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



Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,
UNITED STATES CODE)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of
the undersigned officers of Ocean West Holding Corporation (the Company)
hereby certifies with respect to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the
Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the 10-Q Report) that to his knowledge:



| |                                                                                                                                  
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities and 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: August 23, 2003 |  | /s/ Marshall L. Stewart                             
|                      |  |                                                     
|                      |  | Marshall L. Stewart                                 
|                      |  | President and Chief Executive Officer               
|                      |  |                                                     
|Date: August 23, 2003 |  |                                                     
|                      |  | /s/ Daryl S. Meddings                               
|                      |  |                                                     
|                      |  | Daryl S. Meddings                                   
|                      |  | Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3056 

To prohibit the implementation of new requirements to report bank account 

deposits and withdrawals. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 21, 2021 

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina (for himself, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. TOOMEY, Mr. 

MCCONNELL, Mr. THUNE, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. MARSHALL, Mr. TILLIS, 

Ms. LUMMIS, Mr. DAINES, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. MORAN, Mr. CRAMER, 

Mr. SHELBY, Mr. ROUNDS, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. BURR, Mr. BARRASSO, 

Mr. YOUNG, Mr. HOEVEN, Mrs. HYDE-SMITH, Mr. WICKER, Mrs. 

BLACKBURN, Mr. RISCH, Mr. BRAUN, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. SASSE, Mr. 

COTTON, Ms. ERNST, Mr. ROMNEY, Mr. LANKFORD, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. 

INHOFE, Mr. CRUZ, Mr. HAWLEY, Mr. SULLIVAN, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. 

HAGERTY, Mr. SCOTT of Florida, Mr. TUBERVILLE, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. 

JOHNSON, Mr. PAUL, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. LEE, Ms. COLLINS, Mrs. 

FISCHER, and Mr. PORTMAN) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 

Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit the implementation of new requirements to report 

bank account deposits and withdrawals. 

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 ‘‘Prohibiting IRS Fi5 nancial Surveillance Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3056 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON NEW REQUIREMENTS TO REPORT 

2 BANK ACCOUNT DEPOSITS AND WITH3 DRAWALS. 

4 The Secretary of the Treasury (including any dele5 gate of the Secretary) may not require any financial insti6 tution to report— 

7 (1) the inflows or outflows of any account main8 tained by such institution; or 

9 (2) any balances, transactions, transfers, or 

10 similar information with respect to any such ac11 count, 

12 except to the extent that such reporting is required under 

13 any program, or other provision of law, as in effect on 

14 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-14-00331-CV

Gene DEVOLL,

Appellant

v.

Rebecca DEMONBREUN and William Dowds,

Appellees

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-CI-05169

Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 16, 2016

DISMISSED; PRIOR OPINIONS WITHDRAWN

On August 31, 2016, this court issued a majority opinion and judgment affirming the trial 

court’s order, and Chief Justice Sandee Bryan Marion filed a dissenting opinion. Appellant Gene 

DeVoll timely filed a motion for en banc reconsideration, which is pending. 

On November 2, 2016, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the appeal. The parties 

state they have settled all matters at issue and they ask this court to dismiss the appeal and tax costs 

against the party that incurred them. 
04-14-00331-CV

- 2 -

The parties’ joint motion is granted. Appellant’s motion for en banc reconsideration is 

dismissed as moot. We withdraw the court’s judgment and the majority and dissenting opinions 

of August 31, 2016, and substitute this opinion and judgment in their stead. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.1(a)(2), 42.1(c).

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Court of Appeals of

the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17E0017. MORRIS RICKS v. RHONDA SMITH, BUTTS COUNTY

CLERK’S OFFICE.

Morris Ricks has filed in this Court a Petition For a Writ of Mandamus,

seeking the issuance of an order directing the Clerk of Butts County Superior Court

to take certain actions related to the filing of his pro-se motions.

We lack jurisdiction of this case. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that

falls within our SupremeCourt’s general appellate jurisdiction. See Stendahl v. Cobb

County, 284 Ga. 525, n.1(668 SE2d 723) (2008); Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI,

Par. III (5). It is for the Supreme Court to determine whether Ricks has properly

complied with any requisite procedure to invoke its jurisdiction. See Howard v.

Fuller, S08O0357(decided, November 30, 2007)(reiterating procedure to be followed

before seeking to invoke Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to issue a writ of

mandamus against a trial judge). Accordingly, this appeal is hereby TRANSFERRED

to the Supreme Court for disposition.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

11/22/2016

November 22, 2016
EXHIBIT A TO SETTEMENT AGREEMENT 

For Sherco 1 and 2, which share a common stack (SV001) 

 Emission limitation for Sulfur Dioxide (SO2): SO2 emissions from SV001 shall not 

exceed 0.05 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average basis. 

 Compliance with the SO2 emission limit will be determined through use of a continuous 

emission monitor in accordance with 40 CFR 75.10 and Minnesota Rules 7017.1002 

through 7017.1180, as applicable. Compliance with the SO2 limit is determined by 

dividing the sum of the SO2 emissions for the 30 successive boiler operating days by the 

sum of the total heat input for the 30 successive boiler operating days. For the purpose of 

this emission limit only, the boiler operating day shall mean a 24-hour period between 12 

midnight and the following midnight during which any fuel is combusted at any time in 

the steam-generating unit. It is not necessary for fuel to be combusted the entire 24-hour 

period. Biased data shall be used, following Appendix A to 40 CFR 75, but not 

substituted data. 

 Initial compliance with this limit shall be demonstrated no later than October 1, 2015. 

For Sherco Unit 3, which discharges through SV002 

 Emission limitation for Sulfur Dioxide (SO2): SO2 emissions from SV002 shall not 

exceed 0.29 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average basis. 

 Compliance with the SO2 emission limit will be determined through use of a continuous 

emission monitor in accordance with 40 CFR 75.10 and Minnesota Rules 7017.1002 

through 7017.1180, as applicable. Compliance with the SO2 limit is determined by 

dividing the sum of the SO2 emissions for the 30 successive boiler operating days by the 

sum of the total heat input for the 30 successive boiler operating days. For the purpose of 

this emission limit only, the boiler operating day shall mean a 24-hour period between 12 

midnight and the following midnight during which any fuel is combusted at any time in 

the steam-generating unit. It is not necessary for fuel to be combusted the entire 24-hour 

period. Biased data shall be used, following Appendix A to 40 CFR 75, but not 

substituted data. 

 Initial compliance with this limit shall be demonstrated no later than June 1, 2017. 

CASE 0:12-cv-03043-SRN-JSM Document 68-2 Filed 05/15/15 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.1



                                  SIGNATURES

        Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on
its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

Date March 30, 1998             CARDIMA, INC.


                                By: /s/ PHILLIP C. RADLICK PH.D.
                                   -----------------------------------
                                        PHILLIP C. RADLICK PH.D.
                               PRESIDENT, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND DIRECTOR



                               POWER OF ATTORNEY

        KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature
appears below constitutes and appoints Phillip C. Radlick, Ph.D. and Ronald E.
Bourquim, jointly and severally, his or her attorneys-in-fact, each with the
power of substitution, for him or her in any and all capacities, to sign any
amendments to this Report on Form 10-K, and to file the same, with exhibits
thereto and other documents in connection therewith with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, hereby ratifying and confirming all that each of said
attorneys-in-fact, or his or her substitute or substitutes may do or cause to be
done by virtue hereof.

        Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the
registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

        SIGNATURE                       TITLE                                               DATE
        ---------                       -----                                               ----
<S>                                    <C>                                             <C>
 /s/ PHILLIP C. RADLICK PH.D.           PRESIDENT, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND          March 30, 1998
--------------------------------        DIRECTOR (PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
  PHILLIP C. RADLICK PH.D.

/s/ RONALD E. BOURQUIN                  VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER      March 30, 1998
---------------------------------       (PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING
   RONALD E. BOURQUIN                   OFFICER)

/s/ MICHEAL J.F. DU CROS                DIRECTOR                                        March 30, 1998
----------------------------------
    MICHEAL J.F. DU CROS

/s/ JOSEPH S. LACOB                     DIRECTOR                                        March 30, 1998
----------------------------------
    JOSEPH S. LACOB

/s/ NEAL MOSZKOWSKI                     DIRECTOR                                        March 30, 1998
----------------------------------
    NEAL MOSZKOWSKI

/s/ GABRIEL B. VEGH                     EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, CHIEF                 March 30, 1998
----------------------------------      OPERATING OFFICER AND DIRECTOR
    GABRIEL B. VEGH

/s/ CHARLES P. WAITE, JR.               DIRECTOR                                        March 30, 1998
----------------------------------
    CHARLES P. WAITE, JR.
</TABLE>
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




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 filing of the Annual Report
on Form 10-KSB for the Fiscal Year Ended  December  31, 2003 (the  "Report")  by
Brilliant Digital Entertainment,  Inc.  ("Registrant"),  each of the undersigned
hereby certifies that:

         1.       to the best of our  knowledge,  the Report fully complies with
                  the  requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
                  Exchange Act of 1934; and

         2.       to the best of our knowledge, the information contained in the
                  Report  fairly  presents,   in  all  material  respects,   the
                  financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.


Dated:  March 30, 2004                          /S/ KEVIN BERMEISTER
                                                ------------------------------
                                                Kevin Bermeister
                                                Chief Executive Officer


Dated:  March 30, 2004                          /S/ TYLER TARR
                                                ------------------------------
                                                Tyler Tarr
                                                Chief Financial Officer
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-83,074-03

EX PARTE MICHAEL CHARLES HILL, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. W99-70647-N(C) IN THE 195TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of aggravated sexual

assault and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. He did not appeal his conviction.

Applicant contends that he is actually innocent, the State failed to disclose exculpatory

evidence, and his guilty plea was involuntary. 

Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Ex parte Elizondo, 947

S.W.2d 202 (Tex. Crim. App.1996); Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); Brady v. United States,

397 U.S. 742 (1970). In these circumstances, additional facts are needed. As we held in Ex parte
2

Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropriate forum for

findings of fact. The trial court shall hold a live evidentiary hearing.

Applicant appears to be represented by counsel. If he is not, the trial court finds him indigent,

and he wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an attorney to represent him

at the hearing. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. 

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether: (1)

Applicant’s sentence has discharged and he is suffering collateral consequences, see TEX. CODE

CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(c); (2) the complainant’s recantation is newly available or discovered

evidence, see Ex parte Brown, 205 S.W.3d 538, 545 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); (3) Applicant has

established by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in

light of new evidence, see Elizondo, 947 S.W.3d at 209; (4) the State failed to disclose favorable

evidence that was material to Applicant’s conviction; and (5) Applicant’s guilty plea was

involuntary. The trial court shall also make any other findings of fact and conclusions of law that it

deems relevant and appropriate to the disposition of Applicant’s claims for habeas corpus relief.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time must

be requested by the trial court and shall be obtained from this Court. 

Filed: December 7, 2016

Do not publish
EXHIBIT 23


               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the
registration statement of Old Guard Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
on Form S-8 (File No. 333-46175) of our reports dated
February 24, 1999, except for Notes 15 and 16 for which the date
is March 5, 1999, on our audits of the consolidated financial
statements and financial statement schedules of Old Guard Group,
Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and for
each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 1998,
which reports are included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


2400 Eleven Penn Center
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 30, 1999
Farm Labor Report

Executive Summary

Jody McDaniel, Chief

Environmental, Economics, and Demographics Branch

November 21, 2019 3:00 P.M.
Survey Overview

November Agricultural Labor Survey

Reference Periods July 7-13 and October 6-12, 2019

Data Collection Period October 14 – November 1

Sample Size 38,940

Collection Methods Mail, Telephone, Internet, Face-to-Face Interview

Primary Data Items Number of hired workers, average hours worked, and 

average wage rates

Revision Policy

Farm labor statistics are subject to revision semiannually and annually and must be supported by 

additional data that directly affect the level of the 

estimate. 

November 21, 2019
Annual Average Gross Wage Rates 

Region 2018 2019

Northeast I 13.25 14.29

Northeast II 13.15 13.34

Appalachian I 12.25 12.67

Appalachian II 11.63 12.40

Southeast 11.13 11.71

Florida 11.24 11.71

Lake 13.54 14.40

Cornbelt I 13.26 14.52

Cornbelt II 13.34 14.58

Delta 11.33 11.83

Northern Plains 14.38 14.99

Southern Plains 12.23 12.67

Mountain I 13.48 13.62

Mountain II 13.13 14.26

Mountain III 12.00 12.91

Pacific 15.03 15.83

California 13.92 14.77

Hawaii 14.73 14.90

10.12 10.22

10.36

10.80

11.10

11.29

11.74

12.20

12.47

13.25

13.99

10.83

10.95

11.07

11.51

11.87

12.07

12.54

12.98

13.32

14.17

14.91

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Field & Livestock

All Hired

U.S. Field & Livestock and All Hired, 2009-2019 ($/hour) Field & Livestock ($/hour) 

November 21, 2019
Annual Average Gross Wage Rates 

All Hired by Region, 2019 ($/hour)

November 21, 2019

U.S. = $14.91

5%
Annual Average Gross Wage Rates 

Field & Livestock by Region, 2019 ($/hour)

November 21, 2019

U.S. = $13.99

6%
Annual Average Wage Rates 

Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Gross ($/hour) Base ($/hour)

Graders and sorters, agricultural products (45-2041) 13.13 12.57

Agricultural equipment operators (45-2091) 14.58 14.06

Farmworkers, crop, nursery, and greenhouse (45-2092) 13.98 13.33

Farmworkers, farm, ranch, and aquacultural animals (45-2093) 13.60 13.22

Agricultural workers, all other (45-2099) 14.16 13.86

Packers and packagers, hand (53-7064) 14.07 12.91

Farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural managers (11-9013) 24.65 24.25

First-line supervisors of farming, fishing workers (45-1011) 21.37 20.85

November 21, 2019
Upcoming Reports

Release Date Report Title

November 22 Cattle on Feed

November 25 Cotton Ginnings

November 27 Agricultural Prices

December 2 CAIR: Cotton System, Fats & Oils, and Grain Crushings

December 10 Crop Production

Cotton Ginnings
Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  
    
    The Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended March 31, 2011 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
 
    
    The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Corey RinkerCorey RinkerChief Financial Officer, Treasurer and
Assistant Secretary
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1484

LEANORA NELSON; SELENA NELSON CECCHINI, Natural Daughter 

and Heir at Law of Rosalind Nelson deceased; JEAN NELSON 

LUMSBY,

Plaintiffs - Appellants, 

v. 

LEVY CENTER LLC, 

Defendant - Appellee, 

v. 

HORACE JONES; THE LAW OFFICES OF HORACE JONES; THE WILCY R. 

NELSON FAMILY, LLC, 

Third Party Defendants. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District 

Judge. (9:11-cv-01184-SB) 

Submitted: October 31, 2016 Decided: December 7, 2016

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Leanora Nelson, Selena Nelson Cecchini, Jean Nelson Lumsby, 

Appellants Pro Se. Demetri K. Koutrakos, Louis H. Lang,
2

CALLISON, TIGHE & ROBINSON, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
3

PER CURIAM: 

Leanora Nelson, Selena Nelson Cecchini, and Jean Nelson 

Lumsby (collectively, “the Nelsons”) appeal from the district 

court’s order adopting the recommendations of the magistrate 

judge and granting summary judgment in their civil action to 

Defendant Levy Center LLC. The district court determined that 

dismissal of certain of the Nelsons’ claims was warranted under 

the Rooker-Feldman1 doctrine and that the entire action was 

barred under the applicable statute of limitations. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the district 

court’s determination that the Nelsons’ action was barred by the 

applicable statute of limitations. We therefore affirm the 

district court’s judgment on this basis.2 Nelson v. Levy Ctr. 

LLC, No. 9:11-cv-01184-SB (D.S.C. Mar. 30, 2016). 

 1 D.C. Ct. App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. 

Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). 

2 After the district court issued its judgment, this court 

issued an opinion clarifying the scope of the Rooker-Feldman

doctrine. Thana v. Bd. of License Comm’rs for Charles Cty., 

Md., 827 F.3d 314 (4th Cir. 2016). Because we affirm here on an 

alternate basis, we find it unnecessary to consider whether the 

district court’s Rooker-Feldman analysis comports with Thana. 

We also reject as without merit the Nelsons’ appellate arguments 

suggestive of potential bias by the district court and 

suggesting that the court erred by considering matters not cited 

by Levy Center LLC in its summary judgment motion. 
4

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