alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


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

         In connection with this Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report of
Verdisys, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended June 30,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Dan Williams, Principal Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         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.

                             /s/ DAN WILLIAMS
                             -----------------------------------
                             Name:   Dan Williams
                             Title:  Principal Executive Officer
                             Date:   November 20, 2003

A signed original of this statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Verdisys, Inc. and will be retained by Verdisys, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4823 

To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 

to include certain areas in the Central Texas Corridor. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 18, 2018 

Mr. CONAWAY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 

Act of 1991 to include certain areas in the Central 

Texas Corridor. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Connecting the Rest 

5 to the West’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CENTRAL TEXAS CORRIDOR. 

7 Section 1105(c)(84) of the Intermodal Surface 

8 Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2032; 

9 112 Stat. 190; 119 Stat. 1213) is amended by adding at 

10 the end the following: ‘‘The Corridor also shall— 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4823 IH

1 ‘‘(A) not include the section of US 190 

2 from I–10 in Pecos County to Brady in 

3 McCullough County; 

4 ‘‘(B) include the following routes in the 

5 Central Texas Corridor and the I–14 system in 

6 Texas— 

7 ‘‘(i) beginning in the vicinity of State 

8 Highway 338 in Odessa, Texas, running 

9 eastward concurrent with Interstate 20, 

10 connecting to State Highway 158 in the vi11 cinity of Midland, Texas, then following 

12 State Highway 158 eastward to US 87 and 

13 then following US 87 southeastward, pass14 ing in the vicinity of San Angelo; and 

15 ‘‘(ii) connecting to US 190 in the vi16 cinity of Brady, Texas; and 

17 ‘‘(C) include US 83 southward from the vi18 cinity of Eden, Texas, to a logical connection to 

19 Interstate 10 at Junction, Texas.’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 122 (Wednesday, September 12, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S6270]
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. HELLER:
       S. 3530. A bill to require the Secretary of Defense to 
     establish a process to determine whether individuals claiming 
     certain service in the Philippines during World War II are 
     eligible for certain benefits despite not being on the 
     Missouri List, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs.
           By Mr. BLUMENTHAL:
       S. 3531. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     to increase, expand, and extend the credit for hydrogen-
     related alternative fuel vehicle refueling property and to 
     increase the investment credit for more efficient fuel cells; 
     to the Committee on Finance.
           By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself and Mr. Cardin):
       S. 3532. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     to clarify the treatment of church pension plans, and for 
     other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
           By Mrs. HUTCHISON:
       S. 3533. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security 
     Act to extend the solvency of the Social Security Trust Funds 
     by increasing the normal and early retirement ages under the 
     Social Security program and modifying the cost-of-living 
     adjustments in benefits; to the Committee on Finance.
           By Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself and Mr. Kirk):
       S. 3534. A bill to amend the statue of limitations for 
     civil actions regarding terrorist acts; to the Committee on 
     the Judiciary.
           By Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Mr. Hoeven):
       S. 3535. A bill to direct the Secretary of Energy to 
     establish a pilot program to award grants to nonprofit 
     organizations for the purpose of retrofitting nonprofit 
     buildings with energy-efficiency improvements; to the 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
           By Mr. BLUMENTHAL (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Udall 
             of New Mexico, Mr. Heller, Mr. Webb, and Ms. 
             Cantwell):
       S. 3536. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     to extend the work opportunity credit for hiring veterans, 
     and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.

                          ____________________
```
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-17-00585-CV

Sandra Pena

v.

Reynol Pena

On appeal from the

389th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Cause No. F-2318-17-H

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed in part and reversed 

in part, and the case should be remanded to the trial court. The Court orders the 

judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART, and the 

case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Costs of the 

appeal are adjudged fifty percent against appellant although she is exempt from 

payment due to her affidavit of inability to pay costs and fifty percent against appellee.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

July 5, 2018
Filed 2/17/21 P. v. Lopez CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

FELIX LOPEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

F080558

(Super. Ct. No. M19926494)

OPINION

THE COURT*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Michael G. 

Idiart, Judge.

John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and 

Respondent.

-ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P.J., Poochigian, J. and DeSantos, J.
2.

Appointed counsel for defendant Felix Lopez asked this court to review the record 

to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 

25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 

30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant responded, contending 

(1) his indecent exposure should be resentenced as a misdemeanor without a sex offender 

registration requirement, (2) he had the right to express his religious beliefs, and (3) at 

most, he violated a city ordinance by “parading in the nude without a permit.” Finding 

no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we 

affirm.

BACKGROUND

On August 10, 2019, an employee of a discount store saw defendant standing 

outside naked and looking at her. He did not move until he saw her pull out her phone to 

call the police. When officers arrived, defendant said he was not naked and was only 

walking back and forth in the area.

On November 27, 2019, defendant pled no contest to felony indecent exposure 

(Pen. Code, § 314, subd. 1;1 count 1) and admitted having suffered a prior conviction 

under the same statute. The trial court dismissed count 2 and indicated a 16-month 

sentence lid.

On December 30, 2019, the trial court sentenced defendant to 16 months in prison, 

awarded credits, and imposed various fines and fees. The court ordered him to register as 

a sex offender pursuant to section 290.

On December 31, 2019, defendant filed a notice of appeal.

After reviewing the record, we find no arguable error on appeal that would result 

in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 128 (Thursday, September 20, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1577]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                           ANGELS IN ADOPTION

                                 ______
                                 

                              HON. TED POE

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, September 20, 2012

  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Monica and Ivory Garrett from 
Beaumont, Texas are truly Angels--Angels in Adoption. Forty-three 
foster children have been blessed with the Garretts' love and care over 
the years; Forty-three lives have been changed because of the Garretts.
  Mrs. Garrett began her involvement in the foster care system in 1997 
as lead staff at a Buckner International group home for foster 
children. Through her work, she realized that this was God's calling 
for her, and a few years later, the Garretts were licensed as foster 
parents and began welcoming children into their own home. After caring 
for 25 children, the Garretts' felt that God was calling them to 
something even bigger.
  The Garretts then opened a group home for children with therapeutic 
needs in 2009. They consider all of these children their own, providing 
a loving home and ensuring that they get the most out of life. Their 
children are all encouraged to explore their talents, participating in 
choir, sports, and various other activities. The Garretts are unsung 
heroes, a family with bountiful love, and truly Angels in Adoption.
  I was honored to recently award the Garretts with their Angels in 
Adoption award. They are an incredible family that has dedicated their 
lives to help and change children's lives.
  And that's just the way it is.

                          ____________________
```
# C_2008142EN.01003301.xml

| 7.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/33

---

Action brought on 9 April 2008 — BCS v OHIM — Deere (Combination of colours green and yellow)

(Case T-137/08)

(2008/C 142/60)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: BCS SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Franzosi, V. Jandoli, F. Santonocito, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Deere & Company (Moline, United States)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 16 January 2008 in case R 0222/2007-2; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 16 January 2008 in case R 0222/2007-2; and

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: A figurative mark consisting of the colour combination of green and yellow for goods in classes 7 and 12 — Community trade mark No 63 289

Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Deere & Company

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the request for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(3), 52(1)(c) in connection with Article 8(4) and Article 73(1) of Council Regulation No 40/94, as:

Pleas in law:

| — | the Board of Appeal ought to have interpreted Article 7(3) very strictly and, accordingly, should have imposed a rigorous burden of proof on the other party to the proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Board of Appeal ought to have interpreted Article 7(3) very strictly and, accordingly, should have imposed a rigorous burden of proof on the other party to the proceedings;

| — | the Board of Appeal failed to recognize the prior de facto trade mark of the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

the Board of Appeal failed to recognize the prior de facto trade mark of the applicant; and

| — | the Board of Appeal used contradictory reasoning in its decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Board of Appeal used contradictory reasoning in its decision.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5

<S>                                         <C>

   <PERIOD-TYPE>                               12-MOS
   <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1999
   <PERIOD-END>                                DEC-31-1999
   <CASH>                                                  $  1,584
   <SECURITIES>                                                   0
   <RECEIVABLES>                                                  0
   <ALLOWANCES>                                                   0
   <INVENTORY>                                                    0
   <CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           1,735
   <PP&E>                                                   679,733
   <DEPRECIATION>                                            28,695
   <TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           671,410
   <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                     22,583
   <BONDS>                                                  344,036
   <COMMON>                                                     392
   <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
   <PREFERRED>                                                    0
   <OTHER-SE>                                               299,788
   <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             671,410
   <SALES>                                                        0
   <TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          90,709
   <CGS>                                                          0
   <TOTAL-COSTS>                                                  0
   <OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          39,201
   <LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
   <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        18,970
   <INCOME-PRETAX>                                           40,153
   <INCOME-TAX>                                                   0
   <INCOME-CONTINUING>                                       40,153
   <DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
   <EXTRAORDINARY>                                              298
   <CHANGES>                                                      0
   <NET-INCOME>                                             $39,855
   <EPS-BASIC>                                            $    1.87
   <EPS-DILUTED>                                          $    1.86


</TABLE>
# C_2008313EN.01004201.xml

| 6.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/42

---

Action brought on 29 September 2008 — LATGA-A v Commission

(Case T-419/08)

(2008/C 313/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lietuvos Autorių Teisių Gynimo Asociacijos Agentūra (LATGA-A) (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: M. Favart, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Article 3 of the Commission decision of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC); and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Article 3 of the Commission decision of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC); and

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of this application the applicant seeks partial annulment pursuant to Article 230 EC of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC) relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA. Precisely, the applicant contests the Commission findings in Article 3 of the contested decision stating that territorial delineations of the reciprocal representation mandates granted by one authors' society to another constitute a concerted practice in violation of Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA.

The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicant are identical to those raised by the applicant in Case T-415/08 IMRO v Commission.

---
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS**

 

We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference in these Registration Statements on Form S-8 (FileNo’s. 33-76372, 333-64691, 333-69044 and 333-103381) of our report datedJanuary  28, 2003 relating to thefinancial statements and financial statement schedule of Monaco CoachCorporation, which appears in Monaco Coach Corporation’s Annual Report on Form10-K for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2002.

 
| /s/  PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|
|                            |   |
|                            |   |
| Portland,  Oregon               |   |
| March 19,  2003                 |   |

 

----
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 128 (Thursday, September 20, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H6161-H6162]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

       SEQUESTRATION TRANSPARENCY REPORT SHOWS LACK OF LEADERSHIP

  (Mr. WILSON of South Carolina asked and was given permission to 
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, the 
administration released a report on how the President plans to 
implement the $600 billion defense sequester, threatening 
servicemembers, military families, and veterans. Politico explained it 
``shed little new light on the sword of Damocles.'' This report, 
required by the passage of the Sequestration Transparency Act, arrived 
1 week late, confirming that the President and the liberal-controlled 
Senate have refused to take sequestration as a top priority.
  Today, the House Armed Services Committee held a hearing to receive 
testimony from key government officials who will implement 
sequestration. Based upon the minimal information provided, it's clear 
the administration has not made appropriate plans for the drastic 
budget cuts, even though the White House is responsible for proposing 
the disastrous proposal. House Republicans have voted five times, led 
by Chairman Buck McKeon, to replace sequestration with commonsense 
reforms to avoid the threat to national security or destroying jobs. I 
urge the President and the Senate to begin working with the House 
before it's too late.
  In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never forget 
September 11th in the global war on terrorism.

[[Page H6162]]

                          ____________________
```
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 43956 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 43957 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 43958 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 43959 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 43960 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 43961 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 43962 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 43963 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 43964 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 43965 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 43966 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 43967 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 43968 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 43969 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 43970 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 43971 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 43972 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 43973 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 43974 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 43975 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 43976 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 43977 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 43978 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 43979 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 43980 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 43981 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 43982 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 43983 1994