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

                                                                    EXHIBIT (32)

                              THE BANC CORPORATION

                   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of The Banc
Corporation (the "Company") certifies that the Amendment No. 3 on Form 10-K/A to
Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2004,
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in that Amendment No. 3 on
Form 10-K/A on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: February 17, 2006                              /s/ C. Stanley Bailey
                                                 ------------------------------
                                                         C. Stanley Bailey
                                                      Chief Executive Officer

      This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.

<PAGE>

                              THE BANC CORPORATION

                   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of The Banc
Corporation (the "Company") certifies that the Amendment No. 3 on Form 10-K/A to
Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2004,
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in that Amendment No. 3 on
Form 10-K/A to Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: February 17, 2006                                /s/ James C. Gossett
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                          James C. Gossett
                                                     Chief Accounting Officer
                                                  (Principal Financial Officer)

      This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.
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 Annual Report of Ameritrans Capital Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September , 2011 (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date 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:  1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.  Date: September 28, 2011/s/ Michael R. Feinsod
Michael R. Feinsod
Chief Executive Officer
## F I FTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5 D 2 3

- 1616 LT Case No. 2020

- DP

- 50

_____________________________ T.F., M OTHER OF T.F. AND J.N., C HILDREN , Appellant,

v.

D EPARTMENT OF C HILDREN AND F AMILIES , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County

. Cary Frank Rada , Judge

. Amanda Peterson of Law Offices of Peterson, P.A., Mulberry, and Frederick William Heath of Law Office of Frederick Heath, Tampa, for Appellant

. Rachel Batten, Appellate Attorney of Children’s Legal Services, of Department of Children and Families, Brooksville, and Kelly Schaeffer of Department of Children and Families, Bradenton; and Sara Goldfarb, Statewide Director of Appeals, Amanda Victoria Glass, Senior Attorney of Appellate Division, and Samantha Patricia Wuschke, Co

- Counsel, of Guardian ad Litem Office, Tallahassee , for Appellee

.

September 15, 20232 P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.

M AKAR , S OUD , and K ILBANE , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                           3,819
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,151
<ALLOWANCES>                                       891
<INVENTORY>                                      1,527
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,876
<PP&E>                                          45,324
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,092
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  58,108
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,897
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            75
<OTHER-SE>                                      38,879
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    58,108
<SALES>                                         15,391
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,292
<CGS>                                           12,666
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,532
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,189
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   709
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 207
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,389
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,503
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,886
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,886
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .66
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 21

AMERICAN COMMUNITY PROPERTIES TRUST
CONSOLIDATED ENTITES AND SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
DECEMBER 31, 2000

At December 31, 2000, the financial statements of the following entities were consolidated with those of the Registrant in the Consolidated Financial Statements incorporated herein:

- American Community Properties Trust, a Maryland business trust
- American Housing Management Company, a Delaware corporation
- American Housing Properties L.P., a Delaware limited partnership
- American Land Development U.S., Inc., a Maryland corporation
- American Rental Management Company, a Delaware corporation
- American Rental Properties Trust, a Maryland real estate investment trust
- Fox Chase Apartments General Partnership, a Maryland general partnership
- Headen House Associates Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership
- IGP Group Corp., a Puerto Rico corporation
- Interstate General Properties Limited Partnership S.E., a Maryland limited partnership
- Lancaster Apartments Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership
- LDA Group, a Delaware limited liability company
- Land Development Associates S.E., a Puerto Rico partnership
- New Forest Apartments General Partnership, a Maryland general partnership
- Palmer Apartments Associates Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership
- St. Charles Community, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
- Wakefield Terrace Associates Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership
- Wakefield Third Age Associates Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership

At December 31, 2000, the Registrant and its consolidated entities had the following significant unconsolidated subsidiaries:

- Alturas del Senorial Associates Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership
- Bannister Associates Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership
- Bayamon Gardens Associates Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership
- Brookside Gardens Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership
- Carolina Associates Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership
- Colinas de San Juan Associates Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership
- Crossland Associates Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership
- ELI GP, Inc., a Puerto Rico corporation
- ELI S.E., a Puerto Rico special partnership
- Escorial Builders S.E., a Puerto Rico special partnership
- Essex Apartments Associates, a Virginia limited partnership
- Huntington Associates Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership
- Jardines de Caparra Associates Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership
- Lakeside Apartments Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership
- Maryland Cable Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership
- Monserrate Associates Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership
- Monte de Oro Associates, an Illinois limited partnership
- New Center Associates Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership
- San Anton Associates, a Massachusetts limited partnership
- Turabo Limited Dividend Partnership, a Massachusetts limited partnership
- Valle del Sol Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership
# FOIA Log Jan. - March 2022
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6352

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROBERT LEE TRENT, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (4:97-cr-70004-jlk; 7:06-cv-00063-jlk)

Submitted: May 16, 2006 Decided: May 24, 2006

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Lee Trent, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Robert Lee Trent, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order construing his 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (2000) motion as a 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and dismissing it as successive, and a

subsequent order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter

or amend judgment. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court

is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Trent

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 160 (Thursday, October 2, 2008)]
[House]
[Page H10671]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                    FURTHER MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

  A further message from the Senate by Ms. Curtis, one of its clerks, 
announced that the Senate has passed with an amendment in which the 
concurrence of the House is requested, a bill of the House of the 
following title:

       H.R. 6469. An act to amend the Public Health Service Act to 
     authorize increased Federal funding for the Organ Procurement 
     and Transplantation Network.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 169 (Monday, October 27, 2008)]
[Daily Digest]
[Page D1255]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                    COMMITTEE MEETINGS FOR THURSDAY,

                            OCTOBER 30, 2008

        (Committee meetings are open unless otherwise indicated)

                                 Senate

  No meetings/hearings are scheduled.

                                 House

  No committee meetings were held.
```
##### 



EXHIBIT 21.1
  K-Tron
    International, Inc.
  List of
    Subsidiaries
  Name of Subsidiary

State or Jurisdiction of IncorporationK-Tron Investment Co.

DelawareGundlach Equipment Corporation

DelawareK-Tron America, Inc.

DelawareK-Tron Colormax Limited

United KingdomK-Tron PCS Limited

United KingdomK-Tron (Schweiz) AG

SwitzerlandK-Tron Asia Pte Ltd

SingaporeK-Tron China Limited

Hong KongK-Tron Deutschland GmbH

GermanyK-Tron France S.a.r.l.

FranceK-Tron Great Britain Limited

United KingdomWuxi K-Tron Colormax Machinery Co., Ltd.

Peoples Republic of ChinaPennsylvania Crusher Corporation

DelawareJeffrey Specialty Equipment Corporation

DelawareRader Companies, Inc.

GeorgiaRader Canada Company

CanadaRader AB

SwedenPremier Pneumatics, Inc.

DelawareK-Tron Technologies, Inc.

Delaware
#### WILLIAM CASEY, *et. al. v.*HENRY GILES.

An action of debt may be maintained upon an injunction bond, notwithstanding; tbe summary remedy given by the acts of 1785, *(Ren. ch.*233, Sect. 2.) and 1810, *(Rev. ch.*794.)

This was an action of Debt in which the plaintiff declared upon an injunction bond drawn according to the act of 1800, *(Rev. ch.*551). The execution of the bond was admitted; as was the fact that the injunction had been dissolved before this action was brought. His honour Judge Seawell, at Rowan, on the last Circuit, being of opinion that the action could not be maintained, but that the only remedy was by motion, as directed by the acts of 1785, *(Rev. ch.*233, sec. 2), and 1810, *(Rev. ch.*794), the plaintiff submitted to a nonsuit and appealed.

*Pearson,*for the plaintiff.

*Winston,*contra.

Dec. 1834.

Ruffin, Chief-Justice.

— Whether the bond be regarded as an obligation *in pais,*or of record, debt is the appropriate remedy at common law. That action is not expressly abolished by the acts which give the summary remedy; nor, we think, by any reasonable inference. Judgments on *2notice and motion are given on many official bonds, as those of sheriffs and clerks; but that method has never been considered as excluding the old actions. The statutes have not in view the benefit of the debtors, when a summary proceeding is authorised against them; but it is given in aid of the creditor, and as suppletory to his remedy at common law. Hence the creditor has an election, unless, as in the case of bail, he should by proceeding in a particular way, deprive the other party of a defence, which the law designed for him at all events. The creditor may reasonably prefer bringing the action of debt, because he therein gets bail, which, in some instances, may be a better security than even a judgment *instanter,*against the party himself; and the legislature did not intend to deprive the creditor of any advantage. For these reasons the Court is of opinion, that the Superior Court erred, and the judgment must therefore be reversed, and a *venire de novo*ordered.

Per Ctjriam. Judgment reversed.
#### Mastin Hunter, Appellant, v. W. N. Bull *et ux.,*Appellees.

Partnership: accounting : evidence.

*Atweal from, Dickinson District Court.*— Hon. George H. Carr, Judge.

Saturday, October 25, 1890.

Action in equity for an accounting and settlement of an alleged partnership in the distillery business which plaintiff claims existed between him and Angevine Bull. The claim of defendants is that Angevine Bull was not at any time a partner of the plaintiff, and that nothing is due to the plaintiff on account of said distillery business, nor on any other account. There was a full trial on the merits, and a decree dismissing the petition. Plaintiff appeals.

*J. W. Corey,*for appellant.

*A. E. Clark*and *B. M. Wright,*for appellees.

Rothrock, C. J.

It appears from the evidence that there was at one time a whiskey distillery in operation in Webster county, and that it was owned and the business carried on by a partnership known by the firm-name of Bull & Hunter. The plaintiff claims that Angevine Bull was a partner, and the defendant denies this, and claims that W. A. Bull was the partner. The evidence upon this question is quite voluminous. We have carefully examined the whole- record in this court, and reach the conclusion that the averment that Angevine Bull was a member of the partnership is not established. As the question is one purely- of fact, we do not think it important to set out the testimony of the witnesses, or give reasons for our conclusions. It may not be improper to say further that, even if it should be held that a partnership existed between the plaintiff and Angevine Bull, a fair statement of the affairs of the partnership would not show that plaintiff is entitled to recover. Affirmed.
#### S. T. JONES *v.*JERRY McCLAIR.

Under the act of March 16th 1869, suspending the C. O. P., the summons in a civil action is to be returned to the *Term.*

*2kerefai-e*an action in which the summons was returnable before the Clerk, upon demurrer by the defendant, will be dismissed ; and an incidental warrant of attachment (issued because defendant was removing his goods, &c.,) although properly returnable, will follow the fate of the action.

*(McAdoo*v. *Bnibow,*63 N. C. 461, cited and approved.)

*126ActioN tried, upon demurrer by the defendant, by *Watts, J.,*at Chambers, December 9th 1869, Johnston Court.

The summons was *returnable*before the Clerk of the Court, and a warrant of attachment, sued out at the same time (because the defendant had removed part, and was about to remove other, of his property,) was *returnable*in the same way.

The defendant demurred to the complaint, for want of jurisdiction. His Honor overruled the demurrer, and the defendant appealed.

*Bragg and B. G. Leiois,*for the appellant.

*Phillips & Merrvmon, contra.*

1. The 11th Section of the act of March 11th 1869, is to be construed as excepting from the general provisions of the act, all *actions*in which an attachment issues cotemporane-ously with the summons.

2. The act of March 11th 1869, is unconstitutional, as violating Art. 4, s. 4, of the State Constitution, which provides that “ the Superior Courts shall be at all times open,” &c.

3. The act is unconstitutional, as being on its face, a Stay-law: It is temporary in its objects and effect, — the 11th section is copied from former Stay-laws; *Jacobs*v. *Small-wood,*63 N. C. 112.

Eqdman, J.

IJt seems to us that the only question presented by this record, is as to the proper return day of the summons; a question which was decided in *McAdoo*v. *Benbow,*63 N. C. 461, which decision the Court is not disposed to review. The summons was returnable before the Clerk of the Superior Court not in Term time.

According to that case it was irregular, and ought to have been dismissed. It seems to us that the warrant of attachment must share the fate of the action to which it was only *127an adjunct. With, this opinion, we do not think it necessary or proper to decide the other interesting questions which were discussed at the bar. Action dismissed.

Let this opinion he- certified.

Per Curiam. Judgment dismissed.
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; International Research in Infectious Diseases (R01 Clinical Trial Not Allowed).                    

*Date:*                         December 2-3, 2024.                    

*Time:*                         9:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Address:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892.                    

*Meeting Format:*                         Virtual Meeting.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Rekha Dhanwani, Ph.D., Scientific Review Program, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892, (240) 627-3076,                         *rekha.dhanwani@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: October 29, 2024.

Lauren A. Fleck, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2024-25549 Filed 11-1-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P