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

 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer of**

**Supreme Industries, Inc. Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

This certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and accompanies the Annual Report on Form 10-K (the “Form 10-K”) for the year ended December 25, 2010 of Supreme Industries, Inc. (the “Company”).  I, Kim Korth, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify that, based on my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  The Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered in this report.

 

 

Dated:   March 25, 2011

 

 
| /s/   Kim Korth           |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
| Chief   Executive Officer |

 

----
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-13936

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

WILBERTO VIVAS RENTERIA, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 8:20-cr-00198-MSS-AAS-3

____________________

USCA11 Case: 22-13936 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 10/23/2023 Page: 1 of 2
2 Opinion of the Court 22-13936

Before JORDAN, ABUDU, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The Government’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant 

to the appeal waiver in Appellant’s plea agreement is GRANTED. 

See United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343, 1350-51 (11th Cir. 

1993) (sentence appeal waiver will be enforced if it was made 

knowingly and voluntarily); United States v. Bascomb, 451 F.3d 1292, 

1297 (11th Cir. 2006) (appeal waiver “cannot be vitiated or altered 

by comments the court makes during sentencing”); United States v. 

Grinard-Henry, 399 F.3d 1294, 1296 (11th Cir. 2005) (waiver of the 

right to appeal includes waiver of the right to appeal difficult or 

debatable legal issues or even blatant error). 

USCA11 Case: 22-13936 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 10/23/2023 Page: 2 of 2
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-22-00267-CV

In re Elizabeth Weston

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM COMAL COUNTY

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Relator Elizabeth Weston has filed a petition for writ of mandamus and motion 

for stay of specified obligations under May 9, 2022 discovery order. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.1, 

52.10(a). We grant the motion and temporarily stay the trial court’s May 9, 2022 discovery 

ruling and the production of discovery pursuant to that ruling pending further order of this Court. 

See id. 52.10(b). The Court orders real parties in interest to file responses to the petition for writ 

of mandamus on or before May 12, 2022.

It is ordered on May 10, 2022.

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Kelly and Smith
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1370 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1370

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat certain military 
   survivor benefits as earned income for purposes of the kiddie tax.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 8, 2019

   Mr. Cassidy (for himself, Mr. Jones, Mr. Toomey, Mr. Warner, Mr. 
Grassley, Mr. Wyden, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. King, Mr. Isakson, Ms. Baldwin, 
   Mr. Crapo, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Burr, Mr. Tester, Mr. Daines, Mrs. 
Murray, Mr. Cornyn, Ms. Sinema, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Brown, Mr. 
Johnson, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Scott of South Carolina, Mr. Casey, Ms. Cortez 
Masto, Ms. Hassan, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Peters, and Mr. Hoeven) introduced 
the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 
                               on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat certain military 
   survivor benefits as earned income for purposes of the kiddie tax.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Gold Star Family Tax Relief Act''.

SEC. 2. CERTAIN MILITARY SURVIVOR BENEFITS TREATED AS EARNED INCOME FOR 
              KIDDIE TAX.

    (a) In General.--Section 1(g)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(D) Treatment of certain military survivor 
                benefits.--For purposes of this subsection, any benefit 
                under laws administered by the Secretary of Defense or 
                the Secretary of Veterans Affairs which--
                            ``(i) is received by a child by reason of 
                        the child being the survivor of a deceased 
                        member of the Armed Forces or of a deceased 
                        veteran, and
                            ``(ii) is included in the gross income of 
                        such child,
                shall be considered earned income of such child.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DANNY CHANCE

No. 9

(Filed 14 March 1973)

Criminal Law § 135— imposition of life sentence pursuant to Supreme Court order

Judgment of life imprisonment imposed on defendant by the superior court pursuant to and in accordance with an order of the Supreme Court of North Carolina is affirmed.

Appeal by defendant, Danny Chance, from a sentence of life imprisonment imposed by *Clark, Judge,*at the September 18, 1972 Session, Cumberland Superior Court.

*Robert Morgan, Attorney General, by Millard R. Rich, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the State.*

*Sol G. Cherry, Public Defender, for the defendant.*

HIGGINS, Justice.

At the March 29, 1971 Session, Cumberland Superior Court, the defendant, Danny Chance, was tried and found guilty by the jury on four felony charges: (1) The kidnapping of James Earl Buckner; (2) the kidnapping of Gwen Davis; (3) the first degree murder of James Earl Buckner; and (4) the rape of Gwen *103Davis. The jury recommended life imprisonment on the murder charge, but failed to make any recommendation on the charge of rape.

The court imposed life imprisonment sentences on the charges of kidnapping and murder. The jury having failed to make a recommendation as to punishment on the charge of rape, the court, as authorized by G.S. 14-21, imposed a death sentence. On appeal, this Court found no error in the trial, verdicts, and judgments entered. *State v. Chance,*279 N.C. 643, 185 S.E. 2d 227.

The Supreme Court of the United States allowed certiorari, vacated the death sentence on the charge of rape, and remanded the case to this Court for further proceedings. Obedient to the mandate, this Court directed that the presiding judge of the Cumberland County Superior Court, by proper writ, bring the defendant and his counsel of record before the court and “pronounce [in the rape case] judgment that defendant [Danny Chance] be imprisoned for life in the State’s prison.”

At the September 18, 1972 Session, Cumberland Superior Court, defendant Danny Chance and his counsel being before the court, Judge Clark, as directed, imposed a sentence of life imprisonment on the charge of rape. The defendant by appeal now seeks to have the judgment reviewed.

The sentence of life imprisonment was entered in strict compliance with the order of this Court. The procedure is in accordance with our decided cases. *State v. Childs,*280 N.C. 576, 187 S.E. 2d 78; *State v. Hill,*279 N.C. 371, 183 S.E. 2d 97; *State v. Atkinson,*279 N.C. 385, 183 S.E. 2d 105; *State v. Atkinson,*279 N.C. 386, 183 S.E. 2d 106; *State v. Williams,*279 N.C. 388, 183 S.E. 2d 106; *State v. Sanders,*279 N.C. 389, 183 S.E. 2d 107; *State v. Roseboro,*279 N.C. 391, 183 S.E. 2d 108.

The sentence of life imprisonment is

Affirmed.
**Exhibit32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of K-tel International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Larry Dunmall,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.                     The reportfully complies with the requirement 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 Company.

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.
| By                        |      /s/ LARRY DUNMALL |   |
|---------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Larry Dunmall             |
| *Chief Financial Officer* |
| September 18, 2006        |

 

----
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Bureau of Industry and Security Transportation and Related Equipment 

The Transportation and Related Equipment Technical Advisory Committee will meet on March 17, 2005, 9:30 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street Between Pennsylvania & Constitution Avenues, NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to transportation and related equipment or technology.

## Agenda

1. Opening remarks and introductions.

2. Update on country-specific policies.

3. Update on regulations and procedures.

4. Review of Wassenaar Arrangement and Technical Working Group issues.

5. Review of Missile Technology Control Regime issues.

6. Update on Commerce Control List issues.

7. Update on status of U.S. Munitions List review.

8. Presentation of papers, proposals and comments by the public.

                    The meeting will be open to the public and a limited number of seats will be available. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. Written statements may be submitted at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the Committee suggests that you forward your public presentation materials to Lee Ann Carpenter at                     *Lcarpent@bis.doc.gov.*

For more information, call Ms. Carpenter on (202) 482-2583.

Dated: February 2, 2005.

Lee Ann Carpenter,

Committee Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 05-2247  Filed 2-4-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-JT-M
# L_2007227EN.01000801.xml

| 31.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 227/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 227/8

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1007/2007

of 30 August 2007

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 38/2007

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1), and in particular the second subparagraph and point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 33(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 38/2007 of 17 January 2007 opening a standing invitation to tender for the resale for export of sugar held by the intervention agencies of Belgium, the Czech Republic, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Sweden (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 38/2007 of 17 January 2007 opening a standing invitation to tender for the resale for export of sugar held by the intervention agencies of Belgium, the Czech Republic, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Sweden (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 38/2007 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 29 August 2007, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for that partial invitation to tender. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 38/2007 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 29 August 2007, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for that partial invitation to tender.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the partial invitation to tender ending on 29 August 2007, the maximum export refund for the product referred to in Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 38/2007 shall be 473,09 EUR/t.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 31 August 2007.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 30 August 2007.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 58, 28.2.2006, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 247/2007 (OJ L 69, 9.3.2007, p. 3).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 11, 18.1.2007, p. 4. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 203/2007 (OJ L 61, 28.2.2006, p. 3).

2

---
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense POW/MIA Accounting AgencyFulfilling Our Nation's Promise

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Home		 
-  Families		 
-  Our Missing    -  Searchable List of the Missing             
  -  Searchable Map of the Missing             
  -  Recently Accounted For             
  -  World War II      -  World War II Summary             
    -  Battle of Tarawa             
    -  Attack on Pearl Harbor 
  -  Korean War      -  Korean War Summary             
    -  Battle of Chosin Reservoir             
    -  Battle of Unsan             
    -  Korean Air Battles             
    -  The Inchon Campaign             
    -  The Pusan Perimeter             
    -  The DMZ Campaigns             
    -  Korean War Disinterments             
    -  Operation Glory             
    -  POW Camps 
  -  Vietnam War      -  Vietnam War Summary             
    -  Vietnam War Identification Project             
    -  Tet Offensive             
    -  Battle of Khe Sanh             
    -  Mayaguez Incident             
    -  Battle of Ia Drang             
    -  Lam Son 
  -  Cold War             
  -  Gulf Wars & Libya             
  -  Unknowns 
-  News & Stories    -  Our Stories             
  -  Press Releases             
  -  DPAA In The News             
  -  Year In Review 
-  Multimedia    -  Livestreams             
  -  Podcast             
  -  Briefing Videos             
  -  Science Videos             
  -  DPAA Laboratory             
  -  Media Gallery 
-  Resources    -  FAQs             
  -  AFMES DNA Laboratory             
  -  Publicly Released Documents             
  -  Family/VSO Update Notes             
  -  Family Member Guide             
  -  POW/MIA Day Toolkit             
  -  USRJC 
-  About    -  Leadership             
  -  Vision-Mission-Values             
  -  DPAA Organizational Chart 
-  Contact    -  Contact Us             
  -  Join Us      -  Careers 
  -  Report a Site             
  -  Donate to the Mission 
-  Volunteer		 

## 

## Image Gallery

Search

Search

                              - Upload Date
                              - Photo Date
                              - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.8 MB)

Tags:

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
#### State v. JERRY WALSTON.

(Filed 1 May 1963.)

3. Criminal Law § 106—

It is prejudicial error for the court to place the burden upon defendant to prove an alibi.

2. Criminal Law § 151—

The Supreme Court is bound by the record as certified.

Appeal by defendant from *Mallard,*J.., September Mixed Term 1962 of Lee.

Criminal prosecution on an indictment charging defendant with the commission of a crime against nature, a violation .of G.S. 14-177. Plea: Not Guilty. Verdict: Guilty as charged.

From a judgment of imprisonment, defendant appeals.

*Attorney General T. W. Bruton and Assistant Attorney General Harry W. McGalliard for the State.*

*386
      *Ii. M. Jackson and J. W. Hoyle for defendant appellant.*

Per Curiam.

The evidence for the State was amply sufficient to carry the case to the jury. Defendant concedes this in bis brief.

Defendant in his behalf offered evidence tending to establish an alibi. Defendant assigns as error this part of the charge: “The burden of proving an alibi, however, does rest upon the defendant, the burden of proof being brought up to show his inability to have committed the crime with which he is charged; his part in the crime charged are affirmative material facts that he must show beyond a reasonable doubt to sustain a verdict.”

The assignment of error is good. The burden of proof rests upon the State to establish beyond a reasonable doubt all elements of the offense charged, including the defendant’s presence at the place of the crime, at the time of its commission, where that is essential to his guilt. In the instant case, the presence of the defendant at the place of the crime, at the time of its commission, is essential to his guilt. *S. v. Allison,*256 N.C. 240, 123 S.E. 2d 465; *S. v. Minton,*234 N.C. 716, 68 S.E 2d 844; *S. v. Bridgers,*233 N.C. 577, 64 S.E. 2d 867; 22A C.J.S., Criminal Law, sec. 574, Alibi, p. 320. The Attorney General, with his usual fairness, concedes error in this challenged part of the charge.

In justice to the experienced trial judge, we deem it appropriate to say from reading the charge that it seems manifest that it has not been correctly transcribed, but if it has been, then the error appearing in the challenged part of the charge above set forth is “one of those casualties which, now and then, befalls the most circumspect in the trial of causes on the circuit.” *S. v. Simpson,*233 N.C. 438, 442, 64 S.E. 2d 568, 571. However that may be, the error appears in the record, and we are bound by it as it comes to us. *S. v. Gause,*227 N.C. 26, 40 S.E. 2d 463. The exception and assignment of error to the charge are well taken, and a new trial is ordered.

New trial.
Case 2:05-cv-09559-VM-HBP Document 24 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 1 of 2Case 2:05-cv-09559-VM-HBP Document 24 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### PHILPOTT v. KERNS

No. 10 PC.

Case below: 18 N.C. App. 663.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 31 August 1973.
Case 1:07-cv-03316-JSR Document 1 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 1 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-03316-JSR Document 1 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 2 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-03316-JSR Document 1 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 3 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-03316-JSR Document 1 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 4 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-03316-JSR Document 1 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 5 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-03316-JSR Document 1 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 6 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-03316-JSR Document 1 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 7 of 7
U.S. Department of Labor 

Wage and Hour Division

WHEN AND WHERE IS YOUR TEEN 

ALLOWED TO WORK? 

Every year, millions of teens work in part-time or summer jobs. Early work experiences can be 

rewarding for young workers, providing great opportunities to learn important skills. However, 

the jobs that teens do should not jeopardize their health or well-being.

The U.S. Department of Labor’s YouthRules! initiative promotes positive and safe work 

experiences for young workers by educating parents, teens, employers, and educators about 

the types of jobs teens can hold and the number of hours they can work. 

14- and 15-Year-Olds Can Work:

• Outside school hours

• After 7 a.m. and until 7 p.m. (hours are extended to 9 p.m. June 1 through Labor Day) 

• Up to 3 hours on a school day 

• Up to 18 hours in a school week 

• Up to 8 hours on a non-school day 

• Up to 40 hours in a non-school week 

Once teens reach 16 years of age, they can work any hours.

Jobs Teens Can Perform:

• Youth 13 years old or younger can baby-sit, deliver newspapers, or work as actors or 

performers.

• 14- and 15-year-olds may work in a variety of jobs including those located in offices, 

grocery stores, retail stores, restaurants, movie theaters, amusement parks, baseball 
parks or gasoline service stations. However, they are prohibited from working in jobs 

declared hazardous by the Secretary of Labor.

• 16- and 17-year-olds can work in any job that hasn’t been declared hazardous. There are 

17 hazardous jobs young workers under the age of 18 are prohibited from doing. Some of 

these jobs include mining, meat and poultry packing or processing, operating powerdriven bakery machines, balers, compactors, or paper-product machines, working in 

roofing or on or near a roof, and excavation operations. Most driving as part of a teen’s 

job is also prohibited.

Once a youth reaches 18 years of age, he or she is no longer subject to the federal child 

labor laws. Different rules apply to youth employed in agriculture. States may also have 

different laws. 

For more information, including what jobs are considered hazardous, visit YouthRules.dol.gov or 

call the Department’s toll-free number at 1- 866-4US-WAGE to speak directly with a trained 

Wage and Hour Division professional who will be happy to answer your questions.