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 Report of
Acquired Sales Corp. a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the “Report”) I, Gerard M. Jacobs, Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer) hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my
knowledge:
 
 a.
              the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
      and
 
 b.
              the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.
 
 
 
 /s/ Gerard M.
Jacobs
 Gerard M.
Jacobs, President and Chief Executive Officer
 (Principal
Executive Officer)
 
 Dated
February 15, 2009
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 155 (Monday, August 11, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 46583]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18603]


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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Sunshine Act Notice

AGENCY: United States Commission on Civil Rights.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

Date and Time: Tuesday, August 19, 2008; 9:30 a.m.

Place: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 624 Ninth Street, NW., Rm. 540, 
Washington, DC 20425.

Meeting Agenda

I. Approval of Agenda
II. Approval of Minutes
    <bullet> July 11, 2008 Meeting
    <bullet> July 28, 2008 Meeting
III. Announcements
IV. Staff Director's Report
V. Program Planning
    <bullet> 2009 Briefing Topics
    <bullet> 2009 Statutory Report Topics
    <bullet> Discussion of FY 2010 Budget Submission
VI. Management and Operations
    <bullet> Evaluation of AI on Order of Precedence
VII. State Advisory Committee Issues
    <bullet> Discussion of SAC re-charter process
VIII. Future Agenda Items
IX. Adjourn

Contact Person for Further Information: Lenore Ostrowsky, Acting Chief, 
Public Affairs Unit (202) 376-8582.

    Dated: August 7, 2008.
David Blackwood,
General Counsel.
 [FR Doc. E8-18603 Filed 8-7-08; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the amended quarterly report of Veracity Management Global, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007 (the“Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, I, Michael Rideman, CEO of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Michael Rideman

Michael RidemanCEODated: July 2, 2007

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to Veracity Management Global, Inc.and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.
182 La. 11

#### Succession of JONES.

No. 33140.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 1, 1935.

Rehearing Denied April 29, 1935.

Charles J. Larkin, Jr., of New Orleans, for appellant.

James J. Cullinane, of New Orleans, for ap-pellee.'

O’NIELL, Chief Justice.

The tax collector has appealed from a judgment fixing the amount of the inheritance tax on the succession of Rose Thorne Jones,, widow of Paul Jones.

It appears that, when the court fixed the amount of the inheritance tax on the succession of Paul Jones, in January, 1930, a deduction of $17,195.51 was allowed for the debts which his succession owed. On the.trial of the rule which was brought by the testamentary executrix of the will of the widow, Rose Thorne Jones, against the tax collector, to determine the amount of the inheritance tax on her succession, in July, 1934, it developed that she had settled the debts of her husband’s succession for approxiffiately $6,660; that is to say, for $1,610 cash, $1,050 worth of building and loan association stock, and land worth $4,000. Thereupon, the attorney for the tax collector filed a rule upon the executrix, in the succession of Rose Thome Jones, to compel her to pay an additional inheritance tax on $10,535.55, being the difference between the amount of the deduction allowed for the debts of the succession of Paul Jones, $17,195.51, and the $6,660 for which the debts were settled; the basis for this additional claim of the tax collector being that Rose Thorne Jones was the universal legatee of her husband. The district judge rejected the tax collector’s claim; and that is one of his complaints on appeal. The ruling was correct. There was no fraud practiced in the listing of the debts at $17,195.51 and afterwards settling them for $6,660, as they were settled nearly three years afterwards. The creditors of Paul Jones were his relations, residing in Ohio, and they made a liberal concession in settling with his widow, as a matter of generosity to her. The»tax collector, therefore, is not warranted in attempting to go back and change the amount of the debts which were deducted to the amount for which the widow settled the debts.

The only remaining complaint of the tax collector is that the judge fixed the value of the estate of Rose Thorne Jones below what the tax collector thinks it is worth. It would serve no useful purpose to give a resume of the evidence on that subject. The appraise-ments were made by men whose knowledge of the values, and competency, is shown by the record. It is true that the appraisements were,' in some instances, far below the ap-praisements which were made in the succession of Paul Jones, four years before; but the decline in the values is well explained. Tie record does not warrant our altering the estimates made by the appraisers and approved by the district judge.

The judgment is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 23.1
------------






                          CONSENT OF KPMG LLP





The Board of Trustees
AMLI Residential Properties Trust:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 333-74300 and 333-70076) on Form S-3 of AMLI Residential Properties
Trust of our report dated February 3, 2003, relating to the consolidated
balance sheets of AMLI Residential Properties Trust as of December 31, 2002
and 2001, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 2002, and the related schedule, which report
appears in the December 31, 2002 annual report on Form 10-K of AMLI
Residential Properties Trust.










                              KPMG LLP



Chicago, Illinois
March 20, 2003
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 14

- 10657 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A088

- 094

- 603
HUMBERTO PRIN GARCIA MOLINA, JULIETA ANTONIA MILAGROS SANTANDER PALERMO, Petitioners,

versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________ (April 15, 2015) Before TJOFLAT, WILSON, and ANDERSON , Circuit Judges. PER CUR IAM: Humberto Prin Garcia Molina , proceeding pro se , has filed a petition for review from the Board of Immigration App eals’s (“BIA”) January 17, 2014 order

Case: 14-10657 Date Filed: 04/15/2015 Page: 1 of 32 denying his motion to reconsider its den ial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings

. 1 H e does not discuss the substance of that order in his appellate brief,
but instead challenges the BIA’s December 9, 2010 order affirming the denial of his application for asylum and other relief , and the BIA’s July 29, 2013 order denying his motion to reopen. Specifically, he contends that the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) failed to ascribe adequate weight to certain aspects of his testimony at the removal hearing, and that the BIA wrongly concluded that the n ew evidence supporting his motion to reopen did not show changed country conditions. We review the denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. Calle v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 504 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 2007) . When a petitioner fails to offer argument on an issue, that issue is deemed abandoned. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005). A petition for review must be filed with a co urt of appeals no later than
30 days after the date of the BIA’s final order of rem oval. Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 242(b)(1) & (2), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) & (2). The statutory time limit for filing a petition for review in an immigration proceeding is jurisdictional and is not subject to equitable tolling. See Chao Lin v. U.S. Att’y
Gen. , 677 F.3d 1043, 1044

- 46 (11th Cir. 2012) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction

1 Although Garcia Molina listed his wife, Julieta Antonia Milagros Santander Palermo, as a derivative beneficiary in his underlying application for asylum, and the instant petition for review likewise names her, Garcia Molina does not reference Santander Pal ermo in his brief on appeal

. Case: 14-10657 Date Filed: 04/15/2015 Page: 2 of 33 a petition for review that this Court’s clerk did not receive until 31 days after the BIA issued its order). Under any meas ure, Garcia Molina’s petition fails. Garcia Molina abandons on appeal any challeng e to the BIA’s January 17, 2014 order denying his motion to reconsider by not discussing that order in his brief. As to his arguments regarding
the BIA’s December 9, 2010 and July 29, 2013 orders, we lack jurisdiction to consider those arguments, as the instant February 18, 2014 petition for review was untimely filed more than 30 days after those orders were issued

. PETITION DENIED. Case: 14-10657 Date Filed: 04/15/2015 Page: 3 of 3
229 So.2d 915

#### William Walter FOSTER v. STATE.

7 Div. 873.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Oct. 23, 1969.

MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and Richard F. Calhoun, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.

Jas. F. Hinton, Gadsden, opposed.

BLOODWORTH, Justice.

Petition of the State, by its Attorney General, for, Certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision in Foster v. State, 45 Ala.App. 323, 229 So.2d 913 (7 Div. 1).

Writ denied.

LIVINGSTON, C. J„ and SIMPSON, COLEMAN and McCALL, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the quarterly report of Veracity Management Global, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2007 (the“Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, I, Richard Grassano, CFO of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Richard Grassano

Richard GrassanoCFODated: February 14, 2008

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to Veracity Management Global, Inc.and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 23

                    Consent of Cobitz, VandenBerg & Fennessy


<PAGE>



                  [Letterhead of Cobitz, VandenBerg & Fennessy]









                          INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT



         We hereby  consent to the  incorporation  by  reference  and use of our
report,  dated January 29, 1999 on the consolidated  financial statements of AMB
Financial  Corp.  which  appears  in AMB  Financial  Corp.'s  Annual  Report  of
Shareholders and Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 1998.


                                               /s/ Cobitz, VandenBerg & Fennessy
                                               ---------------------------------
                                                   Cobitz, VandenBerg & Fennessy


March 24, 1999
Palos Hills, Illinois
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 551 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 551

                For the relief of Oscar Salas-Velazquez.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 17, 1995

 Mr. Ramstad introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                For the relief of Oscar Salas-Velazquez.

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

SECTION 1. WAIVER OF GROUNDS FOR DISAPPROVAL OF REQUESTS FOR 
              CLASSIFICATION AND ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 204(c) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, the Attorney General may not disapprove a petition 
for classification of Oscar Salas-Velazquez under section 
201(b)(2)(A)(i) of such Act, or an application for adjustment of the 
status of Oscar Salas-Velazquez under section 245 of such Act, on any 
ground relating to a determination that the marriage of Oscar Salas-
Velazquez and Jennifer Christine Brady was entered into for the purpose 
of evading the immigration laws.
    (b) Waiver of Inadmissibility.--Notwithstanding section 
212(a)(6)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Oscar Salas-
Velazquez may not be considered to be within a class of excludable 
aliens on any ground relating to a determination that the marriage of 
Oscar Salas-Velazquez and Jennifer Christine Brady was entered into for 
the purpose of evading the immigration laws.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 499 Introduced in House (IH)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 499

To require the withdrawal of the United States from the North American 
             Free Trade Agreement, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 13, 1995

Mr. DeFazio (for himself, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. 
  Brown of Ohio, Mr. Evans, Mr. Everett, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Klink, Mr. 
 Lipinski, Mr. Miller of California, Mrs. Mink of Hawaii, Mr. Pallone, 
Mr. Peterson of Minnesota, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Taylor of Mississippi, Mr. 
Traficant, and Ms. Velazquez) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the withdrawal of the United States from the North American 
             Free Trade Agreement, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``NAFTA Withdrawal Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. WITHDRAWAL FROM NAFTA.

    Pursuant to Article 2205 of the North American Free Trade 
Agreement, the President of the United States shall, not later than 
ninety days after the date of the enactment of this Act, notify the 
Government of Canada and the Government of the United Mexican States of 
the withdrawal of the Government of the United States from that 
Agreement.

SEC. 3. MODIFICATIONS TO UNITED STATES LAW.

    The President shall, not later than ninety days after the date of 
the enactment of this Act, submit to the Congress proposed legislation 
making those changes to United States law that are necessary to make 
effective the withdrawal of the United States from the North American 
Free Trade Agreement.
                                 <all>
```
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4173

To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve benefits for veterans

exposed to ionizing radiation.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 25, 1996

Mr. EVANS (for himself and Mr. FILNER) introduced the following bill; which

was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

A BILL

To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve benefits

for veterans exposed to ionizing radiation.

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

3 SECTION 1. CONDITIONS PRESUMED TO BE SERVICE-CON4 NECTED DUE TO EXPOSURE TO IONIZING RA5 DIATION.

6 Section 1112(c)(2) of title 38, United States Code,

7 is amended by adding at the end the following:

8 ‘‘(P) Bone cancer.

9 ‘‘(Q) Cancer of the colon.

10 ‘‘(R) Nonmalignant thyroid nodular disease.
2

•HR 4173 IH

1 ‘‘(S) Parathyroid cancer.

2 ‘‘(T) Ovarian cancer.

3 ‘‘(U) Brain and central nervous system tumors.

4 ‘‘(V) Unexplained bone marrow failure.

5 ‘‘(W) Meningioma.’’.

6 SEC. 2. MEMBERSHIP OF VETERANS’ ADVISORY COMMIT7 TEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS.

8 Section 6(a)(1) of Public Law 98–542 (38 U.S.C.

9 1154 note) is amended by striking out ‘‘or employees of

10 the’’ and all that follows through ‘‘departments or agen11 cies’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘or officers or employ12 ees of the United States’’.

Æ
#### Marvin DANIELS, Appellant, v. KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO., Respondent.

No. WD 51609.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Oct. 22, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Nov. 26,1996.

Application to Transfer Denied Jan. 21,1997.

Charles W. Armbruster, III, Carlson, Wendler & Sanderson, P.C., St. Louis, for appellant.

Thomas S. Stewart, Douglas R. Dalgleish, Lathrop & Gage, Kansas City, for respondent.

Before ULRICH, C.J., P.J., and BRECKENRIDGE and SPINDEN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Marvin Daniels appeals from the judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) in favor of Kansas City Southern Railway Company in a personal injury action under the Federal Employers Liability Act. Mr. Daniels asserts that the trial court erred in granting the motion for JNOV because the evidence presented at trial established the railroad’s negligence.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
#### ROOSEVELT BANK, Respondent, v. Larry D. LUMLEY and Karen A. Lumley, Appellants.

No. 69332.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Aug. 20, 1996.

Appellants pro se.

Gregory F. Hoffmann, Millar, Schaefer, Hoffmann & Robertson, St. Louis, for respondent. .

Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, Larry D. Lumley and Karen A. Lumley, appeal the judgment sustaining respondent’s, Roosevelt Bank’s, motion for *949summary judgment on its action to recover the balance due on two promissory notes. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find no error. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.1603).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DARRYL ALEXANDER and EDNA

ALEXANDER,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DEL MONTE CORPORATION and THE

KROGER COMPANY,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. 09-12303

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

OPINION AND ORDER

 At a session of said Court, held in the U.S.

District Courthouse, Eastern District 

of Michigan, on January 12, 2011.

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Darryl Alexander and his wife, Edna Alexander, filed this action against Del Monte

Corporation (“Del Monte”) and The Kroger Company (“Kroger”) to recover damages for

injuries Mr. Alexander sustained while opening a jar of mixed fruit. Before the Court is

Defendants’ Motion in Limine to preclude testimony that the jar was packed before 2006.

The matter has been fully briefed by the parties, and the Court dispenses with oral argument

pursuant to Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1f(2). For the reasons stated below, the

Court denies Defendants’ Motion.

2:09-cv-12303-PJD-PJK Doc # 87 Filed 01/12/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 1181
2

In their Motion, Defendants contend that the jar was packed in September 2006, and that

the “best-by” date on the jar should have read March 31, 2008, rather than May 31, 2008.

Defendants seek to preclude testimony that the jar may have been packed before 2006,

arguing that such testimony amounts to mere speculation.

In Plaintiffs’ response to Defendants’ Motion in Limine, Plaintiffs state: “The

Defendants seek to have this Court rule that the product in question was packed in 2006.”

(Resp. at 9.) 

This Court does not believe it is in any position at this time to make any ruling with

respect to when the product in question was packed.

The Court does not believe it would be proper to preclude Plaintiffs from offering

evidence to support its claim that the product was packed prior to 2006. Should the Plaintiffs

offer such evidence, the Court believes that Defendant will attempt to offer evidence to refute

that claim. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ claim, the Court has no present intention to make any ruling

with respect to the date the product in question was packed. That “fact” should be left to the

determination by the jury based on the evidence presented to the jury.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion in Limine to preclude testimony that the jar

was packed before 2006 is DENIED.

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Mark F. Miller, Esq.

Mary A. Kalmink, Esq.

Jack O. Kalmink, Esq.

2:09-cv-12303-PJD-PJK Doc # 87 Filed 01/12/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 1182
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.21


AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION 
SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 6.01 of the General Dynamics Corporation Supplemental Retirement Plan (the “Plan”), the Plan shall be amended as follows: 
1.    A new Section 3.12 shall be added as follows:
“3.12    Surviving Spouse Death Benefits.  In the event of the Participant’s death prior to the Determination Date, the benefit (other than with respect to Grandfathered Amounts) that would have been payable to the Participant under the Plan if he had survived to the Determination Date shall be paid to the Participant’s surviving spouse, if any, to the extent still living as of such Determination Date, as follows: 
		
	(a)
	Any lump sum payment that would have been payable to the Participant under Section 3.06(a) or 3.09 shall be payable to the surviving spouse.  


		
	(b)
	For any other benefit subject to this Section 3.12, but not subject to Section 3.12(a) a death benefit shall be payable to the surviving spouse equal to 100% of the amount that would have been payable to the Participant if he had survived and elected the 100% Contingent Annuitant Option under Section 3.05(a) or 3.06(b)(1) as of his Determination Date.”