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

| (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: April              10, 2006 |                                                                                                                                     | /s/ Robert              A. Olins |
|                                   | Robert              A. Olins                                                                                                                  |
|                                   | Chief                Executive Officer, PrincipalFinancial                and Accounting Officer,Secretary                and Treasurer  |

----
#### WARREN E. MOODY t/d/b/a ELVERSON MOTORS v. WARREN-ROBBINS, INC. and B & L MOTORS, INC.

(Filed 4 November, 1959.)

1. Venue § 4b—

The court has the discretionary power to remove a cause to another county for the convenience of witnesses, and action of the court In doing so in this case after a mistrial for inability of the jury to reach a verdict is affirmed, the order being based on the evidence taken at the trial, and there being nothing in the record to show that .the opposing parties were denied an opportunity to present evidence in opposition to the motion or that they requested a continuance of the hearing of the motion for an opportunity to present evidence.

Higgins, J., not sitting.

Appeal by defendants from *Gwyn, J.,*June 1959 Term, of Wilkes.

Plaintiff is a resident of Guilford. Defendants are North Carolina corporations having their principal place of business in Wilkes. The complaint alleges plaintiff is the owner of a Cadillac automobile which, with the documents necessary to transfer title, was stolen .and sold to defendant Warren-Robbins, Inc., who in turn mortgaged it to defendant B & L Motors, Inc. Plaintiff prays that he be adjudged the owner and entitled to possession of the motor vehicle.

Defendants, by .answer, admitted a purchase from the alleged thief, *173who, they assert, was the agent of plaintiff with authority to sell.

The cause was submitted to a jury at the June Term of Wilkes on issues Raised by the pleadings. The jury was unable to agree on a verdict, and on Saturday, the last day of the term, a juror was withdrawn and a mistrial ordered. Plaintiff then made an oral motion to remove the cause to Guilford County for the convenience of witnesses.

The court, reciting: “This cause being heard and it .appearing to the court upon motion of the plaintiffs made in open court following an extensive trial of this cause that it would be to the convenience of witnesses that the cause be removed -to Guilford County for trial, and also that it would promote the ends of justice,” ordered the removal.

After the order was signed, plaintiff was permitted to reduce his motion for removal to writing and to file an affidavit signed by plaintiff in support of the motion.

Defendants excepted to the order removing the cause to Guilford and appealed.

*E. James Moore and Cecil Lee Porter for plaintiff, appellee.*

*Ralph Davis for appellant Warren-Robbins, Inc. and McElwee & Ferree for appellant B & L Motors, Inc.*

Pee OuRiam.

The cause was properly instituted in Wilkes County. G.S. 1-76. This did not, however, prevent plaintiff from seeking a removal for the convenience of witnesses. *Pushman v. Dameron,*208 N.C. 336, 180 S.E. 578. Whether the motion to remove should be granted was a matter in the discretion of the court.

The record presented to us does not ©how defendants, as here argued, were denied an opportunity to present evidence in opposition to the motion. It does not show a request to continue the hearing with opportunity to present evidence. The order was based on the evidence taken at the trial.

Affirmed.

Higgins, J., not sitting.
#### STATE v. LATTIMER B. SPAULDING.

(Filed 16 December, 1936.)

Receiving Stolen Goods § 3 — Charge must direct that guilty knowledge, express or implied, must exist at time of receiving stolen property.

Knowledge that the goods were stolen at the time of receiving them is an essential element of the offense of receiving stolen goods, and although guilty knowledge may be inferred from incriminating circumstances, a charge that such knowledge might be actual or implied, without specifying that it would have to exist at the time of the receiving, is erroneous.

Appeal by defendant from *Barker, J.,*at May Term, 1936, of New Hanover.

Criminal prosecution, tried upon warrant charging the defendant with “receiving stolen goods knowing them to have been stolen,” cigars, etc., *64of the value of $10.00, the property of Fannie Burnett. The warrant was amended in the Superior Court with a view to charging a violation of C. S., 4251.

The evidence on behalf of the State tends to show that the defendant is a merchant in the city of Wilmington; that on 6 April, 1935, he purchased from one Henry Brown a box of Lillian Russell cigars, some smoking tobacco, and twelve packages of raisins, for $1.25, which the said Brown had stolen from Fannie Burnett. The retail price of said cigars is “two for a nickel,” and the raisins sell for five cents a package. The defendant’s “reputation is bad for handling stolen goods and whiskey.”

The defendant offered evidence in denial of the State’s case.

Yerdict: “Guilty of receiving stolen property, knowing it to have been stolen, as charged in the warrant.”

Judgment: Four months on the roads.

Defendant appeals, assigning errors.

*Attorney-General Seawell and Assistant Attorney-General McMullan for the State.*

*Herbert McGlammy for defendant.*

Stacy, C. J.

Touching the question of *scienter,*the court instructed the jury as follows: “It is necessary to establish either actual or implied knowledge. . . . This knowledge that the goods were stolen may be actual or it may be implied. . . . The test is as to the knowledge, actual or implied.”

This instruction, it would seem, was prejudicial to the defendant. *S. v. Morrison,*207 N. C., 804, 178 S. E., 562. True, the jury is at liberty to infer guilty knowledge from circumstances justifying the inference, *S. v. Wilson,*176 N. C., 751, 97 S. E., 496, but the knowledge inferred must be such as to bring it within the condemnation of the statute. *S. v. Lowe,*204 N. C., 572, 169 S. E., 180; *S. v. Stathos,*208 N. C., 456, 181 S. E., 273, properly interpreted, is accordant herewith.

Knowledge that the goods were stolen at the time of receiving them is an essential element of the offense. *S. v. Barbee,*197 N. C., 248, 148 S. E., 249; *S. v. Dail,*191 N. C., 231, 131 S. E., 573; *S. v. Caveness,*78 N. C., 484.

The sufficiency of the warrant, as amended, is not questioned.

New trial.
## Detailed Single Year Tables

- Individual Provisions
- Level of Monthly Benefits

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						B7.9: Beginning for newly eligible retired workers and spouses in 2030, all claimants who are married would receive a specified joint-and-survivor annuity benefit (i.e., surviving spouses would receive 75 percent of the decedents' benefits, in addition to their own) that would be payable if both were still alive. Initial benefits would be actuarially adjusted to keep the expected value of benefits equivalent to what would otherwise be current law.**

### Financial Estimates for the OASDI Trust Fund Program

### Summarized Estimates
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
 Temperate Tree Fruit and Vegetable Research: Wapato, WA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Facilities
                        USDA Laboratory in Wapato, WA
                                    USDA Prosser Worksite
                                    USDA Moxee Farm
                    About UsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Wapato, Washington Temperate Tree Fruit and Vegetable Research Research





- Cooper, William - Rodney
- Crop Protection & Quarantine (304)

Research Project: **Location:
                            Temperate Tree Fruit and Vegetable Research** Project Number: 2092-22430-003-006-R
                        
                        Project Type: Reimbursable Cooperative Agreement Start Date: Oct 1, 2019
                        
                        End Date: Jun 30, 2024 **Objective:**
                        
                        Identify the dietary history spotted lanternfly nymphs and adults captured in specialty crops. **Approach:**
                        
                        Molecular gut content analysis will be used to identify the dietary history of captured spotted lanternflies. Universal PCR primers will be used to amplify plant DNA present in the insects’ guts. The amplified DNA will be sequenced, and dietary history determined from sequence analyses.


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
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-30941

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MILTON ALEXANDER, also known as Bug,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

No. 99-31078

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL DONNELL BROWN, 

also known as Hammer, Officer,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

(98-CR-30024)

 

January 12, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

1 In his supplemental brief, Brown argues that Apprendi v. New

Jersey, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000), prevents courts from determining

drug amounts for purposes of applying the sentencing guidelines

(within the ranges prescribed by 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)). This

argument has been completely foreclosed by United States v.

Doggett, 230 F.3d 160, 166 (5th Cir. 2000).

2 Counsel for Brown notes that it is arguable that Brown’s

counsel was ineffective. Counsel for Brown correctly notes,

however, that any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must

be raised on collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and not on

direct appeal, since no such claim was raised before the district

court. United States v. Armendariz-Mata, 949 F.2d 151, 156 (5th

Cir. 1991).

2

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Milton Alexander and courtappointed counsel for Michael Donnell Brown have each moved to

withdraw and have filed briefs as required by Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). Brown’s motion to file a supplemental brief

is GRANTED.1

We have independently reviewed the briefs submitted by

counsel, the responses filed by Alexander and Brown, and the record

in both appeals, and we have found no nonfrivolous issue.2

Accordingly, counsel are excused from further responsibilities

herein, and the APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
Exhibit 23.1


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-13719) pertaining to the American Disposal Services, Inc. 1996 Stock
Option Plan of our report dated February 26, 1997, except as to Note 5 for which
the date is March 21, 1997, and as to Note 10 for which the date is March 25,
1997, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of American Disposal
Services, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) for the year ended
December 31, 1996.

Chicago, Illinois
March 31, 1997
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6602

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TERRANCE LAMAR WIGGINS, a/k/a T-Wig, a/k/a Barnwell,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. 

Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (1:12-cr-00333-MBS-1; 1:15-cv-04013-

MBS)

Submitted: September 28, 2017 Decided: October 2, 2017

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terrance Lamar Wiggins, Appellant Pro Se. Stanley D. Ragsdale, Julius Ness 

Richardson, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Terrance Lamar Wiggins seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief 

on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A 

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable 

jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wiggins has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 14, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 8441]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3586]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
[AC-06; OTS No. 02984]


Wells Federal Bank, fsb, Wells, Minnesota; Approval of Conversion 
Application

    Notice is hereby given that on February 2, 1995, the Deputy 
Assistant Director, Corporate Activities, Office of Thrift Supervision, 
or her designee, acting pursuant to delegated authority, approved the 
application of Wells Federal Bank, fsb, Wells, Minnesota, to convert to 
the stock form of organization. Copies of the application are available 
for inspection at the Information Services Division, Office of Thrift 
Supervision, 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552, and the Midwest 
Office, Office of Thrift Supervision, 122 W. John Carpenter Freeway, 
Suite 600, Irving, Texas 75039.

    Dated: February 8, 1995.

    By the Office of Thrift Supervision.
Nadine Y. Washington,
Corporate Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-3586 Filed 2-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6720-01-M
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Lincare Holdings Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements Nos. 
33-55202, 33-595656, 33-90602, 333-46969 and 333-71159 on Form S-8 of Lincare 
Holdings Inc. of our report dated February 9, 1999, relating to the 
consolidated balance sheets of Lincare Holdings Inc. and subsidiaries as of 
December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the related consolidated statements of 
operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows and related consolidated 
financial statement schedule for each of the years in the three-year period 
ended December 31, 1998, which report appears in the December 31, 1998 annual 
report on Form 10-K of Lincare Holdings Inc.



                                               KPMG LLP


St. Petersburg, Florida
March 29, 1999
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-14891

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:11-cr-00249-WTM-GRS-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANAISSA BETH GERWALD, 

a.k.a. Anaizza Gerwald, 

a.k.a. Ann E Merraw, 

a.k.a. Ana Isabel Marraquin, 

a.k.a. Ana Isabel Garcia, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

________________________

(June 21, 2013)

Before MARCUS, WILSON and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 12-14891 Date Filed: 06/21/2013 Page: 1 of 2 
2

John E. Morrison, appointed counsel for Anaissa Beth Gerwald in this direct 

criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the 

appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 

1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals 

that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because 

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, 

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Gerwald’s convictions and 

sentences are AFFIRMED.

Case: 12-14891 Date Filed: 06/21/2013 Page: 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 33 (Friday, February 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 9333]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3982]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Notice of Agreement(s) Filed

    The Federal Maritime Commission hereby gives notice that the 
following agreement(s) has been filed with the Commission for approval 
pursuant to section 15 of the Shipping Act, 1916, as amended (39 Stat. 
733, 75 Stat. 763, 46 U.S.C. Sec. 814).
    Interested parties may inspect and may request a copy of each 
agreement and the supporting statement at the Washington, D.C. Office 
of the Federal Maritime Commission, 1100 L Street, N.W., Room 10325. 
Interested parties may submit protests or comments on each agreement to 
the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, D.C. 20573, 
within 10 days after the date of the Federal Register in which this 
notice appears. The requirements for comments and protests are found in 
Sec. 560.7 of Title 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Interested 
persons should consult this section before communicating with the 
Commission regarding a pending agreement.
    Any person filing a comment or protest with the Commission shall, 
at the same time, deliver a copy of that document to the person filing 
the agreement at the address shown below.
    Agreement No.: 224-003154-001.
    Title: Port of Seattle/Sell Oil Company Preferential Use Agreement.
    Parties:

    Port of Seattle
    Shell Oil Company (``Shell'')

    Filing Agent: James G. Rice, Senior Property Manager, Port of 
Seattle, P.O. Box 1209, Seattle, WA 98111.
    Synopsis: The proposed amendment authorizes Shell to sell and 
transfer its rights and obligations to GATX Terminal Corporation. It 
also adds an annual minimum guarantee and revises certain payment 
provisions to the Agreement.

    Dated: February 13, 1995.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
Joseph C. Polking,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-3982 Filed 2-16-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
#### Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank, Plaintiff, v. Mary Lynch and others, Defendants.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Opinion by

Churchill, J.