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 quarterly report of Rockport Healthcare Group, Inc. (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2005,, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Harry M. Neer, Chief Executive 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, 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/
      Harry M. Neer ___________________


Harry
      M.
      Neer,


Chief
      Executive Officer


August
      15, 2005








A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Rockport Healthcare Group, Inc. and will be retained by Rockport Healthcare
      Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
      staff
      upon request.
#### Texas & Pacific R’y Co. v. R. R. Scott.

(No. 3946.)

Appeal from Harrison County.

Y. D. Harrison, counsel for appellant.

S. P. Jones, counsel for appellee.

December 22, 1891.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 277. *Railroad company; need not fence against dogs as “stock.”*This was a suit by appellee against appellant for damages for negligently killing a dog. The evidence shows that a train going west pulled in on a side-track and stopped to unload some freight, and after the train had stopped the dog went under it. The conductor saw the dog go under the car, and, after unloading the freight, signaled the engineer to pull out, and the cars ran over the dog and killed it. A dog is not ‘ *‘*stock,” within the meaning of article 4245, Revised Statutes, and hence railroads are not required to fence against that character of animals. No such negligence is shown as would entitle appellee to recover of appellant in this case, and the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1175 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 1175

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 7, 2007

    Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
     To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and 
  Facilities Act to increase the ceiling on the Federal share of the 
   costs of phase I of the Orange County, California, Regional Water 
                          Reclamation Project.

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

SECTION 1. CEILING INCREASE ON FEDERAL SHARE OF WATER RECLAMATION 
              PROJECT.

    Section 1631(d) of the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study 
and Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h-13(d)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and 
        inserting ``paragraphs (2) and (3)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(3) The Federal share of the costs of the project 
        authorized by section 1624 shall not exceed the following:
                    ``(A) $22,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.
                    ``(B) $24,200,000 for fiscal year 2008.
                    ``(C) $26,620,000 for fiscal year 2009.
                    ``(D) $29,282,000 for fiscal year 2010.
                    ``(E) $32,210,200 for fiscal year 2011.
                    ``(F) $35,431,220 for fiscal year 2012.
                    ``(G) $38,974,342 for fiscal year 2013.
                    ``(H) $42,871,776 for fiscal year 2014.
                    ``(I) $47,158,953 for fiscal year 2015.
                    ``(J) $51,874,849 for fiscal year 2016.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 5, 2007.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.

                               By Deborah M. Spriggs,

                                                          Deputy Clerk.
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 92 (Wednesday, June 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H5629-H5630]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                SUPPORT AMERICAN OVERSEAS INTERESTS ACT

  (Mr. KIM asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Speaker, today we are going to adopt H.R. 1561, the 
American Overseas Interests Act. Everybody knows that our foreign aid 
programs are among the least accountable to our 
[[Page H5630]] taxpayers and the most dubious in their results. I did 
not say that. That is the letter sent by the Americans for Tax Reform 
group.
  Taxpayer group after taxpayer group sends us letters urging us to 
revise and overhaul this long-overdue, complicated, foreign bureaucracy 
we have.
  This is what we have, how complicated it is. Even Dr. Henry Kissinger 
says that the Agency for International Development is among the worst 
agencies he has ever seen. It is that bad.
  By making common sense from this complicated bureaucratic system we 
have in controlling foreign aid, changing to this, under our new bill, 
from year to year, we can save $1.8 billion.
  That is why we support this bill today. I urge my colleagues to 
support this.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 45 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 45

To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to permanently prohibit 
the conduct of offshore drilling on the outer Continental Shelf off the 
              coast of California, Oregon, and Washington.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 22 (legislative day, January 3), 2013

  Mrs. Boxer (for herself, Ms. Cantwell, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Merkley, 
 Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Wyden) introduced the following bill; which was 
    read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to permanently prohibit 
the conduct of offshore drilling on the outer Continental Shelf off the 
              coast of California, Oregon, and Washington.

    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 ``West Coast Ocean Protection Act of 
2013''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF OIL AND GAS LEASING ON THE OUTER CONTINENTAL 
              SHELF OFF THE COAST OF CALIFORNIA, OREGON, AND 
              WASHINGTON.

    Section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(q) Prohibition of Oil and Gas Leasing in Certain Areas of the 
Outer Continental Shelf.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
section or any other law, the Secretary of the Interior shall not issue 
a lease for the exploration, development, or production of oil or 
natural gas in any area of the outer Continental Shelf off the coast of 
the State of California, Oregon, or Washington.''.
                                 <all>
```
583 A.2d 345

#### BIBI WEINISCH, A/K/A BOB WAYNE v. THOMAS E. SAWYER.

March 26, 1990.

Petition for certification granted. (See 237 *N.J.Super.*195, 567 A.2d 259)
News United States Air Force
 An explosion of trainingPublished Sept. 21, 2016
                        
                        By Airman Miranda A. Loera
                        
                        
                        4th Fighter Wing Public Affairs
                **SEYMOUR JOHNSON AIR FORCE BASE, N.C. (ANFS) --**
                The 4th Civil Engineer Squadron hosted a joint-service explosive ordnance disposal exercise Sept. 13-15 on the EOD range here.
EOD Airmen assigned to the 4th CES organized the three-day exercise to familiarize EOD technicians of the munitions involved with the F-15E Strike Eagle. To maximize the effectiveness of the exercise, organizers invited their counterparts from Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, and Joint Base Charleston, South Carolina, to participate. 
“The importance of the exercise was to gain familiarization and training on the F-15E, and all the ordnance that we would usually take care of at Seymour Johnson AFB,” said Senior Airman Christian Hulsey, a 4th CES EOD technician.  
The exercise consisted of two stages. The first stage took place over the course of the first two days and consisted of F-15E familiarization. During this stage, EOD teams trained and exercised on a multitude of scenarios, including responding to improvised explosive devices and unexploded ordnance threats, basic demolition techniques and reacting to several simulated F-15E munitions emergencies.
“Chemical operation training is important just in case a situation similar to this should happen, outstanding units could come in and be able to perform the appropriate procedures,” Hulsey said.
According to Marine Corps Sgt. Kyle Kazmierczak, an EOD technician assigned to the 2nd EOD Company, the exercise scenarios were beneficial to their understanding of the F-15E and its munitions
“We have never done any work on the F-15E before, so it was very helpful to be able to ask questions about it,” Kazmierczak said. 
On the final day of training, Airmen from Seymour Johnson AFB and Joint Base Charleston simulated a chemical spill situation, and performed the necessary procedures for the situation. 
“The whole mission for the last day of the exercise was for the teams to render the chemicals safe and dispose of them properly,” Hulsey said. 
Kazmierczak and Hulsey felt the training benefited the units and assisted with chemical operations. 
“This particular exercise helped immensely with chemical operations,” Kazmierczak said. “There are quite a few things the Air Force does that we don’t. I think if we could take that back to our shop it would help us with a few of our procedures, and maybe even be more effective with our job.”EOD 



F-15E Strike Eagle 



Joint Base Charleston 



Camp Lejeune 



Seymour Johnson AFB
#### Thomas P. Kinnear v. F. L. Dilley.

(No. 2916.)

December 1, 1888.

Appeal from Smith County.

Stephen Reaves, counsel for appellant. .

T. N. Jones and Woldert & Johnson, counsel for appellee.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 406. *Payment; application of; principal bound by, application communicated to agent; case stated.*Appellee sued appellant upon an accouut, and recovered judgment for the full amount of said account and for costs. It was proved that appellant delivered to one Mansfield, appellee’s agent, a bale of cotton worth $40 as a payment upon said account, and said agent received said cotton, agreeing to place the value thereof as a credit upon said account. Appellee testified that he knew nothing of the agreement of his said agent; that, after receiving the cotton sent to him by said agent, he placed the value thereof as a credit upon an older account owing by appellant; and that one Blair, a former partner of appellant, and who was liable with appellant for both accounts, directed said cotton to be applied as a payment on said older indebtedness. *Held:*Appellant had the right, at the time of making the payment, to direct that it should be applied to the account sued on, and he did so direct to the agent of appellee to whom the payment was made, and such direction was binding upon appellee. It was not within the power of Blair or of appellee, subsequently, to change the application of the payment made by appellant. [1 App. C. C. § 497; Proctor v. Marshall, 18 Tex. 63.]

Reversed and remanded.
583 A.2d 348

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RICHARD A. BRUGGER.

March 26, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF % XAS am- 

## -2, 1945

**SRoVER SELLERS**  **ATTORNLI UrNanAL**  Honorable D, 2'.



### WItherspoon :Co+mty:Attor&y i.:avsrlok County I~aglu F'aas, Terem 3car sir:



### “In the oountlg~~."hsvin~ ~1 populabigs,ot 2eas th$o twenty thousand (~C,CfOO)'inhttbitarsta aeoorriing

to the laat grecading Psderall Census,~ it .ehalJlS~kew$,se be the, 'dutyOf the C~mo~fssfonere~ Coust, by ifr order WPy nade and ‘efpered, df reoord at its fi~rat regular neitinglti Jenu~r$ or eeoh i

### 880

IIon. D. F. Witherspoon - pa&s 2

calandar year to dstermln@ wh colulty (er01&llg oaunty iuni tther'eountyof~$iotis ot such 'QCS,rbglltrars of.+lta1 statist&s and notarlss publio shall ba &xapensated for the Ziseal year on the basis o 'an ,annualsalary or wbsther th6y #ball be oompsnsated on 8 le basir or rses ebmed by thas in the parformanoe ot ths shall alao be the duty of ~tha. .r et?ibial dutle8, end it 

### IOWA&~ alo#k'toihwwrd .%o the Comptroflsr 'a$Qublio ksaouati or 

### 'the &at6 or,

### Taru. **on or**  **befora** ths 

## 3ht w ofE said order of aald ComPisslona 1

The ls~allty oftosllastlngdelinqusnt bax.fa*s :o*ar and above the maximum ,s&.aryLs aaawerad by krtiale

## 7332,whomin it prorldes in pa%, as followm:

"All tees pravldad for thb o$tioars hsreln shall be treated, amree8 o? 0rrt80 and. aaooumtsd r0r a* 

### sti@h, iad **mid** offioira shall QOCreoiltr,nor retain eald We* in moess of themaximum **,eompensatloa** allowed said ortiasrs undsr the laws of this steter
. . ."
It la our opinloilthat the county Attornay must 0011a0t all fess authorizedby law in delinquent tax oases aad when he is sompensated on an annual salary bssls.he is rrqulrodby Seo. 

## 5,. krtiole 

## 39126, to deposit suoh 

### reea in the crfSooer*s Salary Fund. Khe?c the County *zttorney is oompe&satsd i)n a salary basis, the salary 

### he r~otlreo is in lieu of a>h6r 

### re0f6, comnlsalona or oompensatiol~l

he would othsrwiae b&authorized to retain; Ths County Attorney could not legallj'k+~aln any of the feesmentioned eon cn atlsn f 8fPP.&& ) the 8r his nsrrlces .If;L:'d:el n uent t d ounty Attorney:a* 'ILO, $ersonaI&"Xin %Wd foea, b4ti

oiust oolleot said 

## reed,,and. heposit thetn

in ths 

## orrlcerf3 zlalaryFund.

### inquiry,
583 A.2d 319

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DAVID GLOVER.

February 13, 1990.

Petition for certification denied. (See 230 *N.J.Super.*333, 553 A.2d 808)
577 A.2d 1273

#### IN THE MATTER OF GERALD C. KELLY, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

August 21, 1990.

ORDER

This Court’s order of August 3, 1990, 120 *N.J.*679, 577 *A.*2d 497, disbarring respondent GERALD C. KELLY of WEST-FIELD, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1967, is stayed pending further Order of this Court subject to the conditions that respondent not take on any new clients and that respondent’s practice of law be limited solely to his practice of law with the firm of which he has been a member and it is further

ORDERED that respondent’s motion for an extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration is granted; the motion for reconsideration is to be filed and served no later than August 23, 1990.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION BY 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 Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended
August 2, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert N. Wildrick, Chief Executive 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, that to the best of my knowledge:



|September 16, 2003 |  |  |  | /s/ROBERT N. WILDRICKRobert N. Wildrick
Chief Executive Officer
|------------------ |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
422 A.2d 1164

#### Commonwealth v. Kenney, Appellant.

Submitted March 22, 1979.

Lenora M. Smith, for appellant; Eric B. Henson, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before PRICE, SPAETH and LIPEZ, JJ.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 88 (Thursday, May 25, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5609]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                            PETITIONS, ETC.

  Under clause 1 of rule XXII,

       22. The SPEAKER presented a petition of the Legislature of 
     Rockland County, NY, relative to condemning the attack on the 
     Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City; which was 
     referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

                          ____________________
```
Moody AFB celebrates history of Flying Tigers / Published November 17, 2014  MOODY AIR FORCE BASE, Ga. (AFNS) --                             (Information courtesy of the 23rd Wing Public Affairs)
 PHOTO DETAILS  DOWNLOAD HI-RES
 Don Miller, left, and Frank Epperson, seated, reminisce about their times as members of the 75th Fighter Squadron during World War II during a reunion Nov. 14, 2014, at Moody Air Force Base, Ga. Their unit, the 75th FS, is currently located at Moody AFB and has linage to the historic Flying Tigers. (U.S. Air Force photo/Andrea Jenkins)
 PHOTO DETAILS  DOWNLOAD HI-RES
 Capt. Evan Bergstrom talks about the upgraded controls in the aircraft with J.M. Taylor during the 2014 Flying Tiger Reunion heritage day, Nov. 14, 2014, at Moody Air Force Base, Ga. Taylor is a former 75th Fighter Squadron pilot and World War II veteran who spent 10 months as a prisoner of war, including two months in solitary confinement. Bergstrom is a 71st Rescue Squadron HC-130J Combat King II pilot. (U.S. Air Force photo/Master Sgt. Sonny Cohrs)
 
 Tagheritage TagFlying Tigers TagP40 TagA-10 TagMoody AFB
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 93 (Thursday, June 8, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1188-E1189]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

       FIFTIETH WEDDING ANNIVERSARY OF EDWIN AND CHARLOTTE WENTA

                                 ______

                        HON. WILLIAM O. LIPINSKI

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 7, 1995
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to bring to the 
attention of my colleagues an exemplary couple from the Third 
Congressional District of Illinois, Mr. and [[Page E1189]] Mrs. Edwin 
Wenta. On Sunday, June 11, 1995, Edwin and Charlotte will celebrate 
their 50th weeding anniversary with their family and friends at the sky 
room of the Martinique Restaurant in Evergreen Park.
  On June 9, 1945, Edwin and Charlotte were married at the San Buena 
Mission in Ventura, CA. It was near the end of World War II and Ed was 
on leave from the U.S. Navy.
  Edwin and Charlotte have two children, son Terry and daughter Diane, 
and five grandchildren, Lisa, Nick, Deanna, Dierdra, and Gerald. The 
entire Wenta family joins me in saluting Edwin and Charlotte on this 
special occasion.
  The Wentas are a role model of the family strength and integrity that 
has made America great. Their commitment to each other and their family 
is impressive and deserving of special recognition and honor. I am sure 
that my colleagues join me in congratulating Edwin and Charlotte on 
their many years of love and commitment. May their life together 
continue to be an adventure and offer them many more pleasant memories.

                          ____________________
```
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1347 

To extend the period during which members of the Armed Forces deployed 

in contingency operations may request and receive reimbursement for 

helmet pads, which are designed to protect the wearer from bomb blasts 

and non-ballistic impacts, that are purchased by such members. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 6, 2007 

Ms. HOOLEY (for herself, Ms. BEAN, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. 

STARK, Mr. FILNER, Mr. MILLER of North Carolina, Ms. MATSUI, Mr. 

LIPINSKI, Mr. BOSWELL, Mr. KIND, Mr. SPRATT, Mr. BAIRD, Mrs. 

CAPPS, Ms. DEGETTE, Mr. WYNN, Mrs. MALONEY of New York, Mr. 

CONYERS, Mr. COURTNEY, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. HOLT, Mr. INSLEE, Mr. 

MCDERMOTT, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. MICHAUD, Mr. MOORE of Kansas, Mr. 

ROSS, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. TANNER, Mr. THOMPSON of California, 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Ms. MCCOLLUM of Minnesota, and Mr. BOREN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed 

Services 

A BILL 

To extend the period during which members of the Armed 

Forces deployed in contingency operations may request 

and receive reimbursement for helmet pads, which are 

designed to protect the wearer from bomb blasts and 

non-ballistic impacts, that are purchased by such members. 

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

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HR 1347 IH

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF PERIOD FOR REIMBURSEMENT 

2 FOR HELMET PADS PURCHASED BY MEM3 BERS OF THE ARMED FORCES DEPLOYED IN 

4 CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. 

5 Section 351 of the Ronald W. Reagan National De6 fense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 

7 108–375; 118 Stat. 1857) is amended— 

8 (1) in subsection (a)(3), by inserting before the 

9 period at the end the following: ‘‘, or in the case of 

10 protective helmet pads purchased by a member for 

11 that member’s personal use, on September 30, 

12 2007’’; 

13 (2) in subsection (c), by inserting before the pe14 riod at the end the following: ‘‘or one year after the 

15 date on which the purchase of the protective, safety, 

16 or health equipment was made, whichever occurs 

17 last’’; and 

18 (3) in subsection (d), by adding at the end the 

19 following new sentence: ‘‘Subsection (a)(1) shall not 

20 apply in the case of the purchase of protective hel21 met pads by or on behalf of a member.’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
583 A.2d 325

#### BLANE NORDAHL v. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD.

February 20, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.