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 Amincor, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the  period  ended  June  30,  2011 as filed  with the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission on August 16, 2011 (the "Report"),  the undersigned,  in the
capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies 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, as amended; and

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


Date: August 16, 2011                   /s/ John R. Rice, III
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        John R. Rice, III, President
EXHIBIT 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-02095) of Walter Industries, Inc. of our report dated February 28,
2007 except as it relates to the discontinued operations of Crestline Homes Inc. as described in Note 3 and the change in segments as described in Note 18, as to which the date is
March 7, 2008 relating to the financial statements, which appear in this Form 10-K.

/s/
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Tampa, Florida
March 7, 2008

---



QuickLinks
No. 09-9637.

#### Roderick Washington, Petitioner v. Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al.

560 U.S. 901, 130 S. Ct. 3289,

176 L. Ed. 2d 1179,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 4124.

May 17, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5034 

To redesignate the White Rocks National Recreation Area in the State of 

Vermont as the ‘‘Robert T. Stafford White Rocks National Recreation Area’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 28, 2006 

Mr. SANDERS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Resources 

A BILL 

To redesignate the White Rocks National Recreation Area 

in the State of Vermont as the ‘‘Robert T. Stafford 

White Rocks National Recreation Area’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ROBERT T. STAFFORD WHITE ROCKS NATIONAL 

4 RECREATION AREA . 

5 (a) REDESIGNATION.—The White Rocks National 

6 Recreation Area in the State of Vermont, as established 

7 by section 202 of the Vermont Wilderness Act of 1984 

8 (16 U.S.C. 460nn–1), is redesignated as the ‘‘Robert T. 

9 Stafford White Rocks National Recreation Area’’. 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5034 IH 

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the recreation area referred to in subsection (a) 

4 shall be deemed to be a reference to the Robert T. Stafford 

5 White Rocks National Recreation Area. 

Æ 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
SANJOSE Sam T. Liccardo 

CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY MAYOR 

Application of Hainan Airlines Co., LTD. 

Amended Foreign Air Carrier Permit and Exemption Authority 

Beijing, China — San Jose, CA Scheduled Service 

Docket No. OST -2007 - 0066 

January 21, 2015 

Paul Gretch, Director 

Robert Finamore, Division Chief 

Foreign Air Carrier Licensing Division 

Office of International Aviation 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

This letter is written to fully endorse an application by Hainan Airlines for approval to serve 

a Beijing-San Jose route. 

San Jose is the Capital of Silicon Valley and the region is the world's center of innovation. 

The highest concentration of global technology corporations are headquartered here. These 

companies are committed to maintaining a vibrant economy and Mineta San Jose 

International Airport is their airport of choice for business travel. The enthusiastic support 

demonstrated by our region's business community for direct air service between Silicon 

Valley and Beijing will ensure that the new flight is successful. After many months of 

ongoing business discussions with Hainan Airlines officials, we are greatly encouraged by the 

airline's stated intentions to operate air service to China. 

I am very pleased to write this support letter on behalf of the City of San Jose and Mineta 

San Jose International Airport, and eagerly anticipate your approval of Hainan Airlines 

proposal to serve Silicon Valley business and leisure travelers. Thank you. 

200 East Santa Clara Street, 18th Floor San Jose, CA 95113 tel (408) 535-4800 fax (408) 292-6422 www.sjmayor.org
No. 09-6946.

#### Johnny Lee Hansley, aka Johnnie Lee Hansely, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 964, 130 S. Ct. 1573,

176 L. Ed. 2d 156,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1083.

February 22, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 558 U.S. 1018, 130 S. Ct. 571, 175 L. Ed. 2d 395, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 8016.
STATE v. Jimmy Lee FARMER

8A19-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 17, 2019

Jarvis John Edgerton, IV, Attorney at Law, for Farmer, Jimmy Lee.

Anna M. Szamosi, Assistant Attorney General, Brandy Cook, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 15th of April 2019 by State of NC:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of April 2019."
Amendment to The National City Corporation 2004 Deferred Compensation Plan



 EXHIBIT 10.56 
 AMENDMENT 
 THE NATIONAL CITY CORPORATION 

2004 DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN 
 (as amended and restated effective January 1, 2005) 
 WHEREAS, The PNC Financial Services
Group, Inc. (the “Corporation”), as successor to The National City Corporation, sponsors The National City Corporation 2004 Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”); 
 WHEREAS, Article X of the Plan authorizes the Corporation to amend the Plan; and 
 WHEREAS, the
Corporation wishes to amend the Plan to reflect certain design and other clarifying changes. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED that the Plan is
hereby amended as follows, effective as of January 1, 2010: 
  

	1.	Section 6.1 (“Form of Payment”) is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows: 


“Form of Payment. The amounts credited to a Participant’s Cash Sub-Account and Deferred Share Sub-Account shall be paid in
cash.” 
 2.     The first sentence in Section 5.5(c) (“Allocation of New Elective Deferrals,
Non-Elective Deferred Compensation and Transfers of Accumulated Amounts”) is amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows: 
 “(c) Each Participant may reallocate his or her accumulated Cash Sub-Account, Deferred Share Sub-Account or deferrals among the Investment Options only during times approved by the Plan Administrator
and using forms and procedures established from time to time by the Plan Administrator for such purpose.” 
 Executed and adopted by the
Chief Human Resources Officer of The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. this 23rd day of December, 2010 pursuant to the authority delegated by the Corporation’s Personnel and Compensation Committee. 

 

			
	
	/s/ Joan L. Gulley
	Joan L. Gulley
	Chief Human Resources Officer
No. D-2465.

#### In the Matter of Disbarment of Eddie Michael Pope.

559 U.S. 1104, 130 S. Ct. 2432,

176 L. Ed. 2d 945,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3840.

May 3, 2010.

Disbarment order entered.

Former order, 559 U.S. 968, 130 S. Ct. 1734, 176 L. Ed. 2d 209, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 1989.
EXHIBIT 23.2











                       ENGINEER'S CONSENT


We  consent  to  incorporation by reference in  the  Registration
Statements  (No. 33-32378 and No. 33-67924) on Form S-8  and  the
Registration  Statement (No. 333-00815)  on  Form  S-3  of  Devon
Energy  Corporation  the reference to our  appraisal  report  for
Devon  Energy Corporation as of December 31, 1996, which  appears
in  the  December 31, 1996 annual report on Form  10-K  of  Devon
Energy Corporation.






                                                   AMH GROUP LTD.
                                                   AMH GROUP LTD.


March 6, 1997
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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ERWIN ALVARADO,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-10622

D.C. No. 4:11-cr-02002-JGZBPV-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 10, 2012** 

Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Erwin Alvarado appeals from the 24–month sentence imposed following his

guilty-plea conviction for illegal re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

SEP 14 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Alvarado contends that the district court erred by not sua sponte granting

him a third-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. He argues that the

reason cited by the government for refusing to make the motion for the reduction,

that he reserved his right to appeal, is an impermissible reason under U.S.S.G. §

3E1.1(b). As Alvarado concedes, this argument is foreclosed by United States v.

Johnson, 581 F.3d 994, 1002 (9th Cir. 2009), where we held that the expenditure

of resources in anticipating and preparing for an appeal is an appropriate

consideration under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b).

AFFIRMED.
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell

.

Estimated Costs:

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here Work-hours

(include

access, testing,

and close-up) Labor

cost

(@$85/h

our) Parts Cost Total Costs

(labor +

parts) Number of

U.S.

Registered

Products Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Access (both

engine inlets) 12.0 $1,020.0

0 $1,020.00 

### 332 $338,640.00



### Close (both engine

inlets) 12 .0 $1,020.0

0 $1,020.00 

### 332 $338,640.00



### Restore (remove

and replace) L inlet 240.0 $20,400.

00 $158,760 $179,160.00 

### 332 $59,481,120.

00



### Restore (remove

and replace) R inlet 240.0 $20,400.

00 $158,760 $179,160.00 

### 332 $59,481,120.

00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $119,639,520



### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement) Work-hours

(include access,

testing, and closeup) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO

*Explanation: 

### Estimated parts and labor costs are over $100 million.

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES* NO

*Explanation:

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a s ubstantial number of small entities? Explain for

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO

Explanation:

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO



### * Explanation 

### :
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000837596
<NAME> REDHEADS, INC.
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         180,082
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  590,211
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     83,376
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               999,660
<PP&E>                                       5,184,030
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,897,893
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,463,943
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,156,818
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    440,815
<COMMON>                                         2,386
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,585,826
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,463,943
<SALES>                                      9,679,825
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,679,825
<CGS>                                        2,827,808
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,914,176
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,477,465
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             325,089
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             13,928,936
<INCOME-TAX>                                13,928,936
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,059,200)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             15,988,136
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                13,928,936
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.27
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF HEARTSOFT, INC., AS OF AND FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED
MARCH 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                          19,922
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  171,913
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,900
<INVENTORY>                                     11,216
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               297,659
<PP&E>                                         173,820
<DEPRECIATION>                                  73,342
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,080,178
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          461,215
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,550
<COMMON>                                         2,513
<OTHER-SE>                                     576,496
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,080,178
<SALES>                                      1,158,817
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               802,124
<CGS>                                          157,471
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  157,471
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               736,606
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              32,449
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (124,402)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (27,395)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (97,007)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (97,007)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)
        

</TABLE>
No. 09-9080.

#### Keith Russell Judd, Petitioner v. New Mexico.

559 U.S. 1075, 130 S. Ct. 2105,

176 L. Ed. 2d 735,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3282,

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the Court of Appeals of New Mexico denied.
Exhibit 10.25





AMENDMENT NUMBER 2007-1

TO RECIPROCAL LOAN AGREEMENT



This is Amendment Number 2007-1 (this Amendment) to the Reciprocal Loan Agreement, dated as of January 1, 2004, by and between ING America Insurance Holdings, Inc. (INGAIH or Company) and ING USA Annuity and Life Insurance Company (ING USA or Company) (the Agreement).  This Amendment is dated as of December 31, 2007. Capitalized terms not defined in this Amendment shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Agreement.



1.
        Amendment to Section 2.2 of the Agreement.




Section 2.2, subparagraph (d) is amended by the addition of the following phrase as subpart (iv) of the first sentence of subparagraph (d) immediately following subpart (iii) of that sentence:

(iv) the payment dates for any principal, interest or fees due or to become due from each Borrowing Company with respect to each Loan made hereunder,



and the renumbering of any subpart immediately succeeding the above (iv) as subpart v of that sentence.



Section 2.2 is further amended by the addition of the phrase and payment terms immediately following the word amounts in the second sentence of subparagraph (d).



Section 2.2 is further amended by the addition of the following sentence as the last sentence of subparagraph (d) thereof:



Accordingly, the Companies acknowledge and agree that the payment terms and due dates set out in the RTOs control accounts with respect to each Loan made  hereunder shall be deemed incorporated herein by this reference and shall govern as the payment terms and due dates for each such Loan made hereunder.



2.Amended Agreement.  Except as specifically amended by this Amendment, each and every term of the Agreement remains in full force and effect.



3.Counterparts.This Amendment may be executed in separate counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.



---







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of the date first above written.





ING AMERICA INSURANCE HOLDINGS, INC.By:
        /s/
        David PendergrassName:
        
        David  PendergrassTitle:
        
        Treasurer








ING USA ANNUITY AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANYBy:
        /s/
        Spencer ShellName:
        
        Spencer T. ShellTitle:
        
        Vice President, Assistant Treasurer andAssistant Secretary
BYNUM v. MECKLENBURG CO. SCHOOL BD.

156P09-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 27, 2019

Bynum Waddell, for Bynum, Waddell.

Mecklenburg County School Board, for Mecklenburg County School Board.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th of December 2018 by Plaintiff for Notice of Appeal:

*250"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th of March 2019."
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7913

ANTHONY KOLAWOLE OJO,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RAY GEORGE, Unit Manager; MICHAEL JONES, Case

Counselor; Q. WOODWARD, JR., Case Counselor,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-94-1611-9-6-JC)

Submitted: September 20, 1996 Decided: October 2, 1996

Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Kolawole Ojo, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Parkwood Griffith,

Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the

report and recommendation is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988),

and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292

(1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan

Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a

final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dispense with oral

argument and deny Appellant's motion for the appointment of counsel

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
No. 09-8817.

#### Terrance Lamont James, Petitioner v. North Carolina.

559 U.S. 1016, 130 S. Ct. 1906,

176 L. Ed. 2d 381,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2694,

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of North Carolina denied.
No. 09-8756.

#### Luis I. Hernandez, Sr., Petitioner v. Timothy Schuetzle, Warden.

559 U.S. 1015, 130 S. Ct. 1903,

176 L. Ed. 2d 380,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2703.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
No. 09-559.

#### John Doe #1, et al., Petitioners v. Sam Reed, Washington Secretary of State, et al.

559 U.S. 1060, 130 S. Ct. 2088,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3115.

176 L. Ed. 2d 581,

April 16, 2010.

Motion of respondent Washington Coalition for Open Government for divided argument denied. Motion of respondent Washington Families Standing Together for divided argument denied.
No. 09-739.

#### Pennmont Securities, Petitioner v. Meyer Frucher, et al.

559 U.S. 972, 130 S. Ct. 1698,

176 L. Ed. 2d 182,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2054.

March 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 586 F.3d 242.
No. 09-9750.

#### In re Windell McClain, Petitioner.

559 U.S. 1066, 130 S. Ct. 2135,

176 L. Ed. 2d 758,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3185,

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of ha-beas corpus denied.