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

CEO/CFO Certification Pursuant to § 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
§1350)

The undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Pinnacle Bankshares Corporation, respectively,
certify that, to the best of their knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Pinnacle Bankshares Corporation and subsidiary at the dates
and for the periods indicated.

The foregoing certification is made pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350) and
shall not be relied upon for any other purpose. The undersigned expressly disclaim any obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.



|                 |  |                                                 
|---------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------
|November 9, 2007 |  | /s/ Robert H. Gilliam, Jr.                      
|Date             |  | Robert H. Gilliam, Jr.,                         
|                 |  | President and Chief Executive Officer           
|                 | 
|November 9, 2007 |  | /s/ Bryan M. Lemley                             
|Date             |  | Bryan M. Lemley,                                
|                 |  | Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
Minute Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Nameatasttsnte | JamnesB, Moran | ti Sate he

CASE NUMBER 03 CR 779 - 4,5 DATE 10/13/2004
CASE USA vs. JAMES R. WALLWIN, GEORGE J. STIMACK
TITLE

[in the fallowing box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, c.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature

of the motion being presented.}

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

ag a Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) 0 Bricf in support of motion due

(3) QO Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer bricfdue__.

(4) oOo Ruling/Hearingon___set for. at

(5) oO Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on___ set for___at

(6) 0 Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for}on__—setfor_ at.
(7) Qo Trial[set for/re-set for]on at

(8) oO [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continuedto at,

(9) Oo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

OFRCP4(m) O Local Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(a)(1) OO FRCP41(a)(2).

(10) Wl [Othcrdocketentry] Status hearing/change of plea hearing reset to 11/10/04 at 10:00 a.m. for James
Wallwin and George Stimack. Time is excluded based on finding the ends of justice is served by a
continuance beginning on 10/13/04 and ending on 11/10/04.

(X-T)
dl) a [For further detail see order (on reverse side offattached to) the original minute order.)
No nolives requited, advised in open court.
No notices required van of ois
Nolices mailed by judge's statf,
Notified counsel by telephone. OCT 14 2004
¥ | Docketing to mail notices,

Mail AO 450 form. wit

oti fy depuly baitels

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

date mailed notice
courtroom

1G deputy’s
initials

Date/time received in
ventral Clerk's Office ring depul inital
#### Patricia Diane MEEKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MURPHY AUTO GROUP, INC., d.b.a. Toyota of Winter Haven, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 11-10149

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Sept. 27, 2011.

Raymond G. Ingalsbe, Raymond G. In-galsbe, P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Brooks Charles Rathet, William L. Bro-magen, P.A., Jacksonville Beach, FL, Amanda N. Kespohl, Nicholas Francis Mooney, Bromagen & Rathet PA, Tampa, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before BARKETT, MARCUS and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Patricia Meeks appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in fa*684vor of Murphy Auto Group d/b/a/ Toyota of Winter Haven (MAG). Meeks alleges MAG violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681*et seq.,*and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1691, *et seq.,*and Regulation B, 12 C.F.R. § § 202.1, *et seq.*(ECOA). Meeks argues the district court erred: (1) when it construed the credit contract signed by Meeks and MAG; and (2) when it applied the FCRA, the ECOA, and the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601*et seq.**1*

After reviewing the parties’ briefs and the record, we affirm the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned December 15, 2010, opinion. The district court did not err when it construed the credit contract signed by Meeks and MAG, nor did it err when it applied the FCRA, the ECOA, and the TILA to Meeks’ claims. The district court was correct that MAG acted with a permissible purpose under the FCRA in each of the credit pulls at issue in this case and that MAG was not obligated to provide Meeks with a notice of adverse action under the ECOA.

Further, insofar as Meeks argues MAG violated § 1681 b(f)(2) of the FCRA, she failed to raise this argument before the district court and we will not consider it now. *See Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co.,*385 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir.2004) (“This Court has repeatedly held that an issue not raised in the district court and raised for the first time in an appeal will not be considered by this court.”) (quotations omitted).2

AFFIRMED.

1

. Meeks also argued the district court erred by failing to find two Florida statutes unconstitutional, but then expressly withdrew this argument in her Reply Brief.

2

. Meeks’ Motion for Leave to File Out of Time Reply Brief filed on May 5, 2011, is granted.
Case: 1:01-cv-04927 Document #: 6 Filed: 02/06/03 Page 1 of 32 PageID #:29
Case: 1:01-cv-04927 Document #: 6 Filed: 02/06/03 Page 2 of 32 PageID #:30
Case: 1:01-cv-04927 Document #: 6 Filed: 02/06/03 Page 3 of 32 PageID #:31
Case: 1:01-cv-04927 Document #: 6 Filed: 02/06/03 Page 4 of 32 PageID #:32
Case: 1:01-cv-04927 Document #: 6 Filed: 02/06/03 Page 5 of 32 PageID #:33
Case: 1:01-cv-04927 Document #: 6 Filed: 02/06/03 Page 6 of 32 PageID #:34
Case: 1:01-cv-04927 Document #: 6 Filed: 02/06/03 Page 7 of 32 PageID #:35
Case: 1:01-cv-04927 Document #: 6 Filed: 02/06/03 Page 8 of 32 PageID #:36
Case: 1:01-cv-04927 Document #: 6 Filed: 02/06/03 Page 9 of 32 PageID #:37
Case: 1:01-cv-04927 Document #: 6 Filed: 02/06/03 Page 10 of 32 PageID #:38
Case: 1:01-cv-04927 Document #: 6 Filed: 02/06/03 Page 11 of 32 PageID #:39
Case: 1:01-cv-04927 Document #: 6 Filed: 02/06/03 Page 12 of 32 PageID #:40
Case: 1:01-cv-04927 Document #: 6 Filed: 02/06/03 Page 13 of 32 PageID #:41
Case: 1:01-cv-04927 Document #: 6 Filed: 02/06/03 Page 14 of 32 PageID #:42
Case: 1:01-cv-04927 Document #: 6 Filed: 02/06/03 Page 15 of 32 PageID #:43
Case: 1:01-cv-04927 Document #: 6 Filed: 02/06/03 Page 16 of 32 PageID #:44
Case: 1:01-cv-04927 Document #: 6 Filed: 02/06/03 Page 17 of 32 PageID #:45
Case: 1:01-cv-04927 Document #: 6 Filed: 02/06/03 Page 18 of 32 PageID #:46
Case: 1:01-cv-04927 Document #: 6 Filed: 02/06/03 Page 19 of 32 PageID #:47
Case: 1:01-cv-04927 Document #: 6 Filed: 02/06/03 Page 20 of 32 PageID #:48
Case: 1:01-cv-04927 Document #: 6 Filed: 02/06/03 Page 21 of 32 PageID #:49
Case: 1:01-cv-04927 Document #: 6 Filed: 02/06/03 Page 22 of 32 PageID #:50
Case: 1:01-cv-04927 Document #: 6 Filed: 02/06/03 Page 23 of 32 PageID #:51
Case: 1:01-cv-04927 Document #: 6 Filed: 02/06/03 Page 24 of 32 PageID #:52
Case: 1:01-cv-04927 Document #: 6 Filed: 02/06/03 Page 25 of 32 PageID #:53
Case: 1:01-cv-04927 Document #: 6 Filed: 02/06/03 Page 26 of 32 PageID #:54
Case: 1:01-cv-04927 Document #: 6 Filed: 02/06/03 Page 27 of 32 PageID #:55
Case: 1:01-cv-04927 Document #: 6 Filed: 02/06/03 Page 28 of 32 PageID #:56
Case: 1:01-cv-04927 Document #: 6 Filed: 02/06/03 Page 29 of 32 PageID #:57
Case: 1:01-cv-04927 Document #: 6 Filed: 02/06/03 Page 30 of 32 PageID #:58
Case: 1:01-cv-04927 Document #: 6 Filed: 02/06/03 Page 31 of 32 PageID #:59
Case: 1:01-cv-04927 Document #: 6 Filed: 02/06/03 Page 32 of 32 PageID #:60
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 96-4387 JAMES THERON RECTOR, a/k/a Theron W. Rector, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-95-597) Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 22, 1997 Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSELAlbert Q. Taylor, Jr., TAYLOR & HENRY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Rene Josey, United States Attorney, E. JeanHoward, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: James Theron Rector appeals from his sentence imposed after a jury found him guilty of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994), and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (1994). On appeal, Rector contends that the districtcourt erred by applying a two-level sentence enhancement for possession of a firearm pursuant to United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual , § 2D1.1(b)(1) (Nov. 1995). We affirm. A defendant "possesses" a firearm for purposes of § 2D1.1(b)(1) if the weapon was merely "present," unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense. United States v. Hunter , 19 F.3d 895, 896 (4th Cir. 1994). To find possession, it is sufficient that the weapon is found in a pl ace where the conspiracy is carried out or furthered. United States v. Apple , 962 F.2d 335, 338 (4th Cir. 1992) (Apple II ). The sentencing court is not required to find a connection between the weapon and the drug offense except that the weapon must be possessed during commission of the offense. United States v. Johnson , 943 F.2d 383, 386 (4th Cir. 1991). B ecause the determination that a firearm was present so as to justify a sentencing enhancement is a factual question, we review that decision for clear error. United States v. Apple , 915 F.2d 899, 914 (4th Cir. 1990) (Apple I ). Here, the evidence showed that five loaded rifles and six loaded shotguns were found in Rector's trailer. The evidence also showed that Rector conducted drug transactions inside his trailer, where drug proceeds were often stored. Because the district court's determination that a firearm was present so as to justify an enhancement was not clearly erroneous, we affirm the enhancement. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pres-
2ented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED 3
# C_2020077EN.01005201.xml

| 9.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 77/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 77/52

---

Order of the General Court of 21 January 2020 — Telefónica and Telefónica de España v Parliament and Council

(Case T-162/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Internal market for electronic communications - Retail price charged to consumers for regulated intra-EU communications - Regulation (EU) 2018/1971 - Legislative act - Applicants not individually concerned - Inadmissibility)

(2020/C 77/73)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Telefónica, SA (Madrid, Spain) and Telefónica de España, SAU (Madrid) (represented by: F. González Díaz, B. Langeheine and J. Blanco Carol, lawyers)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: R. van de Westelaken, M. Peternel and C. Biz, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: O. Segnana and I. Gurov, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU for the partial annulment of Regulation (EU) 2018/1971 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) and the Agency for Support for BEREC (BEREC Office), amending Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1211/2009 (OJ 2018 L 321, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the European Commission.

| 3. | Telefónica, SA and Telefónica de España, SAU shall bear their own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, with the exception of those relating to the applications to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Telefónica, SA and Telefónica de España, SAU shall bear their own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, with the exception of those relating to the applications to intervene.

| 4. | Telefónica, Telefónica de España, the Parliament, the Council, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Commission shall each bear their own respective costs relating to the applications to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Telefónica, Telefónica de España, the Parliament, the Council, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Commission shall each bear their own respective costs relating to the applications to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 172, 20.5.2019.

---
Exhibit 25.1

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

          WHEREAS,  the  undersigned  officers  and  directors  of  Consolidated
Delivery & Logistics,  Inc. (the  "Company")  desire to authorize  Albert W. Van
Ness, Jr., and William T. Brannan to act as their  attorneys-in-fact and agents,
for the purpose of  executing  and filing the  Company's  Annual  Report on Form
10-K, including all amendments thereto;

          NOW, THEREFORE,

          KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE  PRESENTS,  that  each  person  whose  signature
appears below  constitutes  and appoints Albert W. Van Ness, Jr., and William T.
Brannan and each of them, his true and lawful  attorney-in-fact  and agent, with
full power of substitution and  resubstitution,  to execute the Company's Annual
Report on Form 10-K,  including any and all amendments and supplements  thereto,
and to file  the  same,  with all  exhibits  thereto,  and  other  documents  in
connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto
said attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, full power and authority to
do and perform each and every act and thing  requisite  and necessary to be done
in and about the premises,  as fully and to all intents and purposes as he might
or  could  do  in  person,   hereby  ratifying  and  confirming  all  that  said
attorneys-in-fact  and agents,  or any of them,  or their or his  substitute  or
substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

          IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the  undersigned  have  executed  this power of
attorney in the following capacities as of the 24th day of February, 1999.

      SIGNATURE                                                    TITLE

/s/ Albert W. Van Ness, Jr.      Chairman  of the  Board, Chief Executive  and
    Albert W. Van Ness, Jr.      Acting  Chief   Financial   Officer  Director,
                                 (Principal Executive, Financial and Accounting
                                 Officer)

/s/ William T. Brannan           President, Chief Operating Officer and Director
    William T. Brannan

/s/ Michael Brooks               Director
    Michael Brooks

/s/ Randall Catlin               Director
    Randall Catlin

<PAGE>

/s/ Jon F. Hanson                Director
    Jon F. Hanson

/s/ Labe Leibowitz               Director
    Labe Leibowitz

/s/ Marilu Marshall              Director
    Marilu Marshall

/s/ Kenneth W. Tunnell           Director
    Kenneth W. Tunnell

/s/ John S. Wehrle               Director
    John S. Wehrle
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Water Management Research: Parlier, CA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Research Units
                        San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Sciences Center
                                    Commodity Protection and Quality Research
                                    Crop Diseases, Pests and Genetics Research
                                    National Arid Land Plant Genetic RepositorySearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Parlier, California San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Sciences Center Water Management Research Docs







Research - Gao and Banuelosheadline bar Reducing Negative Impacts of Irrigated AgricultureDr. Suduan Gao

Dr. Gao conducts research on impact of irrigated agriculture on soil/water quality. Her research focuses on salinity and toxic trace element (e.g., Se, B, As, and Mo) chemistry in agronomic systems.
Dr. Gary Banuelos

Dr. Banuelos conducts research focused on the phytoremediation of soils and waters laden with selenium, boron, and salinity in California.


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

MARCKENSON DEMARD

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 1714

[ August 26, 2021 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Timothy L. Bailey

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 12

- 18329CF10A

.

Marckenson Demard, Indiantown, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

M AY

, D AMOORGIAN and C IKLIN

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 13

- 00606

- CR

Joshua Jamal Jenkins

v. The State of Texas
On Appeal from the 147th District Court of Travis County , Texas Trial Cause No. D

- 1

- DC

- 12

- 206684

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. January 2 9 , 2015
#### ALLFLEX USA, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AVID IDENTIFICATION SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Appellant. Allflex USA, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Avid Identification Systems, Inc., Defendant, and Fish & Richardson P.C., Sanctioned Party-Appellant.

Nos. 2011-1621, 2012-1007.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 22, 2011.

ON MOTION

ORDER

The court treats the letter from Fish & Richardson P.C. indicating that it will not be participating as a motion to voluntarily dismiss its appeal.

Upon consideration thereof,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) The motion is granted. Appeal 2012-1007 is dismissed. The revised official captions are reflected above.

*453(2) Each side shall bear its own costs in 2012-1007.
#### Sy Lee CASTLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. KNOWLES, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-16372.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 15, 2011.*

Filed July 7, 2011.

Sy Lee Castle, Soledad, CA, pro se.

Constance L. Picciano, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, Kenneth T. Roost, Esquire, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appel-lees.

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Sy Lee Castle appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging a violation of his rights under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. *264§ 1291. We review de novo. *Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc.,*356 F.3d 1058, 1061 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Castle’s action for monetary damages because Castle failed to allege facts demonstrating that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his disability. *See Duvall v. Cnty. of Kitsap,*260 F.3d 1124, 1138-39 (9th Cir.2001) (claims for monetary relief under Title II of the ADA require the plaintiff to establish intentional discrimination based on deliberate indifference, namely, “both knowledge that a harm to a federally protected right is substantially likely, and a failure to act upon that ... likelihood”).

Castle’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.