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

 

#### **CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

#### **18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

#### **ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

#### **SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Mercantile Bankshares Corporation (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, EdwardJ. Kelly, III, the Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to and forpurposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1)              The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2)              The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/  Edward J. Kelly, III |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
| Edward J. Kelly, III      |
| Chief Executive Officer   |
| November 8,  2004    |

 

----
2017-0112.

#### State v. Cooper.

In Habeas Corpus. Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

O’Connor, C.J., and O’Donnell, Kennedy, French, O’Neill, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., concur.
No. 12-289.

#### New 49’ers, Inc., et al. *v.*Karuk Tribe of California et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 179

To tax 9 millimeter, .25 caliber, and .32 caliber bullets.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 21 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 1993

Mr. MOYNIHAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To tax 9 millimeter, .25 caliber, and .32 caliber bullets.

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

3 That this Act may be cited as the ‘‘Real Cost of Ammuni4 tion Act.’’

5 SEC. 101. INCREASE IN TAX ON CERTAIN BULLETS.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 4181 of the Internal Rev7 enue Code of 1986 (relating to the imposition of tax on

8 firearms, etc.) is amended by adding at the end the follow9 ing new flush sentence:

10 ‘‘In the case of 9 millimeter, .25 caliber, or .32 caliber

11 ammunition, the rate of tax under this section shall be

12 1,000 percent.’’.
2

S 179 IS

1 (b) EXEMPTION FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PUR2 POSES.—Section 4182 of the Internal Revenue Code of

3 1986 (relating to exemptions) is amended by adding at

4 the end the following new subsection:

5 ‘‘(d) LAW ENFORCEMENT.—The last sentence of sec6 tion 4181 shall not apply to any sale (not otherwise ex7 empted) to, or for the use of, the United States (or any

8 department, agency, or instrumentality thereof) or a State

9 or political subdivision thereof (or any department, agen10 cy, or instrumentality thereof).’’.

11 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

12 this section shall apply to sales after December 31, 1995.

Æ
#### Com. v. Simmons

10/14/2015

513 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 122 A.3d 1129
No. 12-7944.

#### Pugh *v.*Humphrey, Warden, et al.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
|                                                                                              
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                              
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                      
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                
|View History:                                                                                 
|                                                                                              
|Cameron (Calcasieu Pass), LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Netherlands (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                              
|                                                                                              
|Cameron (Calcasieu Pass), LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Netherlands (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                              

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2020's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 25,072 | 77,342 |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Parrilla, Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 646]

— Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered February 5, 2002, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court (Byrne, J.), upon a finding that he had violated a condi*755tion thereof, after a hearing, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Santucci, J.P., Goldstein, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Maui
Land & Pineapple Company, Inc. Balance Sheet as of September 30, 1999 and the
Statement of Operations for the nine months then ended, and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,272
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,186
<ALLOWANCES>                                       746
<INVENTORY>                                     20,015
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,691
<PP&E>                                         220,764
<DEPRECIATION>                                 126,277
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 149,420
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,670
<BONDS>                                         30,908
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,318
<OTHER-SE>                                      52,550
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   149,420
<SALES>                                         76,574
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               103,677
<CGS>                                           50,110
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   70,301
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,349
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,213
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,938
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,275
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,275
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .46


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Government Employees Insurance Company, Respondent, v Maria Dellaporte, Respondent, and Bobby Management Corp., Respondent. American Transit Ins. Co., Nonparty Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 353]

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration of a claim for uninsured motorist benefits, American Transit Ins. Co. appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Shaughnessy, J.H.O.), entered November 7, 2002, which granted the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to Government Employees Insurance Company and Maria Dellaporte.

The appellant contends that the Supreme Court erred in staying arbitration of the claimant’s demand for uninsured motorist benefits because there is insufficient evidence in the record to establish that the accident took place while she was a passenger in a vehicle owned by its insured. However, neither the appellant nor its insured contested the identity of the offending vehicle in the Supreme Court, and did not raise this issue during the framed issue hearing. Accordingly, the appellant’s contention is not properly before this Court *(see Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Cotten,*233 AD2d 500 [1996]). S. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.
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 Quarterly
Report of Siebert Financial Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Muriel F. Siebert, in my capacity as Chairwoman
and President of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

1.       
          the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.       
          the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the period
          covered by the Report and the results of operations of the Company for the
          period covered by the Report.

|                                                                        |  |                     
|----------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------
|/s/ Muriel F. Siebert                                                   |  | Dated:  May 17, 2004
|                                                                        |  |                     
|Muriel
F. SiebertChairwoman
and President (principal executive officer) |  |                     

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or
otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version
of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Siebert Financial
Corp. and will be retained by Siebert Financial Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
June 20, 2014

CAAP-12-0000987

#### State v. Faamama

Affirmed
#### Anthony Conigliaro, Appellant, v New York Stock Exchange, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[769 NYS2d 412]—

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated October 2, 2002, which granted the separate motions of the defendants, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (hereinafter NYSE). When an employee elects to receive workers’ compensation benefits from his general employer, a special employer is shielded from any action at law commenced by the employee *(see Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp.,*78 NY2d 553 [1991]). NYSE established that the plaintiff was its special employee and the plaintiff did not raise a triable issue of fact in opposition. Therefore, the plaintiff’s action insofar as asserted against NYSE is barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law *(see Pirrotta v EklecCo,*292 AD2d 362, 363 [2002]; *Carino v Kenmare Remodeling,*292 AD2d 555 [2002]).

Furthermore, since there was no issue of fact as to whether the defendant Building Maintenance Service LLC, formerly known as Building Maintenance Service Corp. had actual or constructive notice of the condition that caused the plaintiff’s fall, summary judgment dismissing the complaint as to it also was properly granted *(see Moss v JNK Capital,*211 AD2d 769 [1995], *affd*85 NY2d 1005 [1995]). Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.
No. 12-909.

#### Bourdon et al. *v.*Mabus, Secretary of the Navy, et al.

C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 98 (Thursday, May 21, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 27925]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13546]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE


Availability of Funds for New Senior Companion Projects--
Nationwide; Correction

AGENCY: Corporation for National and Community Service.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Corporation for National and Community Service published a 
notice in the Federal Register of April 15, 1998, (63 FR 18383) 
concerning the availability of funds to support a national organization 
and five of its local affiliates to operate new Senior Companion 
Projects. The notice contained an incorrect deadline for applications. 
The new deadline is revised as follows: ``Applications must be received 
by 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, June 26, 1998''.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Wilson (202) 606-5000, ext. 
261.

    Dated: May 15, 1998.
Kenneth L. Klothen,
General Counsel, Corporation for National and Community Service.
[FR Doc. 98-13546 Filed 5-20-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6050-28-P
No. 12-6576.

#### Said et al. *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28541-28542]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13845]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Heartland States Regional Fairness Board; Public Hearing

    The Heartland States Regional Fairness Board Hearing, to be held on 
June 8, 1998, starting at 10:00 a.m. at the Junior League, 10435 
Clayton, Frontenac, Missouri, in space being provided by the Junior 
League, to receive comments from small businesses concerning regulatory 
enforcement or compliance taken by Federal agencies. Transcripts of 
these proceedings will be posted on the Internet. These transcripts are 
subject only to limited review by the National Ombudsman.


[[Page 28542]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary P. Peele, telephone (312) 353-
0880.
Shirl Thomas,
Director, Office of External Affairs.
[FR Doc. 98-13845 Filed 5-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0078

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

STANLEY JOSEPH OLIVER,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including February 8, 2021, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 31 2020

12/31/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0078
March 18, 2013

No. 12-11.

#### Ryan, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections *v.*James.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of *Johnson*v. *Williams, ante,*p. 289.
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1731

To provide that the President shall appoint, by and with the advice and

consent of the Senate, the Chief of the Forest Service of the Department

of Agriculture, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 19 (legislative day, NOVEMBER 2), 1993

Mr. CRAIG (for himself and Mr. WALLOP) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,

and Forestry

A BILL

To provide that the President shall appoint, by and with

the advice and consent of the Senate, the Chief of the

Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture, and

for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. CHIEF OF THE FOREST SERVICE.

4 (a) APPOINTMENT BY PRESIDENT; SENATE ADVICE

5 AND CONSENT.—The President shall appoint, by and with

6 the advice and consent of the Senate, the Chief of the For7 est Service of the Department of Agriculture.
2

•S 1731 IS

1 (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—

2 (1) Section 5316 of title 5, United States Code, is amend3 ed by striking out:

4 ‘‘Chief Forester of the Forest Service, Depart5 ment of Agriculture.’’

6 and inserting in lieu thereof:

7 ‘‘Chief of the Forest Service, Department of

8 Agriculture.’’.

9 (2) Section 204 of the Department of Agriculture Or10 ganic Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 580; 58 Stat. 736) is

11 amended by striking out ‘‘Chief Forester’’ and inserting

12 in lieu thereof ‘‘Chief of the Forest Service’’.

13 (c) APPLICATION TO INCUMBENT.—Notwithstanding

14 any service by an individual serving in the position of

15 Chief of the Forest Service (or Chief Forester of the For16 est Service) on the date of the enactment of this Act, the

17 President shall submit a nomination for such position to

18 the Senate no later than 30 days after the date of the

19 enactment of this Act.

20 (d) REFERENCES.—Reference in any other Federal

21 law, Executive order, rule, delegation of authority, or any

22 document of or relating to the Chief Forester of the Forest

23 Service shall be deemed to refer to the Chief of the Forest

24 Service.

Æ
DEC19 2013

Mr. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IXMail Code ORA-l75 Hawthorne StreetSan Francisco, CA 94105

RE: Submittal of Maricopa County Rule 100 revising the Maricopa County Portion of the

Arizona State Implementation Plan for Section 11 0(a)(2) Infrastructure

Dear Mr. Blumenfeld:Consistent with the provisions of Arizona Revised Statutes § 49-104, 49-404, 49-406, and the

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40, § § 51.102 through 51.104, the Arizona Department

of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) hereby adopts and submits to the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) Maricopa County Rule 100, General Provisions And Definitions,adopted September 25, 2013, as a revision to the Maricopa County portion of the Arizona State

Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision strengthens the existing rule and supersedes the versionof Rule 100 that was originally submitted with the SIP supplement listed below (adopted March

15, 2006).

Rule 100 was referenced as part of ADEQ’s SIP supplement to the Clean Air Act Sections

110(a)(1) and (2): Implementation of2006 PM25 National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 1997

PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards, and 1997 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air

Quality Standards, which was submitted to the EPA on August 24, 2012. This submission

corrects the deficiencies required for Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 11 0(a)(2)(e)(ii), whichspecifies hearing boards composition requirements. These deficiencies were outlined in 77 FR

66398 (November 5, 2012).

Southern Regional Office

400 West Congress Street • Suite 433 • Tucson, AZ 85701

(520) 628—6733

Printed on recycled paper
Sincerely,

Enclosures (2)cc: Bill Wiley, Maricopa County Air Quality Department

Ursula Kramer, Pima County Department of Environmental Quality

Don Gabrielson, Pinal County Air Quality Department

Colleen McKaughan, EPA Region IX

Noah Smith, EPA Region IX

Air Quality
|                                                                                                  
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                  
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                          
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                    
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                    
|View History:                                                                                     
|                                                                                                  
|No chart available.                                                                               
|No chart available.                                                                               
|                                                                                                  
|                                                                                                  
|Federal Offshore--Gulf of Mexico Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals from Shale Gas (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                  

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024