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

**Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Polymer Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended July 3, 2004 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James L. Schaeffer,Chief 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 of2002, that to my knowledge:

(1)           The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: August 16, 2004 | /s/ James L. Schaeffer                      |
|----------------------------|---------------------------------------------|
|                       | James L. Schaeffer*Chief Executive Officer* |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

----
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of 
Bestway, Inc. on Form S-8 (Registration No. 33-60471) of our report dated 
October 15, 1998, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements of 
Bestway, Inc. as of July 31, 1998 and 1997 and for the years ended July 31, 
1998, 1997 and 1996, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 
10-K.




                                        /s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Dallas, Texas
October 26, 1997
SHARON KELLER

 PRESIDING JUDGE

LAWRENCE E. MEYERS

CHERYL JOHNSON

MIKE KEASLER

BARBARA P. HERVEY

ELSA ALCALA

BERT RICHARDSON

KEVIN P. YEARY

DAVID NEWELL

 JUDGES

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION

AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK

(512) 463-1551

SIAN SCHILHAB

GENERAL COUNSEL

(512) 463-1597

SUPREME COURT BUILDING, 201 WEST 14TH STREET, ROOM 106, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701

WEBSITE WWW.TXCOURTS.GOV/CCA.ASPX

Wednesday, July 01, 2015

FRANCISCO DURAN Jr.

Robertson Unit - TDC # 1793551

12071 FM 3522

Abilene, TX 79601

District Attorney Cameron County

Armando R. Villalobos

964 E HARRISON ST.

ADMINISTRATION BLDG., 4TH FL.

Brownsville, TX 78520

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Re: DURAN, FRANCISCO JR.

CCA No. PD-0429-15

Trial Court Case No. 2012-DCR-867-I

The Court has this day issued an order for the above referenced cause.

Sincerely,

_____________________________

Abel Acosta, Clerk

cc: Lisa McMinn (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

13th Court Of Appeals Clerk (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

District Clerk Cameron County (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Presiding Judge 445th District Court

FILE COPY
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-2164

___________________________

St. Louis County

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Albert D. Thomas

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________

 Submitted: December 26, 2013

Filed: January 3, 2014

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Albert Thomas sought to remove to federal court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1443(1), a state criminal case he alleged was pending against him in St. Louis
County Municipal Court, Missouri. The district court summarily remanded the case, 1

and Thomas appealed.

We have authority to review the district court’s remand order. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1447(d). We hold that the district court properly remanded the case because the

notice of removal did not comply with the procedural requirements of 28 U.S.C.

§ 1455, and did not meet the requirements for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1). 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1455(a), (b)(1), (b)(4); Johnson v. Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213, 219-20

(1975) (outlining two-prong test for removal under § 1443(1)).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1

District of Missouri.

-2-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                               5
<LEGEND>
                                          FDS - 4TH QUARTER
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                            0000006207
<NAME>                                    AMREP CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                                        1,000
<CURRENCY>                                U.S.DOLLARS

<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                            MAY-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              APR-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                         1
<CASH>                                             23,553
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      64,668
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                        92,124
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        0
<PP&E>                                             32,803
<DEPRECIATION>                                     14,443
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    217,777
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   0
<BONDS>                                            47,896
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                              740
<OTHER-SE>                                         90,837
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      217,777
<SALES>                                           126,980
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  190,291
<CGS>                                             101,363
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     160,645
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  4,743
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     8,196
<INCOME-TAX>                                          659
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 7,537
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                        7,537
<EPS-BASIC>                                           1.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0



</TABLE>
### MANDATE


## Court of Appeals
**First District of Texas**

NO. 01

- 1 5

- 00 298

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF C.M. AND C. F., A CHILD

Appeal from the 306th District Court of Galveston County (Tr. Ct. No. 13

- CP

- 0068 )

TO THE 306TH DISTRICT COURT O F GALVESTON C OUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before this Court, on the 2nd day of June

, 201 5 , the cause upon appeal to revise or to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

After due consideration, the Court grants the motion to dismiss this appeal filed by the appellant

, Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

. It is therefore CONSIDERED

, ADJUDGED , and ORDERED that the appeal be dismissed

. It is further ORDERED that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered June 2 , 201 5

. Judgment rendered by panel consisting of Chief Justice Radack and Justice s Higley and Massengale

.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Courtin this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

July 3 1 , 2015

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE CLERK OF THE COURT
EXHIBIT 31.1

I, Dinesh R.Desai, certify that:

1.          I  have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Emtec,  Inc.;

2.          Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3.          Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.          Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

             a)          designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

             b)          evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as ofthe end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and

             c)          disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.          Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

             a)          allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s abilityto record, process, summarize and report financial information;  and

             b)          anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

Date: July 7, 2006
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

AARON EDWARD JAMES,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 187 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 15th day of August, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

April 1, 2020

No. 04

- 20

- 00180

- CR

IN RE Stephen Wayne RICHARDSON

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

On March 24, 2020, r elator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. After considering the

petition and the record, this court concludes relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly,

the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(a).

It is so ORDERED on April 1, 2020

.

_____________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 1st day of April, 2020

.

_____________________________ Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2010CR10629, styled The State of Texas v. Stephen Wayne Richardson

, pending in the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Frank J. Castro presiding.
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         November 21, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 12, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 702 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-377, K2025-375.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-27182 Filed 11-20-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 13, 2014

No. 04-14-00091-CV

Melissa HERNANDEZ,

Appellant

v.

Andres BUENO,

Appellee

From the 79th Judicial District Court, Jim Wells County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13-0352114-CV

Honorable Richard C. Terrell, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The trial court clerk has filed a notification of late record stating that the appellant, 

Melissa Hernandez, has failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the 

clerk’s record and that Hernandez is not entitled to appeal without paying the fee.

We, therefore, ORDER Hernandez to provide written proof to this court within ten days 

of the date of this order that either (1) the clerk’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been 

made to pay the clerk’s fee; or (2) Hernandez is entitled to appeal without paying the clerk’s fee. 

If Hernandez fails to respond within the time provided, this appeal will be dismissed for want of 

prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c) (allowing dismissal of 

appeal if appellant fails to comply with an order of this court).

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 13th day of May, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRADLEY SMITH,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.
NESTER LOPEZ; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 15

- 16838

D.C. No. 2:13

- c v

- 00892

- GMN

PAL

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 8, 2017 **

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges

Bradley Smith appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of

Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971) , alleging claims arising from a workplace dispute.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291

. We review de novo a dismissal

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAR 21 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 16838

unde r Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)

. Hebbe v. Pliler , 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010)

.
We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Smith’s Fourteenth Amendment equal

protection claim because Smith failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he was

treated differently from other similarly situated individuals. See Vill

. of

Willowbrook v. Olech , 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000) (elements of “class of one” equal

protect ion claim).

The district court properly dismissed Smith’s F irst A mendment retaliation

claim because Smith failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he attempted to

engage in protected speech

. See Coszalter v. City of Salem
, 320 F.3d 968, 973 (9th

Cir . 2003) (to establish a First Amendment retaliation claim , plaintiff must show

he spoke on a matter of public concern; speech that concerns individual personnel

disputes and grievances is generally not of public concern); see also Blaisdell v.

Frappiea , 72 9 F.3d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[A]ssociational rights only extend

to groups engaged in expressive activities.”).

The district court properly dismissed Smith’s Ninth Amendment claim

because the Ninth Amendment “has never been recognized as independent ly

securing any constitutional right, for purposes of pursuing a civil rights claim

. ”

Strandberg v. City of Helena , 791 F.2d 744, 748 (9th Cir. 1986).

We reject as unsupported by the record Smith’s contention that the district3 15

- 16838

court was biased against hi m.

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 893, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 93 (Friday, May 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 28121]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11834]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[PUBLIC NOTICE: 7456]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``National Geographic Treasures of the Earth''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000, I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``National Geographic Treasures of the 
Earth'' imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United 
States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant 
to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also 
determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The 
Children's Museum of Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN, from on or about 
June 11, 2011, until on or about June 10, 2014, (or, in any event, for 
a duration not to exceed six years from June 11, 2011), is in the 
national interest. The Museum understands that immediately after the 
last day of the aforementioned exhibition or display period, the 
objects shall be repatriated back to the United Kingdom. I have ordered 
that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the Federal 
Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: May 7, 2011.
Ann Stock,
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2011-11834 Filed 5-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
**Exhibit 18.1**     October 5, 2006     Mr. Robert P. Dowski    Chief Financial Officer    The Allied Defense Group, Inc.    8000 Towers Crescent Drive, Suite 260    Vienna, Virginia 22182     Dear Mr. Dowski:     As stated in Note A to the financial statements of The    Allied Defense Group, Inc. for the year ended December 31,    2005, the Company changed its method of accounting for revenue    and cost of sales under certain production-type contracts at the    Company’s MECAR SA subsidiary by changing its method for    determining the percentage of completion and states that the    newly adopted accounting principle is preferable in the    circumstances because it more appropriately reflects the stage    of completion of its contracts. In connection with our audit of    the above mentioned financial statements, we have evaluated the    circumstances and the business judgment and planning which    formulated your basis to make the change in accounting principle.     It should be understood that criteria have not been established    by the Financial Accounting Standards Board for selecting from    among the alternative accounting principles that exist in this    area. Further, the American Institute of Certified Public    Accountants has not established the standards by which an    auditor can evaluate the preferability of one accounting    principle among a series of alternatives. However, for purposes    of the Company’s compliance with the requirements of the    Securities and Exchange Commission, we are furnishing this    letter.     Based on our audit, we concur in management’s judgment that    the newly adopted accounting principle described in Note A    is preferable in the circumstances. In formulating this    position, we are relying on management’s business planning    and judgment, which we do not find to be unreasonable.     Very truly yours, BDO    Seidman, LLP
### I /mb££i FILED IN 1STCOURT OFAPPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 

### JUN 232015(1/^ 

## lo-^e Si&fe o/1 T&&\'- Cour} 

# ^7^_^^^/2/l^^Z^Z^7z SSe/n ^ H335tS^. ^P-e^oiL/fm^kn-^ 

# l^pOLSeJc&fac e. ib/^gJ^JSas^ oL -U&s us&ni &. 

# as
Sol-L 

# £ a* A fe?) u-e^ troupe, ^ (as&<> /?& / rp/*<t</ied 

## y Ms*/-_f {'GofJr

Mi (/? sicr (Ou 

# ^^^^u^^x^^t^^c^Z :^- 

### M4M^|yP| KV 

### Wty

"received . FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAb

JUN 2 3 2015 CHRISTOPHER h. PHINE ICLERK; ~? :-"00220£:&33 •«»l»'ll»ii'i':'i.'li'ii'i''"W»lil'ilili"i'ii'|j'i»li»i'.W