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




In  connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Tari Inc. (the  "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ended  December 31, 2005 as filed with the  Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the undersigned,  in the
capacities and on the dates indicated  below,  hereby  certifies  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, 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 results of operations
         of the Company.



Date:  February 14, 2006

                                               /s/ Theodore Tsagkaris

                                               --------------------------------
                                               Theodore Tsagkaris
                                               President, C.E.O. and Director
                                               (Principal Executive Officer)
05/04/201 0 07:3 3 FA X 202493514 2 FA A• > DM S @1001/00 1 

## Law Offic e o f Edwar d A . Lope z Attorne y At La w Apri l 16"\201 0 CiP[C>Su

j cxboH- / Z<^lo-o3j ^ Federal AviaUo n Administratio n _ __ 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Washington , DC 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wright Hearing , Roo m2 W201 4 ^^^" - --.-x—.. . . , TM

. >.>, Re : I n th e Matte r

o f Roslyn c Mari e KIdc r Docke t No. : CP - T o B e Assigne dy^P p 2 ( ^ ^fi^f ) FAACascNo.2009SW29013 5 ' ' T o Who mT

t Ma y Concern : Hb.^R^V G DOOKE ^ Pleas e b e advise dthat

1 amIbrmall y withdrawin g a s Ms . Elder' s atlonio y o f record i n th e abov e maner . Du e t o th e locatio n o f Ms . Elder' s hearin g in For t Worth , T X I hav e advise dt o hire local counse l a s 1 ca n n o longer b e o f assistanc e i

n her case . Pleas e fee

l iVe e to'contac t

TTie~shoul dyouliav e an

y questioTis'concemin g thi s matter .

CC : Roslyn e Mari e Elde r Yoland aAyai aBemal , Esq. , Departmen t o f Transportation , Offic e o f Regional Counse l

Ventur e Corporat e Cente r 344 0 Hollywoo d Blvd . Suit e 41 5 Te l 954*241-420 5 Hollywood . F

L 3302 1 ^ ^ 954*241'420 6
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 108 (Wednesday, July 18, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H4917]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                     INTERNATIONAL AIDS CONFERENCE

  (Mr. HONDA asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HONDA. Madam Speaker, next week marks the launch of the 19th 
International AIDS Conference. It brings together advocates and leaders 
from all over the world.
  The conference's presence in the United States for the first time in 
20 years is a testament to the hard work that members of the HIV/AIDS 
community, including many in my district and my colleagues in Congress, 
like my dear friend, Barbara Lee, have done.
  In the 20 intervening years, we have for the first time in a 
generation seen infection rates go down within the United States and 
stabilize abroad. Despite these steps, however, it is clear that we are 
still losing the war in key minority communities. Rising infection 
rates in the African American, Latino, Asian, and gay and lesbian 
communities are a stark reminder that our work is not done.
  It is fitting that our Nation's Capital is hosting this critical 
event as it is in the epicenter of this rising problem. Washington, 
D.C., has a higher HIV/AIDS infection rate than most places in Africa, 
primarily in these minority communities.
  From legislative action to grassroots efforts, now is the time for 
more commitment to HIV/AIDS, not less; more advocacy, not less; more 
investment, not less; more research, not less.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 122 (Wednesday, September 12, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1485]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

       RECOGNIZING THE 175TH ANNIVERSARY OF ZION LUTHERAN CHURCH

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. PETER J. ROSKAM

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                     Wednesday, September 12, 2012

  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to congratulate 
Zion Lutheran Church on its 175th Anniversary. On September 30th, Zion 
Lutheran Church will celebrate its legacy of faith and service.
  Founded in 1837, Zion Lutheran Church is the second oldest 
established church in the State of Illinois. Spanning three different 
centuries, Zion Lutheran Church has helped make Bensenville a better 
place to live, learn, and worship. Members of the Zion Lutheran Church 
community have helped share the grace of God with others by helping 
establish 11 additional Lutheran churches in DuPage County. Over the 
years, Zion Lutheran Church has brought hope and fellowship to 
countless individuals and families.
  Zion-Concord Lutheran School is also commemorating its 156th 
Anniversary this year. Since its inception, Zion-Concord Lutheran 
School has succeeded in its mission to provide families with a high 
quality Christian education and to nurture and enrich its students 
through the teaching of Holy Scripture.
  Mr. Speaker and Distinguished Colleagues, please join me in 
recognizing these significant milestones for the Zion Lutheran Church 
and Zion-Concord Lutheran School, and in wishing them many more years 
of achievement and faithful service. May God bless the congregation on 
this special occasion.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 120 (Monday, September 10, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6062-S6063]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

              INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

  The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the 
first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:

           By Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. 
             Feinstein, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. 
             Gillibrand, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Reed, Mr. Lautenberg, 
             Mr. Franken, Mr. Merkley, and Mr. Sanders):
       S. 3522. A bill to provide for the expansion of affordable 
     refinancing of mortgages held by the Federal National 
     Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage 
     Corporation; read the first time.
           By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mrs. 
             Gillibrand, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Graham, Mr. 
             Blumenthal, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Cardin, Ms. Snowe, and Mrs. 
             Boxer):
       S. 3523. A bill to amend title 17, United States Code, to 
     extend protection to fashion design, and for other purposes; 
     to the Committee on the Judiciary.
           By Mr. BAUCUS:
       S. 3524. An original bill to deter the evasion of 
     antidumping and countervailing duty orders, and for other 
     purposes; from the Committee on Finance; placed on the 
     calendar.
           By Mr. TESTER:
       S. 3525. A bill to protect and enhance opportunities for 
     recreational hunting, fishing,

[[Page S6063]]

     and shooting, and for other purposes; read the first time.

                          ____________________
```
# Jefferson - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Ohio Mid-Eastern Governments Association Executive Director Dr. Vicki King-Maple Email &#x76;&#x6d;&#97;&#112;l&#x65;&#x40;&#x6f;&#109;&#101;g&#x61;&#x64;&#x69;&#115;&#116;r&#x69;&#x63;&#x74;&#46;&#111;r&#x67;The post Ohio Mid-Eastern Governments Association appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
#### C. L. SMITH, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A-12788.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Dec. 9, 1959.

*662Milor & Thomas, Marietta, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

NIX, Judge.

C. L. Smith, hereinafter referred to as. the defendant, was charged by information in the County Court of Love County with the crime of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor. Defendant was found', guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of $50¡ and to serve 45 days in the county jail.

Defendant filed his appeal in this court by way of transcript only and attached to. defendant’s petition in error are the following instruments which compose the record: Information, affidavit for search warrant,, search warrant, motion to suppress, instruction of the court, verdict of the jury, motion for new trial, order overruling motion for new trial, judgment and sentence of the court, order extending time in which to make and file casemade and extend time in which to appeal.

Defendant complains of one assignment of error: that the trial judge erred iii overruling his motion to suppress the evidence.

Tit..22 O.S.A. § 1060 provides:

> “Instead of a case-made plaintiff in error may attach to his petition in error a transcript of the proceedings of. record in the trial.”

Tit. 22 O.S.A. § 977 clearly defines what constitutes the record. The record proper under said statute includes: (1) Indictment and copy of minutes of the plea or demurrer; (2) Copy of the minutes of the trial; (3) Charges given and refused; (4) Copy of the judgment.

It is to be noted that defendant has included in his transcript of the proceedings his motion to suppress which is no-part of the. record proper and cannot .be considered'by this court on-appeal in .absence of a casemade relating the. testimony given -in, support of said motion.. See Smith v. State, 54 Okl.Cr. 348, 21 P.2d 51. Also, Smiser v. State, 19 Okl.Cr. 86, 87, 198 P. 110, 111.

*663This court said in the case of Ward w. State, 56 Okl.Cr. 316, 38 P.2d 582:

> “Questions regarding trial courts ruling on admissibility of evidence and in failing to fully instruct on applicable law cannot be presented for review by transcript of record alone but only by incorporating transcript into bill of exceptions or case-made.”

If there was evidence before the •court substantiating defendant’s contention, there would be much merit to his advancement of error. However, a transcript of the record does not present for review the proceedings and orders on a motion to suppress the evidence. Motions of this lcind can only be presented to this court by petition in error and casemade. Therefore, the judgment and sentence of the trial court is affirmed.

POWELL, P. J.,' and BRETT, J., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 3, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 347]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28908]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XD619]


New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is 
scheduling a public meeting of its Groundfish Recreational Advisory 
Panel via webinar to consider actions affecting New England fisheries 
in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group 
will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and 
action, if appropriate.

DATES: This webinar will be held on Monday, January 22, 2024, at 9 a.m.

ADDRESSES: Webinar registration URL information: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/5812975475550509918.
    Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water 
Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, 
New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Agenda

    The Recreational Advisory Panel will meet to discuss and develop 
recommendations to the Groundfish Committee on fishing year 2024 
recreational measures for Georges Bank cod, Gulf of Maine cod and Gulf 
of Maine haddock. They will also receive an overview of the Council's 
groundfish priorities for 2024. Other business may be discussed as 
necessary.
    Although non-emergency issues not contained on the agenda may come 
before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject 
of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted 
to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues 
arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action 
under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public 
has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to 
address the emergency. The public also should be aware that the meeting 
will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the 
recording is available upon request.

Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-
0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: December 28, 2023.
Diane M. DeJames-Daly,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-28908 Filed 1-2-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Directors and Shareholders of
IPC Holdings, Ltd.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements No. 333-128905 and No. 333-133605
on Form S-3 and registration statements No. 333-107052, No. 333-126434 and No. 333-149118 on Form S-8 of IPC Holdings, Ltd. of our reports dated February 27, 2009, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of IPC Holdings,
Ltd. as of December 31, 2008 and 2007, and the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, shareholders equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2008, and all
related financial statement schedules, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2008, which reports appear in the December 31, 2008 annual report on Form 10-K of IPC Holdings, Ltd.



|                     
|---------------------
|/s/ KPMG             
|Chartered Accountants
|Hamilton, Bermuda    
|February 27, 2009
Exhibit 10.5

                             SUMMARY OF ARRANGEMENT
                      BETWEEN UNION ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION
                        AND CASTLE CREEK CAPITAL, L.L.C.



Castle  Creek  Capital,   L.L.C.   supervises  Union  Acceptance   Corporation's
administration  of Union  Acceptance  Corporation's  Second Amended and Restated
Plan  of  Reorganization.  For  these  services,  Union  Acceptance  Corporation
compensates Castle Creek Capital, L.L.C. at a rate of $14,583 per month.
Map Created: October 2009.

Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980 Census.

Relative High School Completion Rates in Appalachia, 1980

(County Rates as a Percentage of the U.S. Average)

A high school completion rate is the percentage of adults, 25 years 

and over, completing 12 years or more of school. The percent of 

the U.S. average is computed by dividing the county high school 

completion rate by the national average and multiplying by 100. 

The map uses critical breaks such as the national average to 

organize the data into groups of common values. 

0 50 100 

Miles 

GEORGIA 

ALABAMA 

MISSISSIPPI 

SOUTH 

CAROLINA 

NORTH CAROLINA 

VIRGINIA 

WEST 

VIRGINIA 

KENTUCKY 

OHIO ILLINOIS INDIANA 

WISCONSIN 

MICHIGAN 

DE 

NJ PENNSYLVANIA 

MARYLAND 

NEW YORK 

TENNESSEE

38.0% - 74.9% 

75.0% - 84.9% 

85.0% - 99.9% 

100.0% - 121.5% 

Percent of the U.S. Average 

U.S. average = 66.5%

Appalachian average = 57.5%

(Critical Breaks Classification)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Antonio Tyes, Appellant.

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We conclude that the court did not err in limiting the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses concerning their prior criminal acts. "The extent to which disparaging questions, not relevant to the issue, but bearing on the credibility of a witness, may be put upon cross-examination is discretionary with the trial court, and its rulings are not subject to review unless it clearly appears that the discretion has been abused” (Richardson, Evidence § 500 [Prince 10th ed]; *see also, People v Duffy,*36 NY2d 258, 262-263, *cert denied*423 US 861).

The court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting defense counsel from cross-examining the prosecution witness Gilliam concerning the circumstances of his second conviction for resisting arrest. That conviction was remote in time and, because it involved an impulsive act, it had little probative value on the issue of credibility *(see, People v Sandoval,*34 NY2d 371, 376-377). On the other hand, its use would have been unduly prejudicial to the People because, from it, the jury might have impermissibly inferred that the witness was predisposed to be aggressive *(see, People v Rodawald,*177 NY 408, 422-424).

The court properly exercised its discretion in prohibiting defense counsel from cross-examining the witness Parker about a 1978 conviction for attempted possession of a forged instrument because that conviction was too remote in time. Moreover, because the proof of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming and defense counsel cross-examined both prosecu*625tion witnesses about their other prior criminal acts, the limitation of cross-examination was harmless. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rossetti, J. — Assault, 2nd Degree.) Present — Boomer, J. P., Pine, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
#### Frank Deni et al., Appellants, v General Accident Insurance Company of America et al., Respondents.

— Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted. Defendants met their initial burden of demonstrating entitlement to judgment in their favor as a matter of law by the tender of evidence in admissible form which established that plaintiff Frank Deni’s property had no compensable value at the time it was destroyed by *606fire. The record establishes that, prior to the date of the fire, plaintiff had entered into a contract to demolish the building, all of the tenants had vacated the building pursuant to plaintiff’s notices to vacate and the utilities had been "disconnected from the building” in late October, 1986. Plaintiff’s September 3, 1986 notice to vacate informed a tenant that "we have made the difficult decision to demolish the building”. Additionally, plaintiff’s employees, at his direction, "stripped” the building of all valuable and salvageable material. Finally, plaintiff testified at an examination before trial that the demolition process had actually commenced and, thereafter, the demolition contractor had salvage rights to the building materials.

In opposition to defendants’ motion, plaintiff submitted an affidavit that contained speculative and conclusory allegations regarding his plan to stop the demolition process had he found a purchaser for the building. Plaintiff asserts that his acts in "stripping” the building were equally consistent with his intention to rehabilitate or remodel the building as they were with his plan to demolish the structure. Contrary to the plaintiff’s argument, he has shown no basis to avoid the obligations of the demolition contract. Indeed, the existence of the demolition contract undercuts plaintiff’s argument that his actions in "stripping” the building were consistent with a plan either to rehabilitate or to demolish the building. Additionally, the affidavit of an alleged prospective purchaser provides no evidentiary support for plaintiff’s opposition to defendants’ motion since the affiant never submitted to plaintiff either an offer or a contract to purchase.

We conclude, therefore, that at the time of the fire, the demolition process had commenced and the razing of the building was essentially certain, and, thus, it had no value for indemnity purposes *(see, Paterson-Leitch Co. v Insurance Co.,*366 F Supp 749, 756-757; *Aetna State Bank v Maryland Cas. Co.,*345 F Supp 903, 908-909; *see also, Chicago Tit. & Trust Co. v United States Fid. & Guar. Co.,*511 F2d 241; *Garcy Corp. v Home Ins. Co.,*496 F2d 479, *cert denied*419 US 843; *Royal Ins. Co. v Sisters of Presentation,*430 F2d 759). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Mintz, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 122 (Wednesday, September 12, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5869]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                                 RECESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the 
Chair declares the House in recess until noon today.
  Accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 58 minutes a.m.), the House stood in 
recess.

                          ____________________
```
#### HOBSON v. HALL.

No. 34872.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Feb. 2, 1954.

Rehearing Denied March 9, 1954.

Gilliland, Withington & Shirk, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

George W. Gay, Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.' ■

JOHNSON, Vice Chief Justice.

Plaintiff in error, Warren G. Hobson, has appealed from an order overruling motion for a new trial and from a judgment entered in favor of Cleveland C. Hall, defendant in error, on an instructed verdict, and on February 28, 1951, filed his brief. .The brief and the authorities therein cited reasonably sustain the allegations of the petition in error. The defendant in error has filed no brief and has offered no excuse for such failure. Under such circumstances as held by this court in Durham v. Brown, 164 Okl. 139, 24 P.2d 295, it is not the duty of this court to search the record for some theory upon which to sustain the action of the trial court, but the court may in its discretion reverse and remand the cause with directions.

The cause is reversed and remanded, with directions to the trial court to vacate the judgment entered for the plaintiff in the trial court and to sustain the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

HALLEY, C. J., and WELCH, CORN, DAVISON, O’NEAL, WILLIAMS and BLACKBIRD, JJ., concur. '