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

# Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as Adopted
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the
Quarterly Report of Nature Vision, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacities listed
below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that: (i) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
(ii) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

|                        | Nature Vision, Inc.
|----------------------- | -------------------
|                       
|                       
|Date:   August 12, 2005 | By:                
|                        |                    
|                        |                    
|                       
|                       
|Date:   August 12, 2005 | By:                
|                        |                    
|                        |                    

A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Nature Vision, Inc. and will be retained by Nature Vision, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 28, 2013

t1021 

# Order

Clerk October 28, 2013

147462

COUNTY OF MIDLAND,

Plaintiff

- Ap pellant,

v SC: 147462

COA: 303611

Midland CC: 09

- 005709

- CL

BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF

MICHIGAN,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 11, 2013

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit 35
                                  ----------


                      COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                  CWALT, INC.
                        ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2006-J3
              MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-J3


      The undersigned does hereby certify that the undersigned is an officer
of Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing
LP (the "Master Servicer"), and does hereby further certify pursuant to
Section 3.16 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned
Series (the "Agreement") that:

      (i)  A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the
preceding calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under
the Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

      (ii) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master
Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all
material respects throughout such calendar year.




/s/ Craig Baingo                                       Dated: March 14, 2007
-----------------

Craig Baingo
Executive Vice President, Finance
II 

Calendar No. 477 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6614 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 11 (legislative day, MAY 10), 2022 

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

Governmental Affairs 

AUGUST 4, 2022 

Reported by Mr. PETERS, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 4744 Grand River Avenue in Detroit, Michigan, as the ‘‘Rosa Louise McCauley Parks Post Office 

Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ROSA LOUISE MCCAULEY PARKS POST OFFICE 

4 BUILDING. 

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

6 Postal Service located at 4744 Grand River Avenue in De7 troit, Michigan, shall be known and designated as the 

8 ‘‘Rosa Louise McCauley Parks Post Office Building’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6614 RS

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

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

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Rosa Louise McCauley 

5 Parks Post Office Building’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 477 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6614 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostMcCauley Parks Post Office Building’’. in Detroit, Michigan, as the ‘‘Rosa Louise al Service located at 4744 Grand River Avenue 

AUGUST 4, 2022 

Reported without amendment 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Amendment No. 2
                               to
                  Schedule A to Exhibit (10)(j) 	
                         April 30, 1999

        The following table sets forth the name of each current
    director of Potlatch Corporation who has executed the 
    Indemnification Agreement filed as Exhibit (10)(j):

        Name of Director               Date Agreement Executed

        Richard A. Clarke                December 11, 1986
        Kenneth T. Derr                  January 1, 1994
        George F. Jewett, Jr.            December 11, 1986
        Richard B. Madden                May 6, 1988
        Vivian W. Piasecki               December 10, 1992
        Toni Rembe                       December 11, 1986
        John M. Richards                 January 1, 1991
        Reuben F. Richards               December 11, 1986
        Richard M. Rosenberg             December 10, 1992
        Judith M. Runstad                March 9, 1999
        Robert G. Schwartz               December 11, 1986
        L. Pendleton Siegel              November 1, 1997
        Charles R. Weaver                February 20, 1987
        Frederick T. Weyerhaeuser        December 11, 1986
        Dr. William T. Weyerhaeuser      February 22, 1990



                                                         Exhibit (10)(j)(ii)
|    |                                                                                        |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC; |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 3. | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report. |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |
| Date:  | October 10, 2017 |   |
|   |   |   |
|   |   | /s/ T. DALE STAPLETON |
|   |   | T. Dale Stapleton |
|   |   | Interim Chief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer |
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6668 

To prohibit Members of Congress from receiving a financial benefit from 

certain student loan cancellation programs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 9, 2022 

Mr. COLE (for himself, Mr. WOMACK, Mr. BABIN, Mr. BURGESS, Ms. VAN

DUYNE, Mrs. HINSON, Mr. BOST, Mr. CAREY, Mrs. BICE of Oklahoma, 

Mr. GUTHRIE, Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota, Mr. LOUDERMILK, Mr. 

GOHMERT, Ms. LETLOW, and Mr. CALVERT) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To prohibit Members of Congress from receiving a financial 

benefit from certain student loan cancellation programs. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Can’t Cancel Your 

5 Own Debt Act of 2022’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6668 IH

1 SEC. 2. NO STUDENT LOAN CANCELLATION FOR MEMBERS 

2 OF CONGRESS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi4 sion of law, an individual who serves as a Member of Con5 gress shall not be eligible, during or after such service— 

6 (1) for any service- or employment-based stu7 dent loan cancellation for any time served as a Mem8 ber of Congress; or 

9 (2) for student loan cancellation from any Fed10 eral program that is established or amended by an 

11 Act of Congress, or established or set forth by an 

12 Executive order or agency action, during the period 

13 in which the individual is serving as a Member. 

14 (b) DEFINITIONS.—For the purposes of this Act— 

15 (1) AGENCY ACTION.—The term ‘‘agency ac16 tion’’ has the meaning given such term in section 

17 551 of title 5, United States Code. 

18 (2) CANCELLATION.—The term ‘‘cancellation’’ 

19 means cancellation, forgiveness, or assumption of the 

20 obligation to repay the student loan debt of an indi21 vidual by the Federal Government. 

22 (3) STUDENT LOAN.—The term ‘‘student loan’’ 

23 means any loan made to an individual (including a 

24 loan made to a parent on behalf of a dependent stu25 dent) for expenses related to attendance or enroll26 ment at an institution of higher education. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6668 IH

1 (c) APPLICATION.—This Act shall apply to any indi2 vidual who serves as a Member of Congress on or after 

3 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 26, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 50394]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19766]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 6330]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Joan Miro: Painting and Anti-Painting 1927-1937''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 
of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of 
April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Joan Miro: Painting and Anti-Painting 
1927-1937'', imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the 
United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported 
pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I 
also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at 
The Museum of Modern Art, New York, New York, from on or about November 
2, 2008, until on or about January 12, 2009, and at possible additional 
exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national 
interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be 
published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Wolodymyr Sulzynsky, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: 202/453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-
44, 301 4th Street, SW. Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.

    Dated: August 15, 2008.
C. Miller Crouch,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural 
Affairs, Department of State.
 [FR Doc. E8-19766 Filed 8-25-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Robert GROOM, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-4184.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 23, 2002.

Decided Nov. 18, 2002.

Katherine E. Evatt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Anthony S. Murry, Trial Attorney, Terrorism and Violent Crime Section, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

John Robert Groom appeals his conviction for transmitting in interstate commerce a communication containing a threat to injure the person of another in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) (2000). Groom was convicted following a bench trial in the District Court of South Carolina and sentenced to eighteen months of imprisonment to be followed by a two-year term of supervised release. On appeal, Groom contends that there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

We must uphold Groom’s conviction on appeal if there is substantial evidence in the record to support it. See Glasser *v. United States,*315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942). In determining whether the evidence in the record is substantial, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and inquire whether there is evidence that a reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. *United States v. Burgos,*94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir.1996) (en banc). Groom stipulated that he transmitted the letter at issue in interstate com*184merce. We have reviewed the record and conclude that there was sufficient evidence to find the letter contained a true threat. Accordingly, we affirm Groom’s conviction.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
##### 



Exhibit
31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      (a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;(b)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over
financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of
financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles;(c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and(d)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/ Steven H. Pruett

Steven H. PruettPresident, Chief Financial Officer andSecretary of Legacy Reserves GP, LLC,general partner of Legacy Reserves LP(Principal Financial Officer)
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 661 

To amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to require Members of 

Congress to disclose business ties with foreign entities, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 1, 2021 

Mr. POSEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on House Administration 

A BILL 

To amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to require 

Members of Congress to disclose business ties with foreign entities, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Congressional Foreign 

5 Entanglement Disclosure and Reduction Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS OF BUSI7 NESS TIES WITH FOREIGN ENTITIES. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 102 of the Ethics in Gov9 ernment Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App. 102) is amended by 

10 adding at the end the following: 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 661 IH

1 ‘‘(j) Any report filed pursuant to section 101(d) by 

2 a Member of Congress shall include the disclosure of any 

3 business ties the Member or any member of the Member’s 

4 immediate family has (if any) with a foreign entity. If a 

5 Member of Congress makes an affirmative disclosure of 

6 any such ties, the Member shall include information detail7 ing the nature of the business tie and foreign entity.’’. 

8 (b) APPLICATION.—The amendment made by sub9 section (a) shall apply to any report filed pursuant to sec10 tion 101(d) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 

11 U.S.C. App. 101(d)) after the date of enactment of this 

12 Act. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Order entered January 16, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01006-CV

IN THE GUARDIANSHIP OF RUTH ELLEN BRUNER, 

AN INCAPACITATED PERSON

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Hunt County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. G00682

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s January 14, 2019 second motion for an extension of time 

to file a brief. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to January 24, 2019.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG 

JUSTICE
#### L. J. PATTERSON, II, as Executor of the Last Will and Testament of C. B. Patterson, Deceased, Appellant, v. Bruce E. NEUBIG and Edna L. Neubig, his wife, and Girard A. Ruberton and Ruth J. Ruberton, his wife, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

Nov. 16, 1954.

J. H. Mercer, Miami, and J. B. Patterson, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Redfearn & Ferrell, E. O. Simon, Smathers, Thompson, Maxwell & Dyer, E. S. Quick, Miami, and Sylvester P. Adair, Homestead, for appellees.

TERRELL, Justice.

In February 1952, C. B. Patterson filed suit in ejectment against Bruce E. Neubig, Edna L. Neubig, his wife, Girard A. Ruber-ton and Ruth J. Ruberton, his wife, to recover possession of certain lands with profits therefrom. The answers tendered the defense of not guilty with other affirmative defenses, the fourth of which had to do with deraignment of title which showed that the source of title of all defendants was a Sheriff’s Deed executed by the Sheriff of Dade County February 29, 1932, under a levy made on the lands of C. B. Patterson by said Sheriff. To said answers the plaintiff filed motion raising the legal sufficiency of defendants’ title pursuant to provisions of Common Law Rule 48, 30 F.S.A.

The real purpose of the complaint was to invalidate the Sheriff’s Deed of February 29, 1932 on the ground that the judgment and execution on which it was predicated were void in that the Sheriff made a false return of service in a certain suit brought against C. B. Patterson, the original plaintiff, by Standard Oil Company in Duval County. C. B. Patterson died during pendency of the litigation and the present plaintiffs, now appellants, were substituted as parties to the cause. The case was tried •by the Court without a jury and at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s testimony defendants moved for judgment in their favor, which was granted. A final judgment was entered accordingly, from which this appeal was prosecuted.

The only point for determination is whether or not the evidence was sufficient to impeach the Sheriff’s return in the suit brought against C. B. Patterson by Standard Oil Company.

The trial court found that if “under the existing state of the law, a return of a sheriff may be impeached in the absence of an allegation or proof of fraud or collusion, the testimony submitted by the plaintiff is far from clear and convincing, that the summons was not served by the Sheriff as stated in his return; that the plaintiff has failed to sustain his objections to the legal sufficiency of the defendants’ chain of title and that the motions of the defendants for judgment should be granted.” We have examined the testimony and find no reason to overthrow the judgment and finding of the trial court on this point.

It is therefore our view that the plaintiff failed to prove that the return of the *147Sheriff was false. Having reached this conclusion other questions raised become unimportant and are not discussed.

The judgment appealed from is accordingly affirmed.

Affirmed.

ROBERTS, C. J., and SEBRING and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.
Order filed August 22, 2013 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00107-CV

____________

JUNE G. BARTLE, Appellant

V.

MAIN STREET ACQUISITION CORP., Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CV-0067462

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due July 12, 2013. No brief or motion for extension of 

time has been filed. 

Unless appellant submits a brief to the clerk of this court on or before

September 20, 2013, the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See

Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM