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

** **

** **

** **

 

In connection with theAnnual Report on Form 10-K of Shelter Properties II (the "Partnership"), for thefiscal year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Steven D. Cordes, as theequivalent of the Chief Executive Officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B.Waters, as the equivalent of the Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership,each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of hisknowledge:

 

 

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)   Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

 

 

 

 

This certification is furnished with thisReport pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall notbe deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

                                                  

<ARTICLE> 5  
<LEGEND>  
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 
the balance sheet and income statement, and is qualified in its  
entirety by reference to such financial schedules.  
</LEGEND>  
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000  
         
<S>                             <C>  
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  9-MOS  
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997  
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997  
<CASH>                                             438  
<SECURITIES>                                         0  
<RECEIVABLES>                                      333  
<ALLOWANCES>                                        10  
<INVENTORY>                                        331  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1185  
<PP&E>                                            1293  
<DEPRECIATION>                                     474  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    2917  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              559  
<BONDS>                                            550  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0  
<PREFERRED>                                         11  
<COMMON>                                            87  
<OTHER-SE>                                        1158  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      2917  
<SALES>                                           1365  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  1365  
<CGS>                                              749  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     1148  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  37  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    196  
<INCOME-TAX>                                        71  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                125    
<DISCONTINUED>                                       2   
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0  
<CHANGES>                                            0  
<NET-INCOME>                                       127  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.69  
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.68  
        

</TABLE>
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.D., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, ROSELAND POST 

OFFICE, Chicago, IL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1199

Issued: February 8, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On August 2, 2021 appellant filed an appeal from a purported February 4, 2021 decision 

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 21-1199.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’Compensation Act.1 

This jurisdiction encompasses any final adverse decision issued by OWCP within 180 days of the 

date appellant filed her appeal.2 The case record as transmitted to the Board does not contain a 

final adverse decision of OWCP issued within 180 days from the date of docketing of the current 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

2

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e) provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days from the 

date of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”
2

appeal.3 The Board notes that the record contains a February 4, 2021 informational letter advising 

appellant that the Board’s January 28, 2020 Order Dismissing Appeal4 was not subject to 

reconsideration or appeal. This correspondence does not constitute a final adverse decision by 

OWCP. 

As there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP over which the Board may properly 

exercise jurisdiction, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed as No. 21-1199 must be 

dismissed. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 21-1199 is dismissed.

Issued: February 8, 2022

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3

Id.

4 On December 4, 2018 appellant sought appeal from a purported June 7, 2018 OWCP decision that was, in fact, 

an informational letter. The Clerk of the Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 19-0533. By order issued January 28, 

2020, the Board dismissed appellant’s appeal as there was no final adverse decision issued within 180 days of the date 

appellant filed her appeal. Order Dismissing Appeal, J.D., Docket No. 19-0533 (issued January 28, 2020). This order 

became final after 30 days of issuance, i.e., on February 27, 2020. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.6(d).
II 

Calendar No. 632 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5450 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 15, 2010 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2010 

Reported by Mr. LIEBERMAN, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 3894 Crenshaw Boulevard in Los Angeles, 

California, as the ‘‘Tom Bradley Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TOM BRADLEY POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 3894 Crenshaw Boulevard in Los 

6 Angeles, California, shall be known and designated as the 

7 ‘‘Tom Bradley Post Office Building’’. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 5450 RS

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

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Tom Bradley Post 

5 Office Building’’. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

Calendar No. 632 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5450 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostPost Office Building’’. in Los Angeles, California, as the ‘‘Tom Bradley al Service located at 3894 Crenshaw Boulevard 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2010 

Reported without amendment 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as Chief Executive Officer of Norcraft Holdings, L.P. and Norcraft Companies, L.P. (together, the Company), does hereby certify that to the undersigneds knowledge:



1) the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending
September 30, 2004 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 Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                        |  |                                      
|----------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: November 12, 2004 |  | /s/ Mark Buller                      
|                        |  | Mark Buller  Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written
statement, required by Section 906, has been provided to Norcraft Holdings, L.P. and Norcraft Companies, L.P. and will be retained by Norcraft Holdings, L.P. and Norcraft Companies, L.P. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.



22
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

BALWINDER SINGH,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-71256

Agency No. A047-070-811

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 20, 2011** 

Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Balwinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8

U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s determination that an

FILED

MAY 10 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-71256

alien is removable. Nakamoto v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 874, 881 (9th Cir. 2004). We

deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Singh entered his

marriage for the purpose of procuring an immigration benefit where Singh’s

former U.S. citizen spouse testified that their marriage was fraudulent and that she

married Singh in exchange for renumeration. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A) and

(G)(i); 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i); see also Nakamoto, 363 F.3d at 882 (relevant

inquiry for fraud determination is whether parties intended at the time they married

to establish a life together). 

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Singh’s

conditional status was terminated. See 8.U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(D)(i). Because he

was not granted a waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4) and he did not appeal from

the Citizenship and Immigration Services’ denial of his waiver, his challenge to

that conclusion is not availing. See id.§ 1227(a)(1)(D)(ii). 

We lack jurisdiction over Singh’s contention regarding the denial of his

motion to terminate because he did not raise that challenge before the BIA, and

therefore has not exhausted his remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674,

678 (9th Cir. 2004). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OCTOBER 29, 2021

NO. 03-19-00773-CV

Valerie Gray and 1720 W. Anderson Lane, L.L.C., Appellants

v.

Catherine Galvan, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 419TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, KELLY, AND SMITH

REVERSED AND RENDERED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART --

OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on September 9, 2019. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in 

the court’s judgment. The Court reverses the trial court’s judgment and renders a take nothing 

judgment against Galvan. We remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings to 

determine the attorney’s fees and court costs. The appellee shall pay all costs relating to this 

appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5329 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5329

  To modify the project for navigation and environmental restoration, 
 Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, Texas, authorized by the Water 
       Resources Development Act of 1996, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 18, 2010

   Mr. Gene Green of Texas introduced the following bill; which was 
     referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To modify the project for navigation and environmental restoration, 
 Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, Texas, authorized by the Water 
       Resources Development Act of 1996, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. HOUSTON-GALVESTON NAVIGATION CHANNELS, TEXAS.

    The project for navigation and environmental restoration, Houston-
Galveston Navigation Channels, Texas, authorized by section 101(a)(30) 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3666), is 
modified to authorize the Secretary to extend the boundaries of the 
Galveston channel approximately 2600 feet beyond Pier 38, if the 
Secretary determines that the extension is feasible.
                                 <all>
```
NO. 07-05-0204-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL C

OCTOBER 26, 2005

______________________________

RONALD THOMAS, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 64TH DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;

NO. A15178-0310; HONORABLE ROBERT W. KINKAID, JR., JUDGE

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS and HANCOCK, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Ronald Thomas brought this appeal from his conviction for possession of a

controlled substance. Based on a finding by the trial court that appellant no longer wishes

to prosecute the appeal, we will dismiss. 

We previously ordered the appeal abated for a hearing, in accordance with Texas

Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(b), to determine whether appellant desires to prosecute

the appeal and, if so, whether he is indigent and entitled to appointed counsel. See

Thomas v. State, No. 07-05-0204-CR, 2005 Tex.App. LEXIS 7933, (Tex.App.–Amarillo,
2

no pet.) In conformity with our September 28, 2005 order, the trial court gave notice of a

hearing, which was held on October 12, 2005. Appellant appeared at the hearing. The

trial court found that appellant does not wish to proceed with this appeal. 

In accordance with the trial court’s finding and, without addressing the merits, we

dismiss this appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(4), 43.2(f). 

Mackey K. Hancock

 Justice

Do not publish.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000051387
<NAME>                        International Mercantile Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    US DOLLARS


<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                       1
<CASH>                                          278,168
<SECURITIES>                                    487,372
<RECEIVABLES>                                   241,332
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                519,500
<PP&E>                                          139,655
<DEPRECIATION>                                  133,944
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                2,399,088
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           490,893
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                         50,807
<OTHER-SE>                                    2,671,571
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  2,399,088
<SALES>                                         337,263
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                337,263
<CGS>                                           177,724
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   260,719
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (4,618)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                4,800
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (109,178)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (109,178)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (109,178)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.03)


</TABLE>
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Chaunte, KS, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0498

Issued: June 3, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On February 14, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 2, 2022 merit decision of

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 22-0498.

In a letter dated April 16, 2022 and received April 25, 2022, appellant requested that the appeal 

be withdrawn.

The Board has duly considered the matter and concludes that appellant’s request for the 

withdrawal of the appeal should be granted. Accordingly, 
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT appellant’s request for the withdrawal of the appeal is 

granted. The appeal docketed as No. 22-0498 is dismissed.

Issued: June 3, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
#### BILL STREMMEL MOTORS, INC., Appellant, v. JACK L. KERNS, Respondent.

No. 7326

February 26, 1975

531 P.2d 1357

*Petersen & Petersen,*of Reno, for Appellant.

*John Frankovich,*of Reno, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

This appeal is from a judgment entered on a jury verdict, awarding actual and punitive damages for fraud.

*111Appellant made no motion for a directed verdict, NRCP 50(a), or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, NRCP 50(b), or for a new trial, NRCP 59(a). However, on appeal, appellant urges that the evidence fails to support the judgment. We will not consider this contention. See: Price v. Sinnott, 85 Nev. 600, 460 P.2d 837 (1969); NRCP 50(b), as amended in 1971.

Similarly, we decline to consider an objection first proffered on appeal concerning a jury instruction on burden of proof. NRCP 51; Fireman’s Fund Ins. v. Shawcross, 84 Nev. 446, 442 P.2d 907 (1968); Shoshone Coca Cola v. Dolinski, 82 Nev. 439, 420 P.2d 855 (1966).

Having considered appellant’s other contentions, we believe appellant has demonstrated no error, properly preserved for review, which affected substantial rights of the parties.
**
**Exhibit 32**

**CERTIFICATION OF**

**THETRUSTEE***

**OF THE SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

In connection with the accompanying report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2023, andfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Nancy Willis of Argent Trust Company, on behalf of Argent Trust Company, the Trustee of the San Juan Basin Royalty Trust (the “Trust”),* notin its individual capacity but solely as Trustee of the Trust, hereby certify that: 

 
 1.
The Report fully complies in all material respects with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (as explained in Note 1 to the Trust’s financial statements contained in the Report, in accordance with the Securities and Exchange Commission Staff Accounting Bulletin Topic 12:E, FinancialStatements of Royalty Trusts, the Trust prepares its financial statements in a manner that differs from generally accepted accounting principles; such presentation is customary to other royalty trusts); and 

 
 2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Trust. 

 
ARGENT TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE OF THE SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUSTBy: 
/s/ Nancy Willis
Name: Nancy WillisTitle: Director of Royalty Trust Services
Date: April 1, 2024 

 
*
The Trust has no executive officers. 
**