne de l'Acier, ASBL

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2018 in Case T-675/15, Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel Co. Ltd. v European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2018 in Case T-675/15, Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel Co. Ltd. v European Commission;

| — | annul Commission lmplementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1429 (1) of 26 August 2015 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in the People's Republic of China insofar as it concerns the appellant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission lmplementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1429 (1) of 26 August 2015 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in the People's Republic of China insofar as it concerns the appellant; and

| — | order the European Commission to pay the appellant’s costs of this appeal as well as those of the proceedings before the General Court in Case T-675/15. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the appellant’s costs of this appeal as well as those of the proceedings before the General Court in Case T-675/15.

Alternatively,

| — | refer the case back to the General Court; and |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court; and

| — | reserve the costs of the proceeding before the General Court and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve the costs of the proceeding before the General Court and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

ln support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two grounds of appeal.

First, the contested judgment illegally interpreted the second sentence of the second paragraph of Article 2(7)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (2) of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community by reading into that provision a condition that is not in the text of that provision when selecting the analogue country.

Second, by holding that adjustments to the normal value are in principle not possible when applying Article 2(7)(a) Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, the contested judgment violated this provision.

---

(1)  OJ 2015, L 224, p. 10.

(2)  OJ 2009, L 343, p. 51.

---
23665, 23682

#### Doe, In re

Affirmed
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 5, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40558 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE ANGEL ESQUIVEL-CANTERA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:05-CR-1005-ALL

-------------------- Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jose Angel Esquivel-Cantera raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Valdez-Maltos , 443 F.3d 910, 911 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 2006 U.S. LEXIS 6189 (U.S. Oct. 2, 2006)(No. 06-5473), and United States v. Garcia-Mendez , 420 F.3d 454 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 1398 (2006), which held that a Texas conviction for burglary of a habitation was equivalent to burglary of a dwelling, and by Almendarez-Torres v. United
States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C.No. 06-40558 -2- § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### Chuong Thanh Hua v. Board of Trustees of Employees' Retirement System

26315

09/21/2006

Denied

112 Hawai'i 292, 145 P.3d 835
**Exhibit 21.1**

 

**Subsidiaries of Premier Community Bankshares, Inc.**

 

 
| Name of Subsidiary          | State of Incorporation |
|-----------------------------|------------------------|
|                        |                   |
| The Marathon Bank           | Virginia

        |
| Rockingham Heritage Bank    | Virginia

        |
| --  RHB Services, Inc.      | Virginia

        |
| Premier Bank, Inc.          | West Virginia

   |
| Premier Statutory Trust I   | Delaware

        |
| Premier Statutory Trust II  | Delaware

        |
| Premier Statutory Trust III | Delaware

        |
| Premier Statutory Trust IV  | Delaware

        |
| Premier Statutory Trust V   | Delaware

        |
871 P.2d 795

SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I

#### Strieker v. Tanaka

16634

01/05/94

Affirmed
#### Fray W. ZEMP and Bill Zemp, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. van FRANK & ASSOCIATES, INC., and Roger M. van Frank, Defendants and Appellants.

No. 14089.

Supreme Court of Utah.

March 3, 1976.

Victor A. Spencer, Salt Lake City, for defendants-appellants.

George H. Searle, Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs-respondents.

TUCKETT, Justice:

The plaintiffs initiated these proceedings in the district court seeking to rescind and nullify a contract entered into with the defendants whérein the defendants undertook to render architectural services and to provide plans and specifications for a duplex the plaintiffs contemplated building. Defendants have filed a notice of lien pursuant to the provisions of Section 38-1-3, U.C.A. 1953. In these proceedings the defendants counterclaimed seeking to foreclose that lien and seeking damages for alleged libel. This appeal is from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs.

Prior to filing their complaint the plaintiffs had tendered to counsel for the defendants the sum of $626.57 and demanded that the lien be released. In connection with the demand and tender the plaintiffs returned what they described as “misfit” plans and demanded that the defendants furnish satisfactory plans prior to the plaintiffs making application for a building permit. The plaintiffs seek to recover the penalty provided for by Section 38-1-24, U.C.A. 1953, for failure of the defendants to release their claim of lien within ten days after request and tender of the amount due. That section provides that a lienor shall forfeit and pay to the person making the request the penalty above mentioned. While the amount tendered by the plaintiffs was in excess of that ultimately found due to the defendants, it is noted that the tender was not unconditional and that the plaintiffs expected further performance by the defendants.1 At the time the plaintiffs requested release of the lien there was a dispute as to the amount due. Prior decisions of this court have laid down the rule that as a condition precedent to one’s entitle*910ment of the penalty he is obliged to meet the conditions of the statute with particularity.2 This court has also held that a tender, to be good, must be free from conditions tenderer has no right to insist upon. The facts in this case indicate there was a genuine dispute as to the amount of the obligation due as well as whether the fitness of the plans and specification supplied by the defendants were adequate for the purpose intended. We are of the opinion that the portion of the judgment which awards the plaintiffs the statutory penalty should be and the same is ordered deleted. Other portions of the judgment appealed from appear to be proper and correct and the same are affirmed.

This matter is remanded to the court below with directions to modify its judgment as above indicated. No costs awarded.

HENRIOD, C. J., and ELLETT, CROCKETT, and MAUGHAN, JJ., concur.

1

. *Sieverts v. White,*2 Utah 2d 351, 273 P.2d 974.

2

. *Einerson, v. Central Lumber & Hardware Co.,*14 Utah 2d 278, 382 P.2d 655; *Wagstaff v. Remco, Inc.,*540 P.2d 931 (Utah).
October 8, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ALFRED STEFFONE SHEPHERD, Appellant

NO. 14-13-00845-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. The 

record indicates that the appeal should be DISMISSED. The Court orders the 

appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
# C_2018408EN.01004201.xml

| 12.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 408/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 408/42

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’Instance de Sens (France) lodged on 30 August 2018 — X

(Case C-562/18)

(2018/C 408/55)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal d’Instance de Sens

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X

Other party: Procureur de la République

Questions referred

| 1. | Do (i) Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, interpreted in the light of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and (ii) Article 39(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union allow the right to vote in European Parliamentary elections to be withdrawn because a guardianship measure has been adopted for a person due to his or her mental disability? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do (i) Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, interpreted in the light of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and (ii) Article 39(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union allow the right to vote in European Parliamentary elections to be withdrawn because a guardianship measure has been adopted for a person due to his or her mental disability?

| 2. | If the answer is in the affirmative, does European Union law require there to be specific conditions for this withdrawal and, if so, what are they? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer is in the affirmative, does European Union law require there to be specific conditions for this withdrawal and, if so, what are they?

---
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to

revision u ntil final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

- 1

- 

### S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

TRUGREEN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,

Plaintiff

- Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION July 29, 2021

v No. 344142

Court of Claims
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, LC No. 17

- 000141

- MT

Defendant

- Appellee.

ON REMAND

Before: S HAPIRO

, P .J., and G LEICHER and S WARTZLE , JJ.

S HAPIRO

, P. J. ( concurring ).

I join Judge Gleicher’s opinion in full. In our previous review of this case, I authored a concurrence in response to Judge Swartzle’s dissent. TruGreen L td Partnership v Dep’t of
Treasury , 332 Mich App 73, 89

- 96 ; 955 NW2d 529 (2020) ( S HAPIRO

, P .J. , concurring). As Judge

Swartzle has elected to adopt that dissent by reference

, I will do the same by adopting my prior concurrence by reference rather than repeating it here.

/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro
#### State v. Hee Sung Yoo

26567

03/28/2006

Denied

110 Hawai'i 145, 129 P.3d 1173
25821

#### State v. Painovich

Affirmed
28226

#### State v. Vierra

Affirmed
Exemptions to 9 CFR Parts 109.1 and 109.2 

ICWI0028.02 Page 1 of 2 

Issuing Authority: Renee M. Schnurr 

Issue Date: 12Jun13 

Source Document and Issue Date or Edition: 9 CFR Parts 109.1 and 109.2 

9 CFR Part 109.1 

9 CFR Part 109.1 was first written in 1958 and last amended in 1991. It requires all 

containers, instruments, equipment, and other items used in the preparation of product to 

be sterilized either by live steam at 120oC for at least 30 minutes or dry heat at 160oC for 

at least 60 minutes. Since 1991 there have been changes in industry standards regarding 

the use of pre-sterilized products and autoclave/dry heat oven load patterns. Also CVB 

has made changes in policies for diagnostic test kits regarding sterility requirements. 

In general pre-sterilized materials should be traced back to a Certificate of Analysis from 

the manufacturer and a receiving lot number. Due to our experience with the inspection 

of pre-sterilized equipment, over the years we have decreased our regulatory oversight of 

smaller laboratory items. 

For diagnostic test kits, we encourage the use of sterile final containers for conjugate, 

buffers, and solutions. Plates and other solid mediums (beads, nitrocellulose) do not need 

to be sterile and in fact placing that requirement on the item may be detrimental to the 

overall functionality of the piece. 

We do inspect the traceability of roller bottles, cell cubes, sterile batch bags, and like 

equipment to a Certificate of Analysis and a receiving lot number. The Licensee or 

Permittee should request an exemption from 9 CFR Part 109.1. These are filed as an 

amendment to the blueprint legends. Likewise, validated autoclave or dry heat oven 

cycles that are less than 30 or 60 minutes respectively must also have an exemption from 

Part 109.1 filed as an amendment to the blueprint legends. 

Certain pieces of equipment, such as fractionation columns, are cleaned or sanitized, but 

not necessarily sterilized prior to each use. The main emphasis of this process is to 

eliminate concerns of cross contamination. We would expect the firm to follow the 

manufacturer’s directions for cleaning and sanitation of such equipment. The firm would 

also have to provide adequate documentation to demonstrate they had in fact followed the 

appropriate procedures. 

During an inspection we may find exemptions to Part 109.1 have not been requested. An 

action item should be agreed upon that indicates the firm will submit an exemption 

request to CVB, Inspection and Compliance. 
Exemptions to 9 CFR Parts 109.1 and 109.2

ICWI0028.02 Page 2 of 2

Issuing Authority: Renee M. Schnurr

Issue Date: 12Jun13

Source Document and Issue Date or Edition: 9 CFR Parts 109.1 and 109.2

9 CFR Part 109.2

Most of the sterilization equipment we observe on inspection today has automatic time 

and temperature recording charts and in some cases they are computerized. 

If the firm does not have an automatic recording charts for their dry heat oven, 

depyrogenation tunnel or autoclave, or the automatic recording chart is not operational, 

they must request an exemption to 9 CFR Part 109.2.
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Travelers: Help Stop the Spread of

African Swine Fever

Last Modified: 

Print

African Swine Fever (ASF) is a contagious and deadly virus that’s infecting pigs in

many countries. It’s harmless to humans, but it can be present in foods made from

pork. People can spread the disease by bringing pork or pork products with them

when they travel from a country where ASF exists.

Stop African Swine Fever. Don't Pack Pork!

ASF hasn’t reached the U.S. yet—and we want to keep it that way.

If it does, an outbreak could be devastating to our farmers, food supply and

economy. ASF won’t make meat unsafe to eat, but it will kill millions of pigs that we

rely on for food. Not only will this create pork shortages and drive up food

prices—it’s also predicted to cost our country billions and cause thousands of

workers to lose their jobs.
You could carry ASF into the U.S. without knowing. Take these steps to

stop the spread:

Don’t bring foods containing pork with you when you travel. 

When you enter the U.S., declare all meats, animals and animal products to

Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

Tell CBP if you have been on a farm, near livestock or near wild pigs.

After you return, wait at least 5 days before you visit any animal facility with

pigs. This includes farms, livestock markets, zoos, circuses, and pet stores with

pot-bellied pigs.

Learn More About ASF

Travelers from Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin

Islands

ASF was recently detected in the Caribbean. For this reason, certain pork products

are prohibited from entering the U.S. mainland from Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin

Islands. All prohibited products will be confiscated.

Expand to See More

Allowed

Canned Pork

Commercially packaged, labeled, shelf-stable (without refrigeration) baked

goods that contain pork (including those cooked in lard)

Not Allowed

Fresh pork

Homemade products containing pork

All other pork products
To help stop the spread of ASF, tell the USDA inspector or U.S. Customs and Border

Protection officer on duty if you’re carrying any food items or have recently visited a

farm.

USDA prohibits or restricts the entry of many other agricultural products from Puerto

Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands into the U.S. mainland, including most fresh fruits

and vegetables. 

Learn More About Prohibited and Restricted Products
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 23.01


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                       ----------------------------------

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (File No's. 033-63701, 333-42727, 333-94075, 333-94745,
333-41116, 333-62876, 333-69518) of Interland, Inc. (formerly Micron
Electronics, Inc.) of our report dated November 15, 2002 relating to the
financial statements and financial statement schedule, which appears in this
Form 10-K.



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Atlanta, Georgia
November 27, 2002
I f aUf btu Derv 1D : uu kA A *IU 4So 6996 EAP LBNL 1003. 

### S T DJ Lw E . E L Y "T" ! A L E3 D R T Y 

### Er. rgy and Environment Division, Energy Analysis Program 1 Cyclotron Road. MS 90/4000 Berkeley, California 94720 

# TO :

Xo a m t 8 I 2 g

## AQ^

NZ6 K 

### 0

### X c a 

# A p 9

.4 E
## F I F T H 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5 D 202 4

- 0346 LT Case No

. 20 18

- 306083

- CF DB

____________________________ A DAM J. R AITS , Appellant,

v. S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________
3.850 A ppeal from t he Circuit Court for Volusia County

. Leah R. Case , Judge. Matthew R. McLain, of McLain Law, P.A., Longwood, for Appellant. Ashley M o ody, Attorney Gen eral, Talla hassee, and Rebecca Rock McGuigan, Assistant Attorney Gen eral, Daytona Beac h, for Appellee. August 20 , 2024 P ER C URIAM
. A FFIRMED
. J AY , E ISNAUGLE , and H AR RIS , JJ., concur.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331 .

_____________________________