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

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 Quarterly Report of EFJ, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Michael E. Jalbert, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350, as adopted pursuant to§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Michael E. JalbertMichael E. JalbertChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)


October 30, 2007
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 24, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 55067]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22278]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER08-1528-000]


NorthWestern Corp.; Notice of Filing

September 17, 2008.
    Take notice that on September 12, 2008, NorthWestern Corporation 
(NorthWestern) tendered for filing an executed Agreement for Regulating 
Reserve Services under which Powerex Corp proposes to supply 
NorthWestern with Regulating Reserves Service for an approximately two 
year term beginning on January 1, 2009.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0d4b485f4e4263616463685e787d7d627f794d6b687f6e236a627b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4c0a091e0f0322202522291f393c3c233e380c2a293e2f622b233a">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 pm Eastern Time on October 3, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-22278 Filed 9-23-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
*Release Date: June 30, 2003*

*Other formats:*
ASCII (4 KB)
PDF (3 KB)
CSV (1 KB)

----

```
C.5. Average Variable Interest Rates on Farm Loans
Percent
```

| Quarter | Other operating loans1 | Intermediate non-real-estate loans | Long-term real estate loans |
|---------|------------------------|------------------------------------|-----------------------------|
||
| 9.7     | 9.6                    | 9.1                                |
| 9.3     | 9.1                    | 8.5                                |
| 8.8     | 8.7                    | 8.1                                |
| 7.9     | 7.7                    | 7.2                                |
| 7.4     | 7.5                    | 7.0                                |
| 7.2     | 7.2                    | 6.8                                |
| 6.8     | 6.7                    | 6.4                                |
| 6.7     | 6.6                    | 6.3                                |
| 6.5     | 6.4                    | 6.1                                |
||
| n.a.    | n.a.                   | n.a.                               |
| n.a.    | n.a.                   | n.a.                               |
| n.a.    | n.a.                   | n.a.                               |
| n.a.    | n.a.                   | n.a.                               |
| n.a.    | n.a.                   | n.a.                               |
| 7.7     | 7.6                    | 7.1                                |
| 7.5     | 7.4                    | 6.9                                |
| 7.2     | 7.0                    | 6.6                                |
| 9.7     | 6.9                    | 6.4                                |
```
1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses
and the care and feeding of livestock (including poultry). Return to table
   * State falls only partly within the indicated Reserve District.
   n.a. Not available.
   Source. Federal Reserve Bank quarterly surveys of agricultural credit conditions at
commercial banks.
```

*Other formats:*
ASCII (4 KB)
PDF (3 KB)
CSV (1 KB)

Statistical releases

----

HomeEconomic research and dataAccessibilityContact Us
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America,

 Plaintiff,

 v. Civil No. 00-31-LM 

James LaPlante,

 Defendant, 

 and

Citizens Bank, 

 Garnishee. 

 

ORDER TO RELEASE FUNDS AND TO 

QUASH WRIT OF CONTINUING GARNISHMENT

On September 14, 2010, a Writ of Continuing Garnishment and 

Clerk's Notice of Continuing Garnishment were issued in the abovecaptioned action by James R. Starr, Clerk, United States District

Court. In accordance with the terms of the Writ of Continuing

Garnishment, on September 16, 2010, an account in the name of

James LaPlante, held by Citizen’s Bank, was levied on by the

United States of America. Copies of the Application, Clerk's

Notice and Writ of Continuing Garnishment were sent to defendant,

James LaPlante on September 17, 2010, by certified mail, return

receipt.

Defendant hereby waives his right to a hearing pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §3202(d). Accordingly, it is 

Case 1:08-cv-00031-LM Document 21 Filed 09/22/10 Page 1 of 2
ORDERED that funds in the amount of $800.00 which were seized

on September 16, 2010, from an account in the name of James

LaPlante, which are in the possession, custody or control of

Citizens Bank, be released to the United States of America. Said

funds should be made payable to U.S. Department of Justice and

sent to U.S. Attorney’s Office, 53 Pleasant Street, 4th Floor,

Concord, NH 03301; and

ORDERED that any remaining funds in the account in the name

of James LaPlante, over $800.00, be released to James LaPlante;

and 

ORDERED that the Writ of Continuing Garnishment issued on

September 14, 2010, to Citizens Bank, is hereby quashed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_________________________

U.S. Magistrate Judge

DATED:

cc: Michael T. McCormack, AUSA

 James LaPlante, pro se

 Citizens Bank

2

Case 1:08-cv-00031-LM Document 21 Filed 09/22/10 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-190-01-PB

Carlos Perez

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

November 7, 2006 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time for new counsel to complete discovery and prepare

a defense. The government does not object to a continuance of

the trial date.

In order to allow the parties additional time to properly

prepare for trial, the court will continue the trial from

November 7, 2006 to January 9, 2007. In agreeing to continue the

trial, the court finds pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)

(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the ends of justice served

in granting a continuance outweigh the best interests of the

public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:06-cr-00190-PB Document 13 Filed 10/30/06 Page 1 of 2
2

The October 30, 2006 final pretrial conference is continued 

until December 19, 2006 at 4:00 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

October 30, 2006

cc: Anthony Ortiz, Esq.

Robert Veiga, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00190-PB Document 13 Filed 10/30/06 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Rosemary A. Gilroy

v. Civil No. 07-00300-JL

James Kasper, et al.

 O R D E R

The plaintiff’s motion to strike (document #17) is construed

by the court as a preliminary objection to the motion to dismiss,

and the defendants are ordered to re-file an identical motion to

dismiss with properly numbered pages (and no other changes).

The plaintiff’s motion to extend time (document #18) is

denied as moot.

The plaintiff’s motion to exceed page limitation (document

#20) is denied, as it fails to comply with the Local Rules

regarding the form and content of such motions, and would be

denied on the merits even if it was filed in compliance with the

Local Rules.

SO ORDERED.

 

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: March 28, 2008

cc: Rosemary A. Gilroy, pro se

Steven F. Hyde, Esq.

Kurt McHugh, pro se

Alan Segal, pro se

Case 1:07-cv-00300-JL Document 21 Filed 03/28/08 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-124-PB

Stanley Amos

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

August 21, 2007 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to schedule a plea hearing. The government does

not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reasons and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from August 21, 1007 to October 10, 2007. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

August 20, 2007

cc: Jessica Brown, Esq.

Arnold Huftalen, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00124-PB Document 9 Filed 08/20/07 Page 1 of 1
41

C.7. Local Trends in Farm Income and Expenditures as Reported by Banks in Each RegionPercent

Farm income Farm household spending Farm capital sp

Quarter Lower Same Higher Lower Same Higher Lower Same 

Ninth (Minneapolis) Federal Reserve District (MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*)

2003: Q2... 28 50 22 19 65 16 34 5

 Q3... 28 47 25 17 70 13 31 6 Q4... 8 33 59 6 61 33 16 52004: Q1... 7 25 68 5 52 43 8 4 Q2... 2 37 61 2 55 42 5 4 Q3... 15 47 38 5 63 33 10 5 Q4... 20 30 50 5 56 40 11 42005: Q1... 17 34 48 5 53 42 16 3 Q2... 17 58 25 5 62 33 8 5

Tenth (Kansas City) Federal Reserve District (CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK, WY)

2003: Q2... 36 47 17 27 60 13 46 4

 Q3... 22 46 32 18 68 15 36 4 Q4... 17 35 48 10 64 25 20 52004: Q1... 11 42 47 8 68 25 16 5 Q2... 11 49 40 9 65 26 15 6 Q3... 11 51 38 6 71 23 12 6 Q4... 10 40 50 5 60 35 9 52005: Q1... 12 48 40 5 59 36 12 5 Q2... 15 59 26 5 64 31 14 6

Twelfth (San Francisco) Federal Reserve District (AL, AZ, CA, HI, ID, NV, OR, UT, WA)

2003: Q2... 50 35 15 46 46 8 58 2

 Q3... 46 38 17 33 63 4 46 4 Q4... 30 22 48 17 70 13 26 32004: Q1... 18 55 27 14 73 14 27 5 Q2... 13 43 43 0 70 30 22 4 Q3... 5 36 59 0 73 27 9 4 Q4... 17 30 52 13 57 30 13 42005: Q1... 27 55 18 14 68 18 23 5 Q2... 13 48 39 9 57 35 9 4 * State falls only partly within the indicated Reserve District. n.a. Not available. Source. Federal Reserve Bank quarterly surveys of agricultural credit conditions at commercial banks.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

Carlos A. Morales, et al.

v. NH Civil No. 05-ds-114-JD

PR Civil No. 04-17560

Puerto Rico Department

of Education, et al.

O R D E R

The defendants have defaulted in this case, and a hearing on

damages was held on August 21, 2006. At the close of the

hearing, counsel for the defendants asked to make an offer of

proof and then attempted to introduce a document into evidence,

purportedly signed by one of the plaintiffs, Brenda L. Davila. 

Plaintiffs’ counsel objected on the ground that the document was

irrelevant, because the merits of the case were not at issue due

to the defendants’ default. The objection was sustained. The

court indicated it would permit the defendants’ counsel to have

the document marked for identification only.

After the hearing, the defendants filed a “Motion Submitting

Document Produced as ID During Today’s Hearing.” The defendants

ask “that this Honorable Court admits [sic] the document as a ID,

in order to maintain the record of this case clear.” The

document is attached to the defendants’ motion.

The court sustained the plaintiffs’ objection to the

document when it was offered during the hearing. It is not

admissible in this proceeding because it is irrelevant. However,

Case 1:05-ds-00114-JD Document 43 Filed 08/22/06 Page 1 of 2
2

the document may be marked for identification only for purposes

of the record.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the defendants’ motion submitting

a document (document no. 42) is denied.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

 (Sitting by designation.)

August 22, 2006

cc: Alfredo Fernandez-Martinez, Esquire

Kristine Burgos Santiago, Esquire

USDC-PR-Clerk

Case 1:05-ds-00114-JD Document 43 Filed 08/22/06 Page 2 of 2
33

C.2. Expected Farm Loan Volume for the Next Quarter, Compared with a Year EarlierPercent

Purpose of loan

Total Feeder cattle Dairy Crop storage Operating 

Quarter Lower Same Higher Lower Same Higher Lower Same Higher Lower Same Higher Lower Same Hig

Seventh (Chicago) Federal Reserve District (IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, WI*)

2004: Q2... 17 60 22 26 64 10 18 73 9 12 74 14 15 63 

 Q3... 13 60 27 27 64 9 15 79 6 12 66 22 11 58  Q4... 9 58 33 14 75 10 12 81 7 10 77 13 10 50 2005: Q1... 9 61 30 16 72 12 11 80 9 12 78 9 9 52  Q2... 14 62 24 21 70 9 12 82 7 18 68 15 9 58  Q3... 10 57 33 16 73 11 7 89 5 14 63 23 9 42  Q4... 10 51 39 17 65 17 12 83 5 17 67 16 7 39 2006: Q1... 8 55 37 21 72 7 12 81 7 17 63 19 7 39  Q2... 16 55 29 15 78 7 13 80 7 15 60 25 10 49 

Eleventh (Dallas) Federal Reserve District (LA*, NM*, TX)

2004: Q2... 16 68 16 27 60 13 15 81 4 11 85 4 15 70 

 Q3... 16 61 23 23 61 16 11 84 4 7 83 10 9 64  Q4... 12 71 17 13 72 15 11 89 0 9 84 7 7 74 2005: Q1... 12 69 19 19 66 15 16 80 4 11 84 5 11 68  Q2... 15 69 15 15 74 12 13 80 2 8 82 5 10 72  Q3... 12 67 21 17 68 15 12 81 1 7 83 5 8 70  Q4... 12 73 15 17 64 19 12 79 4 13 76 6 12 69 2006: Q1... 23 58 19 25 67 8 12 83 5 14 83 3 21 62  Q2... 25 61 14 35 61 4 11 82 2 13 77 5 20 58 

Fifth (Richmond) Federal Reserve District (MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*)

2004: Q2... 4 92 4 0 89 11 0 94 6 9 86 5 8 84 

 Q3... 30 61 9 22 67 11 32 63 5 39 57 4 23 69  Q4... 22 65 13 18 71 12 17 72 11 13 78 9 20 60 2005: Q1... 18 73 9 19 71 10 14 81 5 4 96 0 16 68  Q2... 11 67 22 7 87 7 27 73 0 19 81 0 11 67  Q3... 24 71 5 6 89 6 13 88 0 11 11 0 5 19  Q4... 28 61 11 14 71 14 20 80 0 13 75 13 26 58 2006: Q1... 21 63 16 19 69 13 19 81 0 22 72 6 23 68  Q2... 16 74 11 0 87 13 21 79 0 13 81 6 21 68  * State falls only partly within the indicated Reserve District. Source. Federal Reserve Bank quarterly surveys of agricultural credit conditions at commercial banks.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1268 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1268

    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include wireless 
      telecommunications equipment in the definition of qualified 
 technological equipment for purposes of determining the depreciation 
                      treatment of such equipment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 28, 2001

 Mr. Crane (for himself, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, Mr. Sam Johnson of 
   Texas, Ms. Dunn, and Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include wireless 
      telecommunications equipment in the definition of qualified 
 technological equipment for purposes of determining the depreciation 
                      treatment of such equipment.

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

SECTION 1. WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 168(i)(2) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining qualified technological 
equipment) is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (ii), by 
striking the period at the end of clause (iii) and inserting ``, and'', 
and by inserting after clause (iii) the following new clause:
                            ``(iv) any wireless telecommunications 
                        equipment.''
    (b) Wireless Telecommunications Equipment.--Section 168(i)(2) of 
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after 
subparagraph (C) the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(D) Wireless telecommunications equipment.--For 
                purposes of this paragraph, the term `wireless 
                telecommunications equipment' means all equipment used 
                in the transmission, reception, coordination, or 
                switching of wireless telecommunications service. For 
                this purpose, `wireless telecommunications service' 
                includes any commercial mobile radio service as defined 
                in title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations.''
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to property placed in service on or after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
COMPANY'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31,
1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          30,934
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,252
<ALLOWANCES>                                       360
<INVENTORY>                                        164
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,542
<PP&E>                                           4,720
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,680
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  40,744
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,596
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             8
<OTHER-SE>                                      31,712
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    40,744
<SALES>                                         12,791
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,791
<CGS>                                            1,877
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,877
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,985
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    85
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  24
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,381
<INCOME-TAX>                                       456
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                925
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       925
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11
        

</TABLE>
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18A1545. FXM, P.C. d/b/a FRANK X. MOORE LAW v. PNC BANK, N.A. et

al.

In this civil action, the plaintiff FXM, P.C. d/b/a Frank X. Moore Law, has

filed in this Court a direct appeal of the trial court’s order granting motions to seal

portions of the record that were filed by several defendants.

1

Pursuant to Uniform Superior Court Rule 21.4, “a[n] order limiting access [to

court records] may be reviewed by interlocutory application to the Supreme Court.” 

Recently, the Supreme Court discussed whether it has jurisdiction over cases

involving an order so limiting access where the case does not otherwise fall within

its jurisdiction:

In most cases, our appellate jurisdiction is prescribed by the

Constitution. . . . The basisfor our appellate jurisdiction under Rule 21.4

is unclear in cases that are not otherwise within our appellate

jurisdiction. It may be that in cases not otherwise within our exclusive

jurisdiction, direct appellate jurisdiction is vested instead in the Court

of Appeals.

Merchant Law Firm, P.C. v. Emerson, 301 Ga. 609, 613 n.2 (1) (a) (800 SE2d 557)

1 The plaintiff also filed in the Supreme Court an application for interlocutory

review of the trial court’s order, which the Supreme Court denied. See Supreme

Court Case No. S18I0798 (denied Mar. 1, 2018). 

May 09, 2018
(2017); see also In re Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 269 Ga. 589 (502 SE2d 720)

(1998) (discussing Rule 21). However, the Supreme Court declined to resolve the

issue in Merchant Law Firm, P.C. Thus, it appears that jurisdiction over the instant

appeal may lie in the Supreme Court. As the Supreme Court has the ultimate

responsibility for determining appellate jurisdiction, see Saxton v. Coastal Dialysis

& Med. Clinic, 267 Ga. 177, 178 (476 SE2d 587) (1996), this appeal is hereby

TRANSFERRED to the Supreme Court for disposition.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

05/09/2018