alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 AmerInst Insurance Group, Ltd. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stuart Grayston, President and Principal Executive Officer of the Company, 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) 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/ STUART GRAYSTON                    
|Stuart Grayston                        
|President (Principal Executive Officer)
|November 14, 2008                      



20
Exhibit 21
 Subsidiaries of the Registrant
  Name of Company
    
    JurisdictionEnnis, Inc.
    
    TexasEnnis Business Forms of Kansas, Inc.
    
    KansasCalibrated Forms Co., Inc.
    
    KansasPlatinum Canoe, Inc.
    
    DelawareAdmore, Inc.
    
    TexasPFC Products, Inc.(1)
    
    DelawareEnnis Acquisitions, Inc.
    
    NevadaTexas EBF, LP
    
    TexasEnnis Sales, LP
    
    TexasEnnis Management, LP
    
    TexasAdams McClure, LP
    
    TexasAmerican Forms I, LP
    
    TexasNorthstar Computer Forms, Inc.
    
    MinnesotaGeneral Financial Supply, Inc. (2)
    
    IowaCrabar/GBF, Inc.
    
    DelawareRoyal Business Forms, Inc.
    
    TexasAlstyle Apparel, LLC
    
    DelawareA and G, Inc. (3)
    
    IllinoisAlstyle Ensenada LLC (3)
    
    IllinoisAlstyle Hermosillo LLC (3)
    
    IllinoisDiaco USA LLC (3)
    
    CaliforniaCactex de Mexico SA de C.V. (3)
    
    MexicoAlstyle International de Mexico SA de C.V. (3)
    
    MexicoAlvest, S.A. de C.V. (3)
    
    MexicoDiaco International S.A. de C.V. (3)
    
    MexicoTennessee Business Forms Company
    
    TennesseeTBF Realty, LLC (4)
    
    DelawareSpecialized Printed Forms, Inc.
    
    New YorkSPF Realty, LLC (5)
    
    DelawareBlock Graphics, Inc.
    
    OregonB&D Litho of Arizona, Inc.
    
    DelawareSkyline Business Forms, Inc.
    
    DelawareSkyline Business Properties, LLC (6)
    
    Delaware
 
 (1)
    
    A wholly-owned subsidiary of Admore, Inc.(2)
    
    A wholly-owned subsidiary of Northstar Computer Forms, Inc.(3)
    
    A wholly-owned direct or indirect subsidiary of Alstyle Apparel, LLC(4)
    
    A wholly-owned subsidiary of Tennessee Business Forms, Inc.(5)
    
    A wholly-owned subsidiary of Specialized Printed Forms, Inc.(6)
    
    A wholly-owned subsidiary of Skyline Business Forms, Inc.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JAVAROUS DAWSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-2370

[November 7, 2019]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Michael A. Usan, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 05-12431 CF10A.

Javarous Dawson, Graceville, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, DAMOORGIAN and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**Exhibit 23.1****Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**We have issued our reports dated May 12, 2006, accompanying the consolidated financial statementsand management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reportingincluded in the Annual Report of Ennis, Inc. and subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year endedFebruary 28, 2006. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in theRegistration Statements of Ennis, Inc. and subsidiaries on Forms S-8 (File No. 33-43087, effectiveOctober 7, 1991, File No. 333-58963, effective July 13, 1998, File No. 333-38100, effective May 31,2000, File No. 333-44624, effective August 28, 2000, and File No. 333-119845, effective October 20,2004)./s/ GRANTTHORTON LLPDallas, Texas
No. 10-8074.

#### David Casas-Herrera, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1206, 131 S. Ct. 1059,

178 L. Ed. 2d 875,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 1050.

January 24, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 404 Fed. Appx. 212.
<PAGE>
                                                                EXHIBIT 10.14(A)

                              JACK IN THE BOX INC.
                            RESTRICTED STOCK AWARDS
                      UNDER THE 2002 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN
                         SUMMARY AS OF OCTOBER 3, 2004

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Awardee                Number of Shares Awarded        Award Date
-------------------    ------------------------    ------------------
<S>                    <C>                         <C>
John Hoffner                    55,000               November 8, 2002
Linda Lang                      55,000               November 8, 2002
Larry Schauf                    50,000               November 8, 2002
Carlo Cetti                     29,600               November 8, 2002
David Theno                     28,000               November 8, 2002
Gary Beisler                    25,000              February 14, 2003
Richard Pugh                    10,000                 August 1, 2003
Linda Lang                      35,000             September 10, 2004
</TABLE>
Order entered January 30, 2017

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-01290-CR

JAMES AARON WHITTLE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F09-23785-N

ORDER

We REINSTATE this appeal.

By order dated January 19, 2017, we abated this appeal and ordered the trial court to 

make findings regarding why the reporter’s records from July 24, 2009 and September 16, 2016 

had not been filed. On January 25, 2017, the reporter’s record from the July 24, 2009 hearing 

was filed. The Court has had no communication, however, regarding the reporter’s record from 

the September 16, 2016 hearing.

We ORDER the trial court to make findings on whether a hearing was held on 

September 16, 2016 and, if so, whether a reporter’s record was requested. If a reporter’s record 

was requested, the trial court shall determine the name and address of the court reporter who 
recorded the proceedings in this cause and the earliest date by which the reporter’s record can be 

filed.

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record, containing the written findings of fact, 

any supporting documentation, and any orders, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date 

of this order.

The appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with this order. The appeal 

shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, 

whichever is earlier.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
No. 10-7955.

#### Ronald Robert Evans, Sr., Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1192, 131 S. Ct. 1029,

178 L. Ed. 2d 850,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 685.

January 18, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 395 Fed. Appx. 617.
# C_2015311EN.01001202.xml

| 21.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-485/14) (1)

1

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of capital - Articles 63 TFEU and 40 of the EEA Agreement - Duty payable on transfers for which no consideration is given - Exemption - Gifts and legacies - Difference in treatment - Bodies located in another Member State - Lack of a bilateral tax agreement))

(2015/C 311/14)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and W. Roels, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and J.-S. Pilczer, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | declares that, by exempting from droits de mutation à titre gratuit (duty payable on transfers for which no consideration is given) gifts and legacies to public bodies or to charitable bodies only where such bodies are established in France or in another Member State or in another State which is party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, which has concluded a bilateral agreement with it, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and |
| --- | --- |

1.

declares that, by exempting from droits de mutation à titre gratuit (duty payable on transfers for which no consideration is given) gifts and legacies to public bodies or to charitable bodies only where such bodies are established in France or in another Member State or in another State which is party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, which has concluded a bilateral agreement with it, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and

| 2. | orders the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015.

1

---
FINAL - September 23, 2021

PRESIDER/PRESENTER(s)

Dr. Grace Lee (ACIP Chair)

Dr. Amanda Cohn (ACIP Executive Secretary, CDC)

10:15 Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccines

Introduction

Safety and immunogenicity for a 3rd dose of BNT162b2 

I

11:45

mmunity and SARS-CoV-2

Dr. Matthew Daley (ACIP, WG Chair)

Dr. Bill Gruber (Pfizer-BioNTech)

Dr. Natalie Thornburg (CDC/NCIRD)

12:15 Vaccine effectiveness studies in the United States

Modeling the potential impact of booster doses in nursing 

home residents

Dr. Ruth Link-Gelles (CDC/NCIRD)

Dr. Rachel Slayton (CDC/NCEZID)

1:45

2:00 Early safety monitoring for third doses of mRNA vaccines

VaST summary

Work Group summary

Dr. Anne Hause (CDC/NCEZID)

Dr. Keipp Talbot (VaST Chair)

Dr. Sara Oliver (CDC/NCIRD)

3:30

3:45 Pregnancy: Safety monitoring in v-safe

Pregnancy: Safety monioring in VSD

Updates on COVID-19 and pregnancy

Dr. Christine Olson (CDC/NCEZID)

Dr. Elyse Kharbanda (HealthPartners Institute)

Dr. Dana Meaney Delman (CDC/NCBDDD)

4:30

Dr. Grace Lee (ACIP Chair)

Dr. Amanda Cohn (ACIP Executive Secretary, CDC)

12:15 Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccines

Introduction

Public Comment

Dr. Matthew Daley (ACIP, WG Chair)

12:50

1:00 COVID-19 vaccine booster doses: Benefit/risk discussion

Evidence to Recommendation Framework: Booster doses 

of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine

Clinical considerations

Discussion

Dr. Megan Wallace (CDC/NCIRD)

Dr. Sara Oliver (CDC/NCIRD)

Dr. Kathleen Dooling (CDC/NCIRD)

3:00 VOTE

COVID-19 vaccine booster doses Dr. Sara Oliver (CDC/NCIRD)

3:30

Acronyms

CDC

CMS

COVID-19

EtR

FDA

GRADE

HRSA

IHS

NCHHSTP

NCIRD

NCEZID

NIAID

Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation

Health Resources and Services Administration

Indian Health Service

National Center for Immunization & Respiratory Diseases [of CDC/OID] 

National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Diseases [of CDC/OID]

National Center for HIV, Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention [of CDC/OID] 

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 

Coronavirus disease 2019

Evidence to Recommendations Framework

Food and Drug Administration

Wednesday, September 22, 2021

10:00 Welcome & Introductions

MEETING OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON IMMUNIZATION PRACTICES (ACIP)

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Atlanta, Georgia 30329 

September 22-23, 2021

AGENDA ITEM

Break

Break

Break

Adjourn

Thursday, September 23, 2021

12:00 Welcome & Introductions

Break

Adjourn
FINAL - September 23, 2021

OIDP

SARS-CoV-2

WG

WHO

VE Vaccine Effectiveness

Office of Infectious Disease and HIV/AIDS Policy

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

Work Group

World Health Organization
# C_2014421EN.01003601.xml

| 24.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 421/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 421/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2014 — Alpiq RomIndustries and Alpiq RomEnergie v Commission

(Case T-129/13) (1)

1

((State aid - Electricity - Preferential tariffs - Decision to open the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU - Action for annulment - Act not subject to appeal - Aid measure implemented in full prior to the date on which the action was brought - Inadmissible))

2014/C 421/49

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Alpiq RomIndustries Srl (Bucarest, Romania) and Alpiq RomEnergie Srl (Bucarest) (represented by: H. Wollmann and F. Urlesberger, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Gippini Fournier, T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C (2012) 2542 final of 25 April 2012 to open the proceedings provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU concerning State Aid SA 33451 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) — Romania — Preferential tariffs in contracts between Hidroelectrica SA and electricity suppliers.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Alpiq RomIndustries Srl and Alpiq RomEnergie Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Alpiq RomIndustries Srl and Alpiq RomEnergie Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.

1

---
### VOC Content ofAerosol Spray Paint Adam Dilts, Alex Chen, Alice Chow, Amy Mia South to: Bhesania, Amy Caprio, Andrew Steckel, Anne Arnold, Anthony Gardella, Ariel Garcia, Bob Kelly, From: Mia South/RTP/USEPAIUS To: Adam Dilts/R4/USEPAIUS@EPA, Alex Chen/R7/USEPA/US@EPA, Alice Chow/R3/USEPAIUS@EPA, Amy Bhesania/R7 /USEPAIUS@EPA, Amy Caprio/R3/USEPA/US@EPA, Andrew Steckei/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Anne 

### Hi, Steve Rosenthal asked me to forward the below letter from Wisconsin to all. M ia

From: To: Date: Subject: Steve, "Eckdale, Robert B - DNR" <Robert.Eckdale@Wisconsin.gov> Steven Rosenthai/R5 / USEPAIUS@EPA 03/23/2011 11:47 AM VOC Content of Aerosol Spray Paint 03/28/2011 02:30 PM

The question we discussed earlier today was how to determine the VOC content of aerosol spray paint used as touch-up on m iscellaneous metal parts and products

. Specifically, do the propellants need to be counted in determining the VOC content in units of pounds per gallon of coating , excluding water and exempt compounds? Background Under s. NR 422
. 15, Wis

. Adm

. Code, Wisconsin establishes VOC emission limitations in pounds per gallon coating, excluding water and exempt compounds, for the miscellaneous metal parts and products industry

. This rule is based on the original CTG for this category and has not been revised to reflect the 2008 update. The updated 2008 CTG for this category (including plastic parts) states that it does not apply to aerosol paints since they are regulated under the national rule as consumer and commercial products. Wisconsin has not adopted state VOC requirements for consumer and commercial products , including aerosol paints. Situation A mise metals manufacturer has coating application lines, and uses custom color matched aerosol can spray paint to touch up any scratches or imperfections prior to shipping. The facility's consultant has asked whether the propellant needs to be included when determining compliance with VOC content limits expressed as pounds per gallon, excluding water and exempt compounds

. The consultant has stated that the VOC content of the coating, prior to being filled into the can, is less than the applicable limit, 3
.0 lbs VOC per gallon coating, excluding water and exempt compounds. The consultant also indicated that ifthe propellant is considered , the limit is exceeded. Note The limit is in units ofVOC per gallon of coating

. While the propellant is necessary to apply the coating , I would offer that it doesn't seem to be part of, or a necessary component of, the coating itself. I'd appreciate any comments or guidance you could offer. Let me know if you have any questions

.
No. 10-7579.

#### Terrell Henderson, Petitioner v. Robert P. Houston, Director, Nebraska Department of Correctional Services.

562 U.S. 1155, 131 S. Ct. 950,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 584.

178 L. Ed. 2d 784,

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 185 (Friday, September 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 59186]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24457]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; 
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: New England 
Region Aviation Expo Database

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA 
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information 
collection. The New England Region Aviation Expo database performs 
conference registration and helps plan the logistics and non-pilot 
courses for the expo.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by November 22, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Scott on (202) 385-4293, or by 
e-mail at: Carla.Scott@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0738.
    Title: New England Region Aviation Expo Database.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this 
collection.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The data will be used by a collaboration of volunteers 
from different Lines of Business within the FAA to form a committee. 
The committee members consist of Regions and Center (ARC), Airports 
(ARP), Air Traffic Organization (ATO), and Aviation Safety (AVS). The 
committee members will use the data to help plan the courses and expo 
itself. The New England Region Aviation Expo database performs 
conference registration and helps plan logistics and non-pilot courses.
    Respondents: Approximately 500 participants.
    Frequency: Information is collected once annually.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 15 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 2 hours.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Carla 
Scott, Room 336, Federal Aviation Administration, AES-300, 950 L'Enfant 
Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of 
this information collection, including (a) whether the proposed 
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the 
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the 
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d) 
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of 
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include 
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information 
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 19, 2011.
Carla Scott,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011-24457 Filed 9-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 23.1


                  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of
our reports included in this Form 10-K/A, into the Company's previously filed
Registration Statements (as amended, as applicable) File Numbers 33-4041,
33-9570, 33-12119, 33-15680, 33-37827, 33-56762, 33-65123, 33-83402,
333-07413, 333-10919, 333-10965, 333-30947, 333-57651, 333-66149, 333-47633,
333-66147, 333-67341, 333-68621, 333-90133 and 333-90139. It should be noted
that we have not audited any financial statements of the Company subsequent
to December 31, 1998 or performed any audit procedures subsequent to the date
of our report.

                                             ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

San Diego, California
January 24, 2000
June 25, 2015

Acting Flight Manager, Flight Standards Service

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Services

Re: Request for exemption from multiple regulatory provisions to allow the use of small 

unmanned aerial system on land controlled by clients of mine and their clients to assist 

in the safe evaluation and documentation of infrastructure and operations for my future 

clients.

I Malcolm Edward Durden, Jr. respectfully request an exemption from several provisions 

of Title 14 of the Code of federal Regulations to permit the use of small unmanned 

aerial systems to assist in the evaluation and documentation of infrastructure of 

operations for my clients. Also, filming/photos of various functions for my clients in the 

field of Real Estate, Construction, Development, as well as outdoor weddings, parties, 

and special events. Accordingly, the grant of exemption is consistent with congress’ 

intent, reflected in Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, that 

safe systems and operators be permitted in National Airspace prior to the issuance of 

final regulations governing general use of these systems for commercial purposes. 

Specifically, the UAV utilized is a DJI Phantom 3 Professional(P3P) has been approved 

by your agency for the exact purposes of this request. The P3P features:

Auto-Take Off-System takes off and hovers until directed by its own firmware.

Auto-Return Home-GPS remembers take off location and will return “ home” to land 

through firmware commands.

Fail Safe-If battery is low or P3P loses connection with controller for any reason, the 

aircraft will automatically return to take off point and land safely. 

Automatic Flight Logs-All logs and details of every flight including complete route, flight 

time, distance, location, photos and video taken are automatically captured and easily 

shared.

The aircrafts specs are provided on a separate attachment provided. 

The benefits of this exemption will allow for a job to be created as well as meet a 

demand/need that currently is not being met in this area and offering the community a 

service, tax revenue it lacks, while adherring to the FAA and Department of 

Transportations guide lines for commercial use of UAV. 

Thank you in advance for your time and consideration of this request. I look forward to 

your response and approval to move forward.

Sincerely and respectfully,

Malcolm Edward Durden, Jr.

95 Lagrange Street

Newnan, Ga. 30263

404-626-7247
medjr_mailbox@yahoo.com
No. 10-7372.

#### Jimmy Anfield, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1096, 131 S. Ct. 809,

178 L. Ed. 2d 541,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9557.

December 6, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.