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

                         Tel-Instrument Electronics Corp
                         -------------------------------


          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 Tel-Instrument  Electronics Corp
(the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008, as filed
with the Securities Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the
undersigned,  in the capacities and on the dates  indicated  below,  each hereby
certify,  pursuant to and solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
best of their 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.



                                         By:  /s/  Harold K. Fletcher
                                            -----------------------------------
                                                   Harold K. Fletcher
                                                   CEO

                                              /s/  Joseph P. Macaluso
                                              ---------------------------------
                                                   Joseph P. Macaluso
                                                   Principal Accounting Officer

November 13, 2008

     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been  provided  to  Tel-Instrument  Electronics  Corp  and will be  retained  by
Tel-Instrument  Electronics  Corp and furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR Part 225) to engage                     *de novo,*                     or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.                 

Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/​nic/​. 

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than November 9, 2000. 

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco**                     (Maria Villanueva, Consumer Regulation Group) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579:                 

*1. Humboldt Bancorp,*                     Eureka, California; to acquire Bancorp Financial Services, Inc., Sacramento, California, and thereby engage in leasing activities, pursuant to § 225.28(b)(5) of Regulation Y.                 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 23, 2000. 

Robert deV. Frierson, 

Associate Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 00-27605 Filed 10-26-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
## ATTACHMENT HEADER SHEET Attachment Number 001 Attachment Name Attachment 1CAS Report 156362 

## Associated PMN Section Number Pt.I, Sec.B, 1c. Does notcontain CBI



## Report Number CONSi 10317786855351

## A4Voki~e~-CONS 10317 ' 4?SS,3S 6 

# Inventory ExpertService A division of theAmerican Chemical Society Phone: 8004631-1884,614-447-3870 Fax:614-447-3747 E-mail:answers@ca5.org Web: www.cas-orgtproductslclient/

INVENTORY EXPERT SERVICE REPORT
IES-ORDER NUMBER: 156362 REGISTRY NUMBER: 61461-40-3 CA INDEX NAME Lead strontium titanium zirconium oxide

Please print the above CA Index Name on the appropriate page of your PzmN.
Iftis box is checked, CAS has made correction(s) marked in red to our IES order. Please make the same correction(s) to your PMN before submitting it to the EPA.

CAS * 2540 Olentangy River Road * P.O. Box 3343 * Columbus, Ohio 43210-0334 * USA
Email Correspondence between Justin Pimpare and Damon Highsmith , Carey Johnston

From: Justin Pimpare/R1/USEPA/US

To: Damon Highsmith/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Carey

Johnston/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 05/05/2011 08:49 AM

Subject: Fw: City of Manchester 2011 Dental Inspections

Attached is a list of de ntal inspections conducted by the City of

Manchester in NH. As you can see, there are almost 50 dentists

in the City. I think the completed spreadsheet provides some good basic

information and an important item listed is the date of

last service, which o ther than the date of installation is the key

component to maintenance.

Hope you find this useful.

Jay

Justin Pimpare

Regional Pretreatment Coordinator

EPA New England

5 Post Office Square

Suite 100 OEP 06

- 03

Boston, MA 02109

Phone: 617

- 918

- 1531

Fax: 617

- 918

- 0531

Forwarded by Justin Pimpare/R1/USEPA/US on 05/05/2011 08:43 AM

From: "Crowley,Chris" < CCrowley@ci.manchester.nh.us >

To: Justin Pimpare/R1/USEPA/U S@EPA

Date: 05/05/2011 08:21 AM

Subject: FW: City of Manchester 2011 Dental Inspections

Hi Jay,

Just a FYI...we completed our 2011 dental office inspections, I didn’t

know if you w anted a copy of what we did so I’m sending it to you.

Hope your doing well.....next time you’re in the neighborhood we have to

do lunch.

Take care,

Chris

From: Crowley,Chris

Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 8:11 AM

To: 'Carlson, George'

Cc: McNeill, Fred; Ro binson, Robert; Kilrain, Michael

Subject: City of Manchester 2011 Dental Inspections

Hello George,

I want to inform you that The City of Manchester EPD has completed the

2011 inspections of the Dental offices within the city limits.

We have inspected all the dental offices to make sure they are incompliance with the Amalgam Separator Rule No. Env

- Ws 905.01.

Attached is the 2011 List of Dentists that Mike Kilrain had inspected.

Within the inspection sheet is the following information :

1. Env

- Ws 905.04 Meets all Hazardous Waste Rules

2. Env

- Ws 905

- 05 Certification Letter

3. Env

- Ws 905.07 Compliance Period

EPD will continue to inspect the dental offices on a bi

- yearly basis and

send you the database for your revie w and files.

If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to

contact me.

Thank you,

Chris

Christopher J. Crowley

Pretreatment Supervisor

Environmental Protection Division

300 Winston Street

Manchester, New Hampshire 03103

W (603) 624

- 6513 C (603) 235

- 6627

E ccrowley@manchesternh.gov

(See attached file: City of Manchester Dental Insp 2011 (without

names).xls)
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 201 3

- NM

- 0 74

- AD

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
DISMISS and Opinion Filed April 22, 2020 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-20-00436-CV
No. 05-20-00437-CV

IN THE BEST INTERE ST AND PROTECTION OF V.B., APPELLANT V. STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. MI-20-00793, MED-20-80184

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Burns, Molberg, and Nowell Opinion by Chief Justice Burns Before the Court is appellants’ April 16, 2020 notice of withdr awal of appeals.

Accordingly, we DISMISS these proceedings.

200436F.P05 /Robert D. Burns, III/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE–2– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

IN THE BEST INTEREST AND PROTECTION OF V.B., Appellant

No. 05-20-00436-CV V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 3, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. MI-20-00793. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns. Justices Molberg and Nowell participating.

In accordance with this Court’ s opinion of this date, the appe al is DISMISSED

.

Judgment entered April 22, 2020.–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

IN THE BEST INTEREST AND PROTECTION OF V.B., Appellant

No. 05-20-00437-CV V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 3, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. MED-20- 80184. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns. Justices Molberg and Nowell participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this app eal is DISMISSED

.

Judgment entered April 22, 2020
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6247

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

THOMAS MONTRIL BROWN, a/k/a Sparks,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. 

Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (4:05-cr-00770-TLW-1)

Submitted: August 18, 2022 Decided: August 30, 2022

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Montril Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Derek Alan Shoemake, Assistant United States 

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6247 Doc: 7 Filed: 08/30/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Montril Brown appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for 

compassionate release. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Brown, 

No. 4:05-cr-00770-TLW-1 (D.S.C. Feb. 22, 2022). 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

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6247 Doc: 7 Filed: 08/30/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                      17,126,219
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,966,215
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          946,157
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,029,511)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,966,215
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,828,213
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             201,298
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,029,511)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,029,511)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,029,511)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.146)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.146)
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7412

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CARSON DARRELL RODGERS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-02-374; CA-04-498-1) Submitted: February 16, 2005 Decided: March 8, 2005 Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carson Darrell Rodgers, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Francis Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Carson Darrell Rodgers appeals from a district court order adopting the magistrate judge’s order to deny Rodgers leave to exceed that court’s twenty-page limit on his brief in support of his § 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### WALKER v. STATE.

No. 22476.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 14, 1943.

J. F. Whisenant and J. A. Johnson, both of Stephenville, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for theft of chickens, punishment assessed at 60 days in the county jail.

No statement of facts or bills of exception are brought forward. In this condition nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.'
May 1, 1973

No. 72-6114.

#### Matthews *v.*United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus dismissed under Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
(This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                     SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                            29,340,408
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     18,405,607
<ALLOWANCES>                                       3,598,031
<INVENTORY>                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  44,744,829
<PP&E>                                             5,108,243
<DEPRECIATION>                                     2,685,845
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   210,537,547
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             68,775,686
<BONDS>                                           36,883,416
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                           1,000,000
<OTHER-SE>                                       103,878,445
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     210,537,547
<SALES>                                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 256,322,282
<CGS>                                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    200,658,179
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  47,270,780
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 2,019,942
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    6,373,381
<INCOME-TAX>                                       3,825,954
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                2,547,427
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                       2,547,427
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            .03
        


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 350 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 350

             To repeal the Legal Services Corporation Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 22, 2013

Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia (for himself, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. Duncan 
  of South Carolina, and Mr. Mulvaney) introduced the following bill; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
             To repeal the Legal Services Corporation Act.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Legal Services 
Corporation Act is repealed.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

___________________________________ ) LAWRENCE P. NOVAK, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 11-0466 (RLW) ) THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al. , ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION On April 27, 2012, the defendants filed a rene wed motion for summary judgment [Dkt. #29]. Because a ruling on the motion potentially could dispose of this case, in its May 1, 2012 Order, the Court advised the plaintiff, among othe r things, of his obligation to file an opposition or other response to the motion. Further, that Order expressly wa rned the plaintiff that, if he failed to file his opposition by May 31, 2012, the Cour t would treat the motion as conceded. To date, the plaintiff neither has filed an opposition nor requested additional time to do so. The Court will treat the defendants’ motion as conceded.
An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

DATE: June 18, 2012 ROBERT L. WILKINS United States District Judge
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MARCELINO CHAVEZ,

Appellant,

v.

UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER

OF EL PASO F/K/A THOMASON

MEDICAL CENTER,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 14

- 00190

- CV

Appeal from the

41st District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2010

- 3010)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be

dismissed for want of prosecution. We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. We

furthe r order Appellant pay all costs of this appeal, and this decision be certified below for

observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2014.

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.