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

I, Hoolae Paoa, Chief Executive Officer of Mid-State Raceway, Inc. and
Subsidiary (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March
31, 2001 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d)); 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: January 10, 2004

/s/ Hoolae Paoa
Hoolae Paoa
Chief Executive Officer




                                       14
# A dramatization of the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. highlights NSA-Philadelphia annual birthday observance

/ Published Jan. 23, 2019
PHILADELPHIA, 
Employees from across Naval Support Activity Philadelphia filed into the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support auditorium to celebrate the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. during the annual birthday observance program held Jan. 23 in Philadelphia. 

 The DLA Troop Support and NAVSUP Weapons Systems Support Equal Employment Opportunities committees hosted the event, which commemorated the national theme, “Remember! Celebrate! Act! A Day On, Not a Day Off.”

“The first official observance of the King holiday took place on the third Monday in January in 1986,” Army Brig. Gen. Mark Simerly, DLA Troop Support commander said. “The holiday is not just a day off from work or school, but it is a day to keep Dr. King’s dream alive by serving and giving back to others.”

In his remarks, Simerly mentioned King’s accomplishments in Philadelphia and the surrounding area and reminded those in attendance of local happenings that occurred over the holiday weekend to honor Dr. King’s legacy.

 “I hope that you embraced Dr. King’s philosophy of service by taking advantage of an opportunity to volunteer at a local food pantry or homeless shelter like Manna or Philabundance here in Philly,” Simerly said. “Better yet, maybe you enjoyed a free screening of the documentary, "Whose Streets?" at the African American Museum or heard a reading of Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech at the National Constitution Center.”

The keynote speaker for this year’s event was Jim Lucas, a student and advocate of Dr. King’s philosophy of nonviolent civil action. 

Lucas engaged the audience with a dramatic story of King’s life while intertwining renditions of Dr. King’s “I Have a Dream,” “I’ve Been to the Mountaintop,” excerpts from “The Drum Major Instinct,” the “Letter from Birmingham Jail” and other works in a dramatic one-man show.

As Lucas graced the stage he grasped the attention of the audience as he opened his keynote address the same way ended with words from King’s final sermon making a thunderous sound that echoed throughout the room.

“If I could help somebody, as I pass along, if I could cheer somebody with a word or a song,” Lucas said boisterously. “If I can show somebody that he is traveling wrong, then my living shall not be in vain.”
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131043 Michael F. Cavanagh 

(19) Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

BRENDA L. FOUNTAIN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 131043 

 COA: 266583 

WCAC: 04-000291 

ARROW UNIFORM RENTAL, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's order of 

July 31, 2006 is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order 

was entered erroneously. 

l1023 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 31, 2006 

 Clerk
#### Encarnacion, Matter of, v Price

1st Dept: 148 AD3d 535

denied
# L_2010264EN.01001901.xml

| 7.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 264/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 264/19

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) No 874/2010 of 5 October 2010 concerning the authorisation of lasalocid A sodium as a feed additive for turkeys up to 16 weeks (holder of authorisation Alpharma (Belgium) BVBA) and amending Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 263 of 6 October 2010
  )

Official Journal of the European Union L 263 of 6 October 2010

On page 3, Annex, first column of the table ‘Identification number of the additive’:

for:

‘5 1 76 3’,

read:

‘5 1 763’.

---
2016-1655.

#### State v. Gaver.

Stark App. No. 2015CA00204, 2016-Ohio-7055.

French, J., not participating.
*

 The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument

pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This order and

judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case,

res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of

orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the

terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

MAY 2 2000

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

JOE L. BELL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL

SERVICE,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 00-6004

(D.C. No. CIV-90-628-A)

(Western District of Oklahoma)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BALDOCK, HENRY and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff-appellant Joe L. Bell, appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s

denial of his motion to disqualify the judge assigned to his case. Bell’s motion

arises out of the district court’s post-trial order entered in 1991 dismissing his

employment discrimination claim against the Postmaster General of the United

States Postal Service. The district court denied Bell’s motion for reconsideration
- 2 -

of that order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and he filed a timely appeal. On

appeal, we affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion for reconsideration. 

See Bell v. Frank, No. 92-6406, 1993 WL 141195 (10th Cir. April 27, 1993).

On December 13, 1999, more than six years after the dismissal of his case

was affirmed on appeal, Bell filed a motion for disqualification of the assigned

judge. The district court denied the motion as moot, and Bell appealed. We

review such denials for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Lowe, 106

F.3d 1498, 1504 (10th Cir. 1997). The timeliness of a motion to disqualify is

“judged by a standard of reasonableness in light of the given facts.” United

States v. Hines, 696 F.2d 722, 728 n.8 (10th Cir. 1982). Bell’s motion to

disqualify is untimely; this case was dismissed seven years ago and, but for this

motion, is no longer pending in the district court. See, e.g., Franks v. Nimmo,

796 F.2d 1230, 1234 (10th Cir. 1986) (holding untimely a disqualification motion

filed over one year after commencement of the proceedings giving rise to the

alleged bias); Singer v. Wadman, 745 F.2d 606, 608 (10th Cir. 1984) (holding that

the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to disqualify

“filed about one year after the complaint was filed and after the appellants had

suffered some adverse rulings on interlocutory matters”). As stated by the district

court: “This case is over and Mr. Bell must accept the result.” (I R. Doc. 78.) 
- 3 -

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bell’s untimely motion

as moot. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Carlos F. Lucero

Circuit Judge
#### Com. v. Bankhead

04/11/2016

22,23 EAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Super., 135 A.3d 661
#### Charles Dun-Zheng Yan, Appellant, v Ronnie Potter, Respondent.

[769 NYS2d 379]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for defamation, *843the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated October 11, 2002, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging defamation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Truth is an absolute defense to a cause of action based on defamation *(see Carlton v Nassau County Police Dept.,*306 AD2d 365 [2003]; *Heins v Board of Trustees of Inc. Vil. of Greenport,*237 AD2d 570 [1997]; *Jung Hee Lee Han v State of New York,*186 AD2d 536 [1992]). In support of his motion for summary judgment, the defendant demonstrated, prima facie, that the alleged defamatory statements made by him regarding the plaintiff were true by submitting excerpts of the plaintiffs deposition testimony. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

In any event, the alleged defamatory statements were protected by a qualified privilege, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the statements were made with actual malice *(see Liberman v Gelstein,*80 NY2d 429 [1992]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or unnecessary to address in light of the foregoing. Altman, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Mastro, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Qwest Corporation ("Qwest"), that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Qwest on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of Qwest. This written statement is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to such Form 10-Q. A signed original of this statement has been provided to Qwest and will be retained by Qwest and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

|Dated: November 12, 2004 |  | By: | /s/RICHARD C. NOTEBAERTRichard C. Notebaert
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President
|------------------------ |  | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: November 12, 2004 |  | By: | /s/OREN G. SHAFFEROren G. Shaffer
Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer                

---



QuickLinks
[4910-13-PJ

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AnON Federal Aviation Administration 'O)<CUR~U'CF.S ROUTINGSYM~OI.

ATE (1 1'7 10 O\mNQ ~YM"Ol_

Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.\\. Model F.28 Mark 0100 Airplanes 1 AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department ofTransportation 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2010-0701; Directorate Ide 

# ''''*1 '2oll-ol-M 39-;1; AD •.,- RlN 2120-AA64 (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. tifier 2010-NM-OI7-AD; Amendme 

## ~({ 

# 'tm7~J 11("--' m 

# /2/il/fD OunNGSYh180L 

## tJ/
I)ATE 

# }HGiu OUTING SYMOOL 

## -(DO I)<~AL 

# t[(;~ 

# h(Q"0~ DATI 

### 12/17 D OlmNO SYMAO SUMMARY: We are superseding an existing alrworthiness directive (AD) that applie to the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness Al'E information (MeAl) originated by an aviation a6thority of another COlU1tryto identify OunNGSVMBOL and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation p}Oduct.The MeAl describes the unsafi 1~InALS!SIG condition as: Two reports have been received where, uring inspection ofthe vertical stabilizer ofF28 Mark 0100 aeroplanes, bne ofthe bolts that connect the horizontal stabilizer control unit actuato~ with the dog-links was found broken (one on the nut side & one on thelhead side). Inboth occasions, the boIt shaft was stilt present in the connection and therefore the horizontal stabilizer function was not affected. Ifa~ingle dog-link connection fails, the complete stabilizer load is taken up

# by the remaining dog~link connection. 

### * * * 

# I To address and correct this unsafe condiyon EASA [European Aviation Safety Agency] issued AD 2007-0287 [corresponding FAA AD 2008'22- 14]that require_daone-time inspection ofthe affected bolts, 

## * * * and replacement offailed bolts with serviceable parts. EASA AD 2007-0287 also required the installation ofatie wrap through the lower bolts ofthe ~TP.
01JTTNG SYMBOl. N1TI~LS"I(;
ATE
OunNGSYMBOL ~lTIAWS,G
ATE
2017-0808.

#### State v. Cogar.

Ashland App. No. 16-COA-039, 2017-Ohio-1470. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Kennedy, J., dissents.
|                                                                          
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                          
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                  
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                            
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                            
|View History:                                                             
|                                                                          
|No chart available.                                                       
|No chart available.                                                       
|                                                                          
|                                                                          
|Missouri 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      | NA     | NA    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | NA     | NA     | NA     | 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: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
|                                                                             
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                             
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                     
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                               
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                               
|View History:                                                                
|                                                                             
|Liquefied U.S. Natural Gas Exports by Vessel to Mylaysia (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                             
|                                                                             
|Liquefied U.S. Natural Gas Exports by Vessel to Mylaysia (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                             

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May   | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov   | Dec
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ----- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ----- | ---
|2019                                                                                                                              |     |     |     |     |       |     |     |     |     |     | 3,698 |    
|                                                                                                                                 
|2020                                                                                                                              | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0     | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0     | 0  
|2022                                                                                                                              | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0     | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0     | 0  
|2023                                                                                                                              | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0     | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0     | 0  
|2024                                                                                                                              | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 7,166 |     |     |     |     |     |       |    
|                                                                                                                                 
|- = 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
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 102 (Thursday, May 28, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29220-29221]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14129]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act. Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking 
activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than June 22, 1998.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Lois Berthaume, Vice President) 
104 Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-2713:
    1. Whitney Holding Corporation, New Orleans, Louisiana; to merge 
with The First National Bancorp of Greenville, Inc., Greenville, 
Alabama, and thereby indirectly acquire First National Bank of 
Greenville, Greenville, Alabama.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (D. Michael Manies, 
Assistant Vice

[[Page 29221]]

President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. Ceresco Bancorp., Ceresco, Nebraska; to become a bank holding 
company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of CerescoBank, 
Ceresco, Nebraska.
    C. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Maria Villanueva, Manager 
of Analytical Support, Consumer Regulation Group) 101 Market Street, 
San Francisco, California 94105-1579:
    1. Arizona Bancshares, Inc., Flagstaff, Arizona; to become a bank 
holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of First 
State Bank, Flagstaff, Arizona (in organization).

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 22, 1998.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 98-14129 Filed 5-27-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
#### Com. v. Sheerer

08/23/2016

151 WAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Super., 141 A.3d 595