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 Annual Report of Trycera Financial, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Ray A. Smith, CEO of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to SS. 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 result of operations of the Company.






By:
/s/ Ray A. SmithRay A. Smith, CEOPrincipal Executive Officer,April 20, 2011




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request
#### Worley and Welsh *against*Glentworth. *The Same*v. *The Same.*

The Court will not consolidate two actions brought against the same person, by the same plaintiffs, upon promissory notes drawn at different dates and payable at different times, where it does not appear that the defence is the same in each.

These were separate actions, on two several promissory notes brought by the plaintiffs, as endorsees, against the defendant as endorser. The notes were dated on different days, for different sums, and payable at different times to the defendant, who endorsed them to the plaintiffs. The writs were returnable to the same term, though issued and served at different times; and the first writ was issued before the second note became due.

*Wm. Halsted,*for the defendant,

moved to consolidate these actions, and cited 4 *Halst. Rep.*335; 2 *Arch. Frac.*180 ; *Barn. Notes,*341.

*Harrison,*contra,

cited *Forrester,*30; 9 *John. Rep.*262, *Thompson*v. *Shepherd.*

The Chief Justice

delivered the opinion of the court.

We think we ought not to order the consolidation applied for. We find no principle or precedent to support it. The *287case read by the plaintiffs’ counsel from 9 *John. Rep.*262, though of no binding authority here, yet is entitled to weight. In that case the consolidation was refused under stronger circumstances.

The Legislature direct us to consolidate unnecessary actions. Can we say these actions are unnecessary ? The defendant has not shown that the defence is the same in each. Indeed he does not shew that ho has any defence at all.

Motion denied.
| (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. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  November      8, 2010 | By:          | /s/      William G. LaPerch                         |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------------|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                   |    | William      G. LaPerchChief      Executive Officer |   |
|                                   |         |                                                |   |
|                                   |         |                                                |   |

----
FATAL FLAW: THE MISSING LOU 

Written By CDR P. Bartz

The Letter of Undertaking (LOU) is a crucial document in the case 

file. It can mean the difference between an enforcement activity 

proceeding to a preliminary review by a Hearing Officer or being 

dismissed outright. 

The LOU is a legal agreement requested by the Coast Guard to secure 

payment of a civil penalty should one be assessed against a foreign entity. 

Typically, when the foreign entity is a foreign commercial vessel, a Captain of 

the Port (COTP) order will initiate the requirement for the LOU. This occurs 

when the COTP is made aware of an alleged violation by the vessel, the 

statutory authority to impose a civil penalty exists, and the vessel is desirous 

of leaving the port. Securing the LOU allows the vessel to depart and conduct 

business elsewhere while the civil penalty process proceeds. Should a civil 

penalty be imposed, the civil penalty is collected “against” the LOU. The 

party’s issuance of an LOU does not “admit” that a violation occurred. The 

LOU provides for payment in the event a violation is “proved” and a civil 

penalty is imposed. 

The LOU is a powerful document. Without this document, 

international trade would be adversely impacted. It guarantees 

payment of a civil penalty despite where the vessel or its owner may 

be located at the time the civil penalty is assessed. If there is no 

LOU the chance of collecting a civil penalty against the foreign 

entity is very difficult. Therefore, before a Hearing Officer will begin 

review of alleged violations against a foreign commercial entity, the 

Hearing Officer will look to see if the original LOU is in the file. If it 

is missing, the enforcement activity will be dismissed. The original is 

necessary. The original reflects the original signature and “seal.” A 

copy cannot be substituted. Therefore, in accordance with the Marine 

Safety Manual and Coast Guard Hearing Office requirements, 
always insert the original LOU in the case file before mailing it to the 

Hearing Office.
# Testimonies

For material older than three years or that is no longer current, see our Archive Testimonies section.

Hearing on "Oversight of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services" before the House Committee on the Judiciary on July 29,2020

July 29, 2020

Hearing on “Unprecedented Migration at the U.S. Southern Border: The Year in Review" before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs on November 13, 2019

November 13, 2019

Hearing on "The Public's Right to Know: FOIA at the Department of Homeland Security" before the House Committee on Homeland Security on October 17, 2019

October 17, 2019

Hearing on  Policy Changes and Processing Delays at USCIS before the House Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration And Citizenship on July 16, 2019

July 16, 2019

Hearing on "A Review of the FY 2020 Budget Request for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services" on May 9, 2019

May 09, 2019

Hearing on “Oversight of Immigration Enforcement and Family Reunification Efforts” before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on July 31, 2018

July 31, 2018

Hearing on “Citizenship for Sale: Oversight of the EB-5 Investor Visa Program” before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on June 19, 2018

June 19, 2018

Hearing on “Stopping the Daily Border Caravan: Time to Build a Policy Wall” before the House Committee on Homeland Security Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security on May 22, 2018

May 22, 2018

Hearing on the "Refugee Admissions FY 2018" before the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security House Committee on the Judiciary

October 26, 2017

Hearing on Oversight of the Administration’s Decision to End Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on October 3, 2017

October 03, 2017

1 - 10 total rows

-  Back
- Next**

    RSS Feed  

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
# C_2021046EN.01000701.xml

| 9.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/7

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10150 — Ares/OTPP/TricorBraun)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 46/05)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Ares Management Corporation (‘Ares’, USA), |
| --- | --- |

—

Ares Management Corporation (‘Ares’, USA),

| — | Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Board (‘OTPP’, Canada), |
| --- | --- |

—

Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Board (‘OTPP’, Canada),

| — | TCB Holdings I Corp (‘TricorBraun’, USA). |
| --- | --- |

—

TCB Holdings I Corp (‘TricorBraun’, USA).

Ares and OTPP acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of TricorBraun.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | for Ares: alternative asset management in the North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, |
| --- | --- |

—

for Ares: alternative asset management in the North America, Europe, Asia Pacific,

| — | for OTPP: administration of pension benefits and investments in pension plan assets on behalf of active and retired teachers in the Province of Ontario, |
| --- | --- |

—

for OTPP: administration of pension benefits and investments in pension plan assets on behalf of active and retired teachers in the Province of Ontario,

| — | for TricorBraun: design and distribution of packaging, including plastic containers, sprayers, dispensers and closures, glass containers and flexible packaging, active in the USA and internationally. |
| --- | --- |

—

for TricorBraun: design and distribution of packaging, including plastic containers, sprayers, dispensers and closures, glass containers and flexible packaging, active in the USA and internationally.

3.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10150 — Ares/OTPP/TricorBraun

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

2

---
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2565 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to restore the regular Medicaid 

matching rate for newly eligible individuals under the Affordable Care 

Act and to apply up to $15 billion of the savings each year to the 

Highway Trust Fund. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 21, 2015 

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

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to restore 

the regular Medicaid matching rate for newly eligible 

individuals under the Affordable Care Act and to apply 

up to $15 billion of the savings each year to the Highway 

Trust Fund. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Prioritizing American 

5 Road and Jobs Act of 2015’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2565 IH

1 SEC. 2. RESTORATION OF REGULAR MEDICAID MATCHING 

2 RATE FOR NEWLY ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS 

3 UNDER THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND AP4 PLYING SAVINGS TO HIGHWAY TRUST FUND. 

5 (a) SUNSETTING HIGHER MEDICAID MATCHING

6 RATE AND RESTORING REGULAR FMAP FOR NEWLY EL7 IGIBLE INDIVIDUALS UNDER THE ACA.—Section 1905(y) 

8 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(y)) is amend9 ed by striking ‘‘, shall be equal to’’ and all that follows 

10 and inserting ‘‘, for calendar quarters beginning on or 

11 after January 1, 2014, and before January 1, 2017, shall 

12 be equal to 100 percent.’’. 

13 (b) APPLICATION OF UP TO $15 BILLION OF SAVINGS

14 EACH YEAR TO THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND.— 

15 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Health and 

16 Human Services shall estimate, for each calendar 

17 quarter beginning on or after January 1, 2017, the 

18 net reductions in Federal expenditures with respect 

19 to the calendar quarter resulting from the amend20 ment made by subsection (a). Insofar as the Sec21 retary determines that the amount initially esti22 mated under this paragraph for a calendar quarter 

23 is not accurate, the Secretary shall adjust such esti24 mate and the adjusted estimate shall apply so as to 

25 adjust the amount appropriated under paragraph (2) 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2565 IH

1 for such calendar quarter, subject to the limitation 

2 of subparagraph (B) of such paragraph. 

3 (2) APPROPRIATION TO HIGHWAY TRUST

4 FUND.— 

5 (A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subpara6 graph (B), there are hereby appropriated and 

7 transferred to the Highway Trust Fund, from 

8 any funds in the Treasury not otherwise appro9 priated for each calendar quarter to which 

10 paragraph (1) applies, an amount equivalent to 

11 the amount estimated by the Secretary for such 

12 calendar quarter. 

13 (B) LIMITATION OF TRANSFER TO $15 BIL14 LION IN ANY YEAR.—In no case shall the total 

15 amount appropriated and transferred under 

16 subparagraph (A) for the 4 quarters in any 

17 year exceed $15,000,000,000. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of Monica Jones, Petitioner, v David Axelrod et al., Respondents.

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review an amended determination of the respondent Commissioner of the New York State Department of *630Health, dated June 13, 1986, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s request to amend or expunge the record of a report of patient neglect, and directed that a civil penalty in the amount of $150 be assessed against her.

Adjudged that the amended determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

The evidence at the hearing demonstrates that the petitioner, a nurse’s aide employed by the Wedgewood Nursing Home, placed M. S., a "total care” patient, on the edge of her bed without restraints, in preparation for her transfer to a wheelchair. During the course of the transfer to the wheelchair, the petitioner momentarily left M. S. unattended, and the patient subsequently fell to the floor. The petitioner acknowledged at the hearing her awareness that M. S. required a restraint. Her supervisor, furthermore, testified that the act of leaving M. S. unrestrained and unattended on the edge of her bed was improper and inconsistent with safe practice. We therefore find that the determination of patient neglect was supported by substantial evidence in the hearing record *(see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176; *Matter of Jones v Axelrod,*118 AD2d 1011; Public Health Law § 2803-d; 10 NYCRR 81.1 [c]). We further conclude that the civil penalty imposed upon the petitioner was not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness *(see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222; *Matter of Welch v Weinstein,*114 AD2d 463; Public Health Law §12; 10 NYCRR 81.7). The remaining issue raised by the petitioner is without merit. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Harwood, JJ., concur.
# C_2021005EN.01000201.xml

| 7.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 5/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 5/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9985 — GardaWorld/G4S)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 5/02)

On 30 November 2020, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9985. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9985. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 11

- 00422

- CV

NOSAYABA FRANCIS

EVBUOMWAN APPELLANT

V.

ELVIRA CASTILLO APPELLEE

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

FROM THE 48TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDG MENT

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

On October 24, 2011, and November 15, 2011 , we notified appellant, in

accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss this

appeal unless the $175 filing fee was paid. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).

Appellant ha s not paid the $175 filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

Because appellant has failed to comply with a requirement of the rules of

appellate procedure and the Texas Supreme Court ’s order of August 28, 2007, 2

we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DELIVERED: December 8, 2011

2 See Supreme Cour t of Tex., Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil

Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals and Before the Judicial

Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 07

- 9138 (Aug. 28, 2007) (listing

fees in courts of appeals).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7625

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

EVERETT CORNELIUS KAYMORE, a/k/a CO, a/k/a Everet Cornelius 

Kaymore,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson, 

District Judge. (5:10-cr-00016-SGW-RSB-1)

Submitted: February 20, 2014 Decided: February 26, 2014

Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Everett Cornelius Kaymore, Appellant Pro Se. Jeb Thomas 

Terrien, Assistant United States Attorney, Harrisonburg, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Everett Cornelius Kaymore appeals the district court’s 

order denying his motion to reconsider the court’s previous 

denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a 

sentence reduction. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. See United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 

235-36 (4th Cir. 2010) (noting that a district court does not 

have authority to reconsider prior order on § 3582 motion). 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, John Lennon, Chief Executive Officer of Pyramid Breweries Inc.
("registrant"), certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the registrant;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and we have:

      a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
      disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
      to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
      its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within the
      entity, particularly during the period in which this report is being
      prepared;

      b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
      procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
      effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
      the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

      c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
      control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
      most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably
      likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over
      financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of
directors:

      a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
      operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial information; and

      b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
      controls over financial reporting.

Date: November 15, 2004

/s/ JOHN LENNON
---------------------------------

John Lennon
Chief Executive Officer