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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Ameritrans Capital Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Gary C. Granoff, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

       /s/ GARY C. GRANOFF
       ----------------------------------------------
       GARY C. GRANOFF
       PRESIDENT, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


February 17, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2367 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2367

 To amend section 3013 of title 18, United States Code, to double the 
   special criminal assessment amounts for the purpose of enhancing 
 revenues for the Crime Victims Fund of the Office of Victims of Crime.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 5, 1994

  Mr. Wofford introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend section 3013 of title 18, United States Code, to double the 
   special criminal assessment amounts for the purpose of enhancing 
 revenues for the Crime Victims Fund of the Office of Victims of Crime.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Crime Victims Fund Enhancement Act 
of 1994''.

SEC. 2. SPECIAL CRIMINAL ASSESSMENTS.

    Section 3013(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)(A)--
                    (A) in clause (i) by striking ``$5'' and inserting 
                ``$10'';
                    (B) in clause (ii) by striking ``$10'' and 
                inserting ``$20''; and
                    (C) in clause (iii) by striking ``$25'' and 
                inserting ``$50'';
            (2) in paragraph (1)(B)--
                    (A) in clause (i) by striking ``$25'' and inserting 
                ``$50'';
                    (B) in clause (ii) by striking ``$50'' and 
                inserting ``$100''; and
                    (C) in clause (iii) by striking ``$125'' and 
                inserting ``$250''; and
            (3) in paragraph (2)--
                    (A) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``$50'' and 
                inserting ``$100''; and
                    (B) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``$200'' and 
                inserting ``$400''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 10M32.

#### Frank M. Bafford, Plaintiff v. United States.

562 U.S. 820, 131 S. Ct. 377,

178 L. Ed. 2d 13,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6428.

October 4, 2010.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a bill of complaint denied.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 114 (Monday, June 15, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32638-32639]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15935]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Institute of Standards and Technology


Fastener Quality Act Public Workshop; Postponement

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, United States 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: NIST is postponing the open meeting to provide details and 
interpretations on the regulations related to the Quality Assurance 
Systems (QAS) of fastener manufacturing contained in the April 14, 
1998, final regulation under the Fastener Quality Act, previously 
scheduled for June 16, 1998. The meeting will be rescheduled at a later 
date and will be announced in the Federal Register.

DATES: The meeting was to be held on June 16, 1998.


[[Page 32639]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Subhas G. Malghan, FQA Program 
Manager, Building 820, Room 306, NIST, Gaithersburg, MD 20899; 
telephone (301) 975-5120, fax (301) 975-5414, E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3a575b565d525b547a5453494e145d554c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="117c707d7679707f517f7862653f767e67">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 1, 1998, NIST announced in the 
Federal Register, (63 FR 29702), that it would be holding a public 
meeting on June 16, 1998, to provide details and interpretations on the 
regulations related to the Quality Assurance System (QAS) of fastener 
manufacturing contained in the April 14, 1998, final regulation under 
the Fastener Quality Act. NIST is postponing that meeting and will 
issue a future notice announcing a new date for the meeting.

    Dated: June 10, 1998.
Robert E. Hebner,
Acting Deputy Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology.
[FR Doc. 98-15935 Filed 6-12-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-13-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Com. v. Garber

05/03/2016

30 WAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Super., 134 A.3d 94
#### Richard Altman, Respondent, v 285 West Fourth LLC, Appellant.

Submitted February 6, 2017;

decided March 30, 2017

Motion by Rent Stabilization Association of New York City, Inc., et al. for leave to appear amici curiae on the motion for leave to appeal herein granted and the affirmation is accepted as filed.
No. 10-6618.

#### John-Pierre Baney, Petitioner v. Merit Systems Protection Board.

562 U.S. 1001, 131 S. Ct. 552,

178 L. Ed. 2d 368,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8513,

November 1, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until November 22, 2010, within which to pay the docketing fees required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
# Former senior technical quality advisor to be inducted into 2021 Hall of Fame

/ Published Jan. 4, 2022
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
*Editor’s note: This is one of five stories featuring 2021 DLA Hall of Fame inductees. A video highlighting inductees’ contributions to the agency will be broadcast on DLA’s Facebook page Jan. 11.*

An employee known for her ability to rally teams into action and her expertise in technical quality is a member of the 2021 Defense Logistics Agency Hall of Fame. 

Denise Canada, former technical quality senior advisor for DLA Aviation’s Supplier Operations Directorate, began her 34-year DLA career in 1981 as a GS-2 clerk typist providing administrative support to equipment specialists, quality assurance specialists, catalogers and technical data specialists. She worked her way up as a supply clerk, item manager and then interned in quality insurance. 

As a GS-7, Canada partnered with manufacturers and procurement officials to resolve a critical problem with hazardous waste production in breathing apparatus canisters needed by the Navy. A one-year rotational assignment as a budget analyst eventually propelled Canada into leadership as chief of the Technical Quality Business Systems Modernization Office, where she led a team that integrated the Product Data Management Initiative into BSM. 

Providing opportunity for others to grow was a key attribute in Canada’s leadership style when she served as the Technical Quality Division chief from 2006 to 2013.

“Ms. Canada’s ability to understand the significance of rallying a team by ensuring that they understood every contribution regardless of how small it may have seemed has incredible value. Establishing and executing mission requirements and managing projects in this fashion enabled junior-level contributors to partner and work side-by-side with senior managers, giving them a platform for growth and personal/professional development,” according to her nomination.

Canada founded the Technical Quality Council that still exists today to share problems and solutions. She also created the Technical Quality Seminar, a forum for members of the technical quality community to discuss emerging issues and learn new skills to improve acquisition processes. 

Visit DLA’s Hall of Fame website for more information about other 2021 inductees and members from previous years.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-2526

LUTHER C. EDMONDS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JOHN E. CLARKSON, individually and in his official capacity as Judge, Fourth Judicial Circuit of Virginia, Circuit Court of the City of

Norfolk; MARC JACOBSON, individually and in

his official capacity as Judge, Fourth Judicial Circuit of Virginia, Circuit Court of the

City of Norfolk; JEROME JAMES, individually

and in his official capacity as Judge, Fourth

Judicial Circuit of Virginia, Circuit Court of

the City of Norfolk; EVERETTE A. MARTIN, JR.,

individually and in his official capacity as

Judge, Fourth Judicial Circuit of Virginia,

Circuit Court of the City of Norfolk; JOHN C.

MORRISON, JR., individually and in his official capacity as Judge, Fourth Judicial Circuit of Virginia, Circuit Court of the City of

Norfolk; CHARLES E. POSTON, individually and

in his official capacity as Judge, Fourth

Judicial Circuit of Virginia, Circuit Court of

the City of Norfolk; WILLIAM F. RUTHERFORD,

individually and in his official capacity as

Judge, Fourth Judicial Circuit of Virginia,

Circuit Court of the City of Norfolk; LYDIA C.

TAYLOR, Chief Judge, individually and in her

official capacity as Chief Judge, Fourth Judicial Circuit of Virginia, Circuit Court of the

City of Norfolk; ALBERT TEICH, individually

and in his official capacity as Clerk, Circuit

Court of the City of Norfolk; COMMONWEALTH OF

VIRGINIA JUDICIAL INQUIRY AND REVIEW COMMISSION; PAUL F. SHERIDAN, individually and in

his official capacity as Chairman, Judicial
2

Inquiry and Review Commission; RENO S. HARP,

III, individually and in his official capacity

as Counsel, Judicial Inquiry and Review

Commission,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CA-97-364-2)

Submitted: March 23, 2000 Decided: March 29, 2000

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Luther C. Edmonds, Appellant Pro Se. Gregory E. Lucyk, Edward

Meade Macon, Mary Elizabeth Shea, Claude Alexander Allen, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Abram William

VanderMeer, Jr., CLARK & STANT, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Luther C. Edmonds appeals from the district court’s order

denying his motion to set aside a prior order imposing sanctions

against him. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on

the reasoning of the district court. See Edmonds v. Clarkson, No.

CA-97-364-2 (E.D. Va. Oct. 20, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
02-20-00392-CV

March 11, 2021

Page 2

March 11, 2021

RE:Court of Appeals Numbers:02-20-00392-CV, 02-20-00393-CV, 

02-20-00394-CV

Trial Court Case Numbers:JV-2020-00473, JV-2020-00474, 

JV-2020-00475

Style:In the Matter of J.W.

Today the Second Court of Appeals issued an opinion and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  Copies of the opinion and judgment are attached and can also be viewed on our Court’s webpage at: http://www.txcourts.gov/2ndcoa.

Respectfully yours,

DEBRA SPISAK, CLERK
EXHIBIT 23.1


                              ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors,
DRS Technologies, Inc.:



     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(No. 2-87303, No. 2-99986, No. 333-14487 No. 33-33125, No. 33-42886, and No.
333-69751) on Form S-8 and (No. 33-64641, and No. 333-04929) on Form S-3 of DRS
Technologies, Inc. of our reports dated May 11, 1999, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of DRS Technologies, Inc. as of March 31, 1999 and
1998, and the related consolidated statements of earnings, stockholders' equity
and comprehensive earnings, and cash flows and related consolidated financial
statement schedule for each of the years in the three-year period ended March
31, 1999, which reports appear or are incorporated by reference in the March 31,
1999 Annual Report on Form 10-K of DRS Technologies, Inc.



KPMG LLP

Short Hills, New Jersey
June 28, 1999
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANIEL DIXON, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. CORRECTIONAL CORPORATION OF AMERICA, INC.; ACOSTA; DOSER; WILKERSON; PHILLIP VALDEZ; IDAHO CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Defendants - Appellees. No. 10-35433 D.C. No. 1:08-cv-00437-BLW
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho B. Lynn Winmill, Chief District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 9, 2011 ** Portland, Oregon Before: D.W. NELSON, THOMAS, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. 

# FILED
MAR 11 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 Daniel Dixon appeals the district court’s order granting the Defendants’ motion to dismiss Dixon’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit because Dixon failed to exhaust his administrative remedies pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Dixon also appeals the district court’s dismissal of his subpoena requests as moot. We affirm. “[W]e have held that the failure to exhaust nonjudicial remedies that are not jurisdictional should be treated as a matte r in abatement, which is subject to an unenumerated [Federal Rule of Civil Proce dure] 12(b) motion rather than a motion for summary judgment.” Wyatt v. Terhune , 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). “In deciding a motion to dismiss for a failure to exhaust nonjudicial remedies, the court may look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact.” Id. at 1119-20. We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and legal determinations de novo. Id. at 1120. Defendants have produced Dixon’s grie vance file, which shows that Dixon failed to appeal the relevant grievances to the highest prison grievance authority. Dixon’s grievances are clearly labeled as such, and Defendants represent that the complete file has been produced. See id. (reversing district court’s factual determination that prisoner had failed to exhaust remedies because the evidence did not show that the appeal record was co mplete or authentic). On this record, we3 cannot say that the district court’s findi ng that Dixon failed to exhaust his remedies was clearly erroneous. Dixon argues alternatively that prison officials threatened him with retaliation and thereby rendered further administrative remedies effectively unavailable. The record establishes thatDixon continued to file grievances, even regarding the prison staff, after the date of the alleged threats. The district court’s determination that the prison staff’s conduct did not prevent Dixon from exhausting his remedies was not clearly erroneous. Finally, the district court’s dismissal of Dixon’s subpoena requests as moot was proper. AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 117 (Thursday, June 18, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 33364]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16196]



[[Page 33364]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-246-000]


NorAm Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

June 12, 1998.
    Take notice that on June 10, 1998, NorAm Gas Transmission Company 
(NGT) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets to be 
effective July 10, 1998:

Second Revised Sheet No. 36
Third Revised Sheet No. 66
Second Revised Sheet No. 81
Second Revised Sheet No. 307A
Original Sheet 307B

    NGT states that the revised tariff sheets are being filed to 
implement the non-discriminatory waiver of fuel charges for certain 
path-specific limited term backhaul transactions that do not require 
the use of fuel on NGT's system and to implement the posting of such 
transactions via NorAm's EDGE electronic bulletin board.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protect this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a 
motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-16196 Filed 6-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### In the Matter of Eddie Gonzalez, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[768 NYS2d 710]-

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article *78*(transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules prohibiting possession of controlled substances and smuggling after a correction officer observed him transferring an envelope on a drag line running from his cell to that of another inmate. Subsequent laboratory testing identified the contents of the envelope as marihuana.

Substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt was presented at his disciplinary hearing in the form of the misbehavior report and the testimony of the reporting officer who wrote the report after having observed the conduct in question *(see Matter of Powell v Goord,*293 AD2d 846 [2002]). Additional evidence was provided by the laboratory test results performed on the envelope’s contents that were positive for the presence of marihuana *(see Matter of Cruz v Selsky,*288 AD2d 517, 518 [2001]). The exculpatory testimony given by petitioner and his former cellmate presented issues of credibility for resolution by the Hearing Officer *(see Matter of Knight v Selsky,*297 AD2d 845, 846 [2002]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his allegation of hearing officer bias, have been examined and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Carpinello, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
No. 10-5733.

#### Peter Rodriguez Aponte, Petitioner v. Kenneth McKee, Warden.

562 U.S. 966, 131 S. Ct. 464,

178 L. Ed. 2d 295,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7997.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

                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 Loudeye Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Lawrence J. Madden, Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

      1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities 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 as of the date of the financial statements contained therein.

/s/ Lawrence J. Madden
---------------------
Lawrence J. Madden
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
November 23, 2004



                                       67