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 Multimedia Games, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of
the undersigned, Anthony M. Sanfilippo, Chief Executive Officer, and Adam D.
Chibib, Chief Financial Officer, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (“Section 906”), that, based upon each of their respective
knowledge:
  (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.
  Dated:
      December 14, 2009
              /s/
      Anthony M. SanfilippoAnthony
      M. SanfilippoChief
      Executive Officer/s/
      Adam D. ChibibAdam
      D. ChibibChief
      Financial Officer
                (Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)
  A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Multimedia Games, Inc., and will
be retained by Multimedia Games, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 66 (Thursday, April 6, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 17574]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8483]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Clean Water 
Act

    In accordance with Departmental policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is 
hereby given that a proposed consent decree in United States v. City of 
Fort Morgan, Civil Action No. 94-C-492, was lodged on March 21, 1995 in 
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The 
consent decree settles an action brought under the Clean Water Act (the 
``Act''), 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. seeking an injunction and civil 
penalties for the City of Fort Morgan's violations of the Act and for 
violations of the General Pretreatment Regulations, 40 CFR Part 403. 
Pursuant to the consent decree, the City has agreed to pay a civil 
penalty of $268,000 and agreed to institute a comprehensive compliance 
program to bring the City into compliance with all requirements of the 
pretreatment regulations.
    The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the 
proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant 
Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, 
Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530, and should refer to United 
States v. City of Fort Morgan, DOJ Ref. #90-5-1-1-4041.
    The proposed consent decree may be examined at the office of the 
United States Attorney, 1961 Stout Street, Suite 1200, Denver, Colorado 
80294; and at the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street NW., 4th Floor, 
Washington, DC 20005, (202) 624-0892. A copy of the proposed consent 
decree may be obtained in person or by mail from the Consent Decree 
Library, 1120 G Street NW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20005. In 
requesting a copy please refer to the referenced case and enclose a 
check in the amount of $5.50 (25 cents per page reproduction costs), 
payable to the Consent Decree Library.
Joel Gross,
Acting Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section.
[FR Doc. 95-8483 Filed 4-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Lonnie KETTERMAN, Appellant.

No. WD 45089.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Nov. 3, 1992.

Craig A. Johnson, Columbia, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Joan F. Edwards, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before ULRICH, P.J., and SHANGLER and FENNER, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Direct appeal from a conviction of deviate sexual assault in the first degree, a Class C Felony, in violation of § 566.070, RSMo 1986, and from a sentence of five years imprisonment.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 2 0

- 1 0 449 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 9:18

- cv - 80633

- RKA
MARGARET SCHULTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

versus AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC ., Defendant

- Appellee

.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florid a

________________________ ( August 9, 2021 ) Before WILLIAM PRYOR , Chief Judge, WILSON and ROSENBAUM , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Margaret Schultz appeals the summary judgment in favor of American Airlines, Inc. Schultz sued American for breach of contr act for failing to complete

USCA11 Case: 20-10449 Date Filed: 08/09/2021 Page: 1 of 22 an online transaction for an airline ticket significantly cheaper than the ticket she bought

. W e affirm. Schultz argues that the district court erred in ruling that the record contradicted her story and that no contract existed , but we need not address those arguments because we can affirm on the third alternative ground stated by the district court. Before w e will reverse a “judgment that is based on multiple, independent grounds, an appellant must convince us that every stated ground for the judgment against him is incorrect.” Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co. , 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014). If the “appellant fails to challenge properly on appeal one of the grounds on which the district court based its judgment, he is deemed to have abandoned any challenge of that ground

. . . .” Id. The district
court ruled that any contract that American created w ith Schultz due to a malfunction on the airline website would be set aside under the doctrine of unilateral mistake. See Deprince v. Starboard Cruise Servs. , 271 So. 3d 11, 20 (Fla. Dist. C t. A pp. 2018). Because Schultz failed to c hallenge that alternative ruling in her initial brief , “it follows that the [ summary judgment in favor of American Airlines ] is due to be affirmed.” Sapuppo , 739 F.3d at 680.
AFFIRM ED. USCA11 Case: 20-10449 Date Filed: 08/09/2021 Page: 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT


We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form
S-1 of Discover Card Trust 1993 B (Registration Number 33-57302) of the
Independent Accountants' Report dated January 22, 1999, delivered pursuant to
Section 3.06 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of February 1,
1993, as amended, between Greenwood Trust Company and Wilmington Trust Company
as Trustee, filed as Exhibit 99(B) to the Transition Report on Form 10-K of
Discover Card Trust 1993 B for the period from January 1, 1998 through November
30, 1998.



                                                  /s/ Deloitte & Touche, LLP
                                                  ------------------------------


February 19, 1999
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 17, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-3057

TriMas Corporation: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/%2434_Billion_Exclusions_Gr

anted_September.pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 29, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5136

Radio Systems Corp:

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_5-30-2019.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
**EXHIBIT99.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEFEXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

I, Patrick J. Dirk,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report Troy Group, Inc.on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2003 fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in allmaterial respects the financial condition and results of operations of TroyGroup, Inc.

 

 
|   | By:                                           | /s/ Patrick J. Dirk |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------|---------------------|
|   | Name: Patrick J. Dirk                         |
|   | Title: President and  Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4007

Cummins Allison Corp:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             611
<SECURITIES>                                    17,002
<RECEIVABLES>                                      404
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,428
<PP&E>                                           5,320
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,836
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,912
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,526
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,370
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,912
<SALES>                                             44
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,969
<CGS>                                               18
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,488
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,104)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,104)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,104)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.56)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.56)
        


</TABLE>
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3370

ENRGISTX INC:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5635

Tianhai Electric North America:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

October 17, 2017

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BRETT W. ELLIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 17-3037

(D.C. Nos. 2:14-CV-02578-KHV and

2:12-CR-20093-KHV-DJW-1)

(D. Kan.)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

Before PHILLIPS, McKAY, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.

Appellant seeks a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s

denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas petition.

Following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence found in a search

of his residence and computers, Appellant pled guilty to possession of child

pornography and was sentenced pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement to

a below-guidelines sentence of seventy-two months. In his § 2255 petition, he

raised several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, all relating to the

*

 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its

persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
unsuccessful motion to suppress.

The district court denied Appellant’s § 2255 petition in a comprehensive

twenty-three page order, in which the court analyzed each of Appellant’s claims

and explained why each claim failed to show constitutionally ineffective

advocacy and/or prejudice under the Supreme Court’s governing Strickland

standard. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 694 (1984).

After thoroughly reviewing Appellant’s brief and the record on appeal, we

conclude that reasonable jurists would not debate the correctness of the district

court’s ruling. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). For

substantially the same reasons given by the district court, we DENY Appellant’s

request for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS the appeal.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Monroe G. McKay

Circuit Judge

-2-
Exhibit 99.4








The undersigned, being an officer of Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as trustee (the "Trustee"), with respect to Merrill Lynch Municipal ABS, Inc. Prerefunded Municipal Certificates, Series 2 and Series 3, on whose behalf Merrill Lynch Municipal ABS Inc. has prepared this annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2011 (the "Annual Report"), certifies as follows:





1. The Trustee is the trustee under the trust agreement.





2. Based on my knowledge, for the periods included in the year covered by the Annual Report, the Trustee has fulfilled its obligations, including any servicing obligations, under the trust agreement.











/s/ Teddy Banica
 Name:
Teddy BanicaTitle:
Assistant Vice PresidentDate:
March 16, 2012
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 61 (Thursday, March 30, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 16502]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7818]



[[Page 16502]]

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[OR-942-00-1420-00: G5-092]


Filing of Plats of Survey: Oregon/Washington

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The plats of survey of the following described lands are 
scheduled to be officially filed in the Oregon State Office, Portland, 
Oregon, thirty (30) calendar days from the date of this publication.

Willamette Meridian

Oregon

T. 25 S., R. 3 W., accepted March 3, 1995
T. 29 S., R. 3 W., accepted March 1, 1995
T. 21 S., R. 7 W., accepted March 3, 1995

Washington

T. 23 N., R. 10 W., accepted February 22, 1995
T. 23 N., R. 11 W., accepted February 22, 1995
T. 23 N., R. 12 W., accepted February 22, 1995
T. 24 N., R. 12 W., accepted February 22, 1995
T. 24 N., R. 13 W., accepted February 22, 1995

    If protests against a survey, as shown on any of the above plat(s), 
are received prior to the date of official filing, the filing will be 
stayed pending consideration of the protest(s). A plat will not be 
officially filed until the day after all protests have been dismissed 
and become final or appeals from the dismissal affirmed.
    The plat(s) will be placed in the open files of the Oregon State 
Office, Bureau of Land Management, 1515 S.W. 5th Avenue, Portland, 
Oregon 97201, and will be available to the public as a matter of 
information only. Copies of the plat(s) may be obtained from the above 
office upon required payment. A person or party who wishes to protest 
against a survey must file with the State Director, Bureau of Land 
Management, Portland, Oregon, a notice that they wish to protest prior 
to the proposed official filing date given above. A statement of 
reasons for a protest may be filed with the notice of protest to the 
State Director, or the statement of reasons must be filed with the 
State Director within thirty (30) days after the proposed official 
filing date.
    The above-listed plats represent dependent resurveys, survey and 
subdivision.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bureau of Land Management (1515 SW 5th Avenue), P.O. Box 2965, 
Portland, Oregon 97208.

    Dated: March 22, 1995.
Robert D. DeViney, Jr.,
Acting Chief, Branch of Realty and Records Services.
[FR Doc. 95-7818 Filed 3-29-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-33-M