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 American Standard Companies
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Frederic M. Poses, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that (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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report. /s/ Frederic M. Poses  
 April 30, 2004
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit No. 99.1

                         TRUSTEE STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

I, David J. Kolibachuk, acting on behalf of U.S. Bank Trust National Association
(the "Trustee"), hereby certify that the Trustee has fulfilled its obligations
as trustee under the trust agreement, dated May 20, 2004, between Corporate
Asset Backed Corporation, as depositor, and the Trustee, with respect to the
CABCO Series 2004-101 Trust (Goldman Sachs Capital I) during the period from
January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005.

Date: February 27, 2006

                                        U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
                                        as Trustee of

                                        CABCO Series 2004-101 Trust (Goldman
                                        Sachs Capital I)


                                        By: /s/ David J. Kolibachuk
                                            ------------------------------------
                                        Name: David J. Kolibachuk
                                        Title: Vice President
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3932 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 3932

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 20, 2004

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend Public Law 99-338 to authorize the continued use of certain 
   lands within the Sequoia National Park by portions of an existing 
             hydroelectric project, 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. AUTHORIZATION TO REISSUE PERMIT.

    The first section of Public Law 99-338 is amended by striking ``one 
renewal'' and inserting ``3 renewals''.

SEC. 2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

    Section 3 of Public Law 99-338 is amended to read as follows:
    ``Sec. 3. The permit shall contain the following provisions:
            ``(1) A prohibition on expansion of the Kaweah Project in 
        Sequoia National Park.
            ``(2) A requirement that an independent safety assessment 
        of the Kaweah Project be conducted, and that any deficiencies 
        identified as a result of the assessment would be corrected.
            ``(3) A requirement that the Secretary prepare and submit 
        to Congress an update of the July 1983 report on the impact of 
        the operations of the Kaweah No. 3 facility on Sequoia National 
        Park.
            ``(4) Any other reasonable terms and conditions that the 
        Secretary of the Interior deems necessary and proper for the 
        management and care of Sequoia

        National Park and the purposes for which it was established.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 19, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
V 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4055

For the relief of Amina Silmi. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2004

Mr. KUCINICH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

For the relief of Amina Silmi.

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR AMINA 

4 SILMI. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act, Amina Silmi shall be eligible for issuance of an immi8 grant visa or for adjustment of status to that of an alien 

9 lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon filing an 

10 application for issuance of an immigrant visa under sec11 tion 204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful 

12 permanent resident. 
2

•HR 4055 IH 

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Amina Silmi en2 ters the United States before the filing deadline specified 

3 in subsection (c), she shall be considered to have entered 

4 and remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, be 

5 eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 of the 

6 Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of the en7 actment of this Act. 

8 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

9 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap10 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica11 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

12 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

13 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.—

14 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res15 idence to Amina Silmi, the Secretary of State shall in16 struct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the current 

17 or next following fiscal year, the total number of immi18 grant visas that are made available to natives of the coun19 try of the alien’s birth under section 203(a) of the Immi20 gration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total 

21 number of immigrant visas that are made available to na22 tives of the country of the alien’s birth under section 

23 202(e) of such Act. 

24 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

25 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural 
3

•HR 4055 IH 

1 parents, brothers, and sisters of Amina Silmi shall not, 

2 by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any right, privi3 lege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Æ
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAVID PICRAY,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

JOE HEEB,

 Defendant,

 And

JACK ROGERS; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 12-35557

D.C. No. 6:11-cv-06147-AA

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Ann L. Aiken, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 4, 2013 

Portland, Oregon

Before: ALARCÓN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

FILED

NOV 12 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 
Plaintiff-Appellant David Picray appeals from the district court’s order

granting Defendants-Appellees’ Motions for Summary Judgment. On appeal,

Picray challenges the district court’s conclusions that: (1) Officers Vu and Graves

did not detain Picray for an unreasonable amount of time in violation of the Fourth

Amendment; and (2) Jack Rogers did not violate Picray’s First Amendment rights

by upholding an order excluding Picray from the Oregon State University campus. 

Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of this case,

we repeat only those facts necessary to resolve the issues raised on appeal. We

affirm. 

The parties do not dispute that Officers Vu and Graves conducted a lawful

Terry stop. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Rather, Picray argues that the

stop’s forty-minute duration converted his detention into an unlawful arrest. 

While Terry stops must “last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the

purpose of the stop,” there are no “rigid time limitation[s]” on such stops. United

States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 684–85 (1985) (citations omitted). A suspect’s

conduct often dictates what is reasonable under Terry, and courts “refuse[ ] to

charge police with delays in investigatory detention attributable to the suspect’s

evasive actions.” United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 543

(1985) (citing Sharpe, 470 U.S. at 687– 88). 

2
Picray recorded his forty-minute interaction with the officers. A certified

transcript of this recording clearly demonstrates that the officers detained Picray

only for the amount of time necessary to effectuate their investigation and that

Picray’s combative conduct and failure to cooperate caused the investigation to last

forty minutes. 

With regard to the First Amendment claim, the district court did not err in

concluding that Picray identified no record evidence showing that a desire to chill

speech was the but-for cause of Rogers’ decision to uphold the exclusion order. 

Dietrich v. John Ascuaga’s Nugget, 548 F.3d 892, 900–01 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting

Skoog v. County of Clackamas, 469 F.3d 1221, 1231–32 (9th Cir. 2006)). Absent

such evidence, Picray’s First Amendment claim fails. 

For the foregoing reasons, the district court properly granted DefendantsAppellees’ motions for summary judgment.

AFFIRMED. 

3
EXHIBIT 13.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Annual Report of GOL LINHAS AÉREAS INTELIGENTES S.A. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard F. Lark, Jr., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: (i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. 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. Date: April 30, 2018 By:               /s/Richard F. Lark, Jr.Name:Richard F. Lark, Jr.Title:Chief Financial Officer


---
#### James Guthrie's Ex'r *v.*J. H. McGoodwins.

Landlord and Tenant — Oral Agreement as to Rent.

Where a written lease does not fix the rent, it is competent for the lessor and the lessee to orally agree upon and fix the rent.

Landlord and Tenant — Rental—Valuation of Property.

Where the lessee is sued for rent, he may show satisfaction of the claim hy proving that he paid the rent as agreed upon, hy arriving at the value of the property in a different manner from that adopted in the written lease.

APPEAL FROM LOUISVILLE 'CHANCERY COURT.

March 18, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The lessor and lessee in this case, instead of having a valuation placed upon the property in accordance with the provisions of the *569written lease, orally agreed upon a fixed sum as its rental value. This parol agreement as to the consideration was not a contract for the sale or leasing of any real estate, but only an agreement as to what the consideration should be. The contract of leasing had already been reduced to writing and although a certain mode had been agreed upon by its terms by which the annual renting was to be ascertained, still it was entirely competent for the parties to agree by parol as to what sum should be paid without resorting to the means provided by the contract and this in no manner affected the validity of the lease. In the case of *Gully v. Grubbs,*1 J. J. Marshall 387, it was said that the contract for the sale of the land being in writing it was not necessary that the promise to1 pay for it should 'be in writing, and it is the recognized doctrine in this state that contracts, even within the statute of frauds, may be relied on as a defense to an action and when sued for the rent it was proper to permit the appellee to show satisfaction of the claim' by proving that he had paid the rent as agreed upon by the lessor and himself, although it may appear that the two arrived at the value of the property in a different manner from the mode adopted by the writing. *Roberts v. Tennell,*3 T. B. Mon. 247; *Berry v. Graddy, Adm’r,*1 Metcalfe 553.

*Arbegast, for appellant.*

*Barr, Go odio e, for appellee.*

The testimony of the agent of Guthrie leaves no reason to doubt that such an agreement was made as is relied on by the appellee. The appellee having paid the money into court must leave it to the chancellor to say who is entitled to receive it, the executor or the heirs.

Judgment *affirmed.*
Exhibit 23.1





            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-3 (No. 333-127730) of Tower Group, Inc. of our reports dated February 17,
2006 with respect to the consolidated financial statements, financial statement
schedules, management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting of Tower Group, Inc. and subsidiaries, included in this Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2005.



Reston, Virginia                             /s/ JOHNSON LAMBERT & CO.
March 10, 2006
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4046 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4046

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 555 West 180th Street in New York, New York, as the ``Sergeant 
                    Riayan A. Tejeda Post Office''.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4046

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 555 West 180th Street in New York, New York, as the ``Sergeant 
                    Riayan A. Tejeda Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 555 
West 180th Street in New York, New York, shall be known and designated 
as the ``Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda Post Office''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda 
Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 28, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6047

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

EDDIE C. WILSON, SR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Walter E. Black, Jr., Senior District

Judge. (CR-93-494-B, CA-96-1524-B)

Submitted: April 15, 1997 Decided: May 2, 1997

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eddie C. Wilson, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Maury S. Epner, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Wilson, Nos. CR-93-494-B; CA-96-1524-B (D.

Md. Nov. 26, 1996). 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.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>  0001050119
<NAME>  DETAILS CAPITAL CORP.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       2,437,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               17,405,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (342,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  7,226,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            37,401,000
<PP&E>                                      55,816,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (24,968,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             106,794,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       23,066,000
<BONDS>                                     64,761,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    88,630,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               106,794,000
<SALES>                                     54,499,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            54,499,000
<CGS>                                       32,447,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               32,447,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          14,519,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,272,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   733,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            539,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   539,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I,
Peter R. Huntsman, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of HMP Equity Holdings Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2004;

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;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
March 28, 2005

| |  | /s/PETER R. HUNTSMANPeter R. Huntsman Chief Executive
Officer
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [USITC SE-14-039]

# AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:

United States International Trade Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

November 26, 2014 at 9:30 a.m.

# PLACE:

Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.

# STATUS:

Open to the public

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1. Agendas for future meetings: none

2. Minutes

3. Ratification List

4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 701-TA-524-525 and 731-TA-1260-1261 (Preliminary) (Certain Welded Line Pipe from Korea and Turkey). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determinations on December 1, 2014; views of the Commission are currently scheduled to be completed and filed on December 8, 2014.

5. Outstanding action jackets: none.

In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.

Issued: November 19, 2014.
      ( print page 69527)    
By order of the Commission.

William R. Bishop,

Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.

[FR Doc. 2014-27722 Filed 11-19-14; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
U.S. District Court for the Northern District Of Illinois

Attorney Appearance Form

Case Title: Hasaan Potts v. Ronald Watts, 

et al. 

Case Number: 20 CV 2925 

An appearance is hereby filed by the undersigned as attorney for: 

City of Chicago, Philip Cline, Debra Kirby and Karen Rowan 

Attorney name (type or print): Terrence M. Burns 

Firm: Reiter Burns LLP 

Street address: 311 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 5200 

City/State/Zip: Chicago, IL 60606 

Bar ID Number: 3122331 

(See item 3 in instructions) 

Telephone Number: 312 982-0090 

 

Email Address: tburns@reiterburns.com 

Are you acting as lead counsel in this case? Yes No 

Are you acting as local counsel in this case? Yes No 

Are you a member of the court’s trial bar? Yes No 

If this case reaches trial, will you act as the trial attorney? Yes No 

If this is a criminal case, check your status. Retained Counsel 

 Appointed Counsel 

 If appointed counsel, are you a 

 

 Federal Defender 

 CJA Panel Attorney 

______________________________________________________________________ 

In order to appear before this Court an attorney must either be a member in good standing of this Court’s 

general bar or be granted leave to appear pro hac vice as provided for by local rules 83.12 through 83.14. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Under 28 U.S.C.§1746, this 

statement under perjury has the same force and effect as a sworn statement made under oath. 

Executed on June 26, 2020 

Attorney signature: S/ Terrence M. Burns 

 (Use electronic signature if the appearance form is filed electronically.) 

 Revised 8/1/2015 

Case: 1:20-cv-02925 Document #: 23 Filed: 06/26/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:69