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
Annual Report of Miller Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ending April 30, 2010
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Angelo Napolitano,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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 Section 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.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Dated:  April 8, 2012       |  |  | 
|--------------------------- |  |  | 
|                            |  |  | 
|/s/  Angelo Napolitano      |  |  | 
|Angelo Napolitano           |  |  | 
|Chief Executive Officer and |  |  | 
|Chief Financial Officer     |  |  | 



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed
form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Miller Industries, Inc.
and will be returned by Miller Industries, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### John C. Wood v. Adolphus F. Starling et al.

*Promissory note*— Transferee *of Iona fide bolder.*

A transferee from a *bona fide*holder is entitled to recover on a promissory note given in a partnership name, even though before taking it' he had notice that it was given by one of the partners, without, authority, for his individual debt.

Error to Wayne.

Submitted June 14.

Decided June 21.

Assumpsit. Defendants bring error.

Affirmed.

*Albert J. Chapman*for appellants.

In a suit on a note by. the assignee, its ownership is immaterial, for it may have, been assigned for the purpose of bringing suit: *Herbstreit. v. Beckwith 35*Mich. 93; *Brown v. McHugh 35*Mich. 50; *Boyd v. Corbitt*37 Mich. 52; *Knapp v. Lee*42 Mich. 41; banks are bound to know the signatures of their depositors *National Bank of the Commonwealth v. Grocers’ National*Bank, 35 How. Pr. 412; if they do not know them to be-genuine they must take time to ascertain: *Weisser v. Denison*10 N. Y. 68; *Morgan v. Bank of New York*11 N. Y. 404.

*Charles H. Freeman*for appellee.

The assignee of a *bonafide*holder of negotiable paper can recover on it though he purchased after maturity and with full notice of infirmities-in it: *Peabody v. Rees*18 Ia. 571; *Hascall v. Whitmore*19 Me. 102; *Woodman v. Churchill*52 Me. 58.

Marston, J.

The defendants, co-partners, were sued upon-a promissory note purporting to have been executed by and' in the name of the firm, and made payable to the order of John H. Parsons. They pleaded the general issue and denied the execution of the instrument. It appeared, and' was not disputed on the trial, that the note was given by one ■ member of the firm for his individual debt, and that the-other members gave no authority therefor.

*593There was evidence given tending to show that the American National • Bank was a *bona fide*holder of this paper?- and that after the note became due the bank transferred it to the plaintiff, who had notice that it was given without authority for the debt of one of the makers.

The court charged the jury in substance that if the bank was a *bona fide*holder, it could have recovered, and that the plaintiff would have a like right, notwithstanding the fact that he had notice of the infirmity. This ruling was correct. *Kost v. Bender*25 Mich. 515.

The judgment must be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurf-ed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY TO SUCH FORM 10-QSB.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       7,429,746
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   73,526
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,071,046
<PP&E>                                          88,460
<DEPRECIATION>                                (32,522)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,461,024
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          418,472
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        4,303,662
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,383
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,541,864
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,461,024
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                44,411
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,322,609
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,278,198)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,278,198)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,278,198)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.17)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 15.1

                  AWARENESS LETTER OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


INSpire Insurance Solutions, Inc.
300 Burnett Street
Fort Worth, Texas


     We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim
condensed financial information of INSpire Insurance Solutions, Inc. for the
periods ended March 31, 1998 and 1997, as indicated in our report dated April
17, 1998; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that
information.

     We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in this
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 1998, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-36271 on Form S-8.

     We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c)
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, is not considered a part of the
Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report
prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11
of that Act.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Fort Worth, Texas
May 14, 1998
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidatd Statement of Income and the Consolidated Statement of Financial
Position 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>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          24,201
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  424,664
<ALLOWANCES>                                    36,812
<INVENTORY>                                    164,985
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               736,365
<PP&E>                                       3,740,731
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,758,433
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,860,440
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          907,281
<BONDS>                                      1,223,215
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          272,343
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           902
<OTHER-SE>                                     999,302
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,860,440
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,413,951
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,217,784
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,383
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                22,513
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              58,008
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                140,314
<INCOME-TAX>                                    48,624
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             91,690
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    91,690
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.03


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 427 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 427

  To amend the Clean Air Act to permit the sale in certain States of 
          gasoline from other regions, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 28, 2003

Mr. Sensenbrenner introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                  the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Clean Air Act to permit the sale in certain States of 
          gasoline from other regions, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

     This Act may be cited as the ``Fuel Price Stability Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. SALE OF GASOLINE FROM OTHER REGIONS.

     Section 211(k) of the Clean Air Act is amended by adding the 
following new paragraph at the end thereof:
            ``(11) Waiver in case of significant price increases.--The 
        Governor of Illinois, Indiana, or Wisconsin may issue an order 
        allowing any person to sell or dispense, for a specified 
        period, in any covered area in any such State conventional 
        gasoline or reformulated gasoline that is not certified by the 
        Administrator for that covered area if--
                    ``(A) such gasoline is certified by the 
                Administrator for sale in any other region of the 
                country; and
                    ``(B) the Governor finds that reduced availability 
                of reformulated gasoline certified by the Administrator 
                for the covered area concerned has resulted in, or is 
                likely to result in, a significant price increase for 
                reformulated gasoline in that covered area.''.
                                 <all>
```
10839.

#### Joyce *v.*The State.

Decided November 4, 1919.

Indictment for bigamy; from DeKalb superior court—Judge Smith. July 26, 1919.

*Ernest Q. Bentley, Waller A. Sims,*for plaintiff in error.

*George M. Napier, solicitor-general,*contra.

Luke, J.

1. A new trial will not be granted because of alleged improper remarks made by counsel, when it does not distinctly appear from the record that the remarks were heard by the court, and when no objection was made by the opposite party and no action of the court invoked in reference to the remarks. *Odell*v. *State,*120 *Ga.*152 (47 S. E. 577), and cases cited.

2. The 2d special ground of the motion for a new trial is disapproved by the trial judge; and no error in the trial of the case is shown by the other special grounds of the motion.

3. The evidence amply authorized the defendant’s conviction of bigamy, and the trial judge, approving the verdict, properly overruled the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, G. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) No. 77027-6-1

)

Respondent, )

)

v. )

)

CHAD DAVID SMITH, )

)

Appellant. ) FILED: June 11,2018

)

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

PER CURIAM. Chad Smith challenges the judgment and sentence imposed

following his guilty plea to first degree theft. His court-appointed attorney has filed a

motion to withdraw on the ground that there is no basis for a good faith argument on

review. Pursuant to State v. Theobald,78 Wn.2d 184, 470 P.2d 188 (1970), and

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), the motion

to withdraw must:

(1) be accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might

arguably support the appeal. (2) A copy of counsel's brief should be

furnished the indigent and (3) time allowed him to raise any points that he

chooses; (4) the court—not counsel—then proceeds, after a full examination

of all the proceedings, to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.

Theobald,78 Wn.2d at 185 (quoting Anders,386 U.S. at 744).

This procedure has been followed. Smith's counsel on appeal filed a brief with

the motion to withdraw. Smith was served with a copy of the brief and informed of his

right to file a statement of additional grounds for review. Smith did not file a

supplemental brief.
No. 77027-6-1/2

The material facts are accurately set forth in counsel's brief in support of the

motion to withdraw. The court has reviewed the briefs filed in this court and has

independently reviewed the entire record. The court specifically considered the

following potential issues raised by counsel:

Did the trial court err in ordering restitution?

The issues raised by counsel are wholly frivolous. The motion to withdraw is

granted and the appeal is dismissed.

_

2

FOR THE COURT:

1//fa-nm, 4.c 

4.--------.

'1 C I V/ ot Q

1 i

e.,.........
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          38,403
<SECURITIES>                                       927
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,834
<ALLOWANCES>                                       348
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                43,349
<PP&E>                                         111,369
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 307,129
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          265,637
<BONDS>                                        310,205
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            20
<OTHER-SE>                                    (29,410)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   307,129
<SALES>                                         37,721
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                37,721
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   76,421
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (17,178)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,965
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (75,843)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (75,843)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (75,843)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.85)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.85)
        

</TABLE>
Problem Statement Project Concept

Key Milestones and Deliverables Potential Impact of the Project

309,347 sq ft.

142,762 sq ft.

139,662 sq ft.

104,360 sq ft.

89,541 sq ft.

91,640 sq ft.

92,560 sq ft. 76,486 sq ft.

64,415 sq ft.

90,039 sq ft.

Location: 10 public schools comprising 1,201,082 sq ft of

indoor space. Includes USDA Designated Rural Areas and 

SBA HubZones. Schools rebuilt after Katrina to similar specs.

Approach/ Hardware: TeledyneOptech Mobile Mapper. Backpack 

or push-cart mounted. Collects 

lidar data and 360-degree color 

photos.

Processing/Viewing Software:

OGR/LASpy/PDAL

Indoor mapping is the next big frontier for the geospatial field. Lack of adequate indoor maps is a 

well-documented public safety issue reasserted with each building fire, earthquake, mass shooting,

and other tragedies. While technology exists capable of mapping buildings, very few standards and best 

practices are available to create reliable, affordable, and consistent indoor maps.

The Point Cloud City Hancock County, Mississippi grant project allows public safety and geospatial subject matter 

experts to work hand in hand with federal oversight to further develop approaches which improve indoor 

mapping techniques and datasets in the US to make them more common. Because Hancock County is a rural 

area, any approach used here should be applicable nationwide.

• New and improved approaches in public safety tactics

• Common standards and best practices for indoor maps

• Increased public/private research into indoor mapping due to high-quality, 

widely available reference datasets

• Increase in derivative technology research

• Open-source tools to make processing indoor data and creating maps easier

• Recognition of US as a global leader in Indoor Mapping technology

Key Milestones • Delivery of the Optech Sensor to Hancock 

County

• Training of personnel on data collection

• Collection of first building

• Processing of first dataset

• Completion of first-building lidar attribution, 

and vector feature extraction

• Completion of collection and processing for 

5 buildings

• Completion of all 10 schools

• Availability of data on MARIS Distribution 

site

• Availability of developed tools on GitHub

• Final Report

• Presentation of results to external 

stakeholders

Key Deliverables • Scheduled Reports

• Program presentations

Month 1

Month 2

Month 3

Month 4

Month 5

Month 6

Month 7

Month 8

Month 9

Month 10

Month 11

Month 12

• 10 attributed, lidar data sets for 10 public 

schools

• Vector data set for relevant public safety 

indoor features

• Mississippi Automated Resource 

Information System (MARIS) data 

download page

• Any open-source software tools developed

Ongoing

Ongoing
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
SEPTEMBER  30,  1998  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  OF  PROFORMIX  SYSTEMS,   INC.  AND
SUBSIDIARIES  AND IS QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH  FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                  SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                             63,490
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     442,467
<ALLOWANCES>                                       30,533
<INVENTORY>                                       313,982
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                1,580,351
<PP&E>                                            979,642
<DEPRECIATION>                                    491,434
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  4,490,522
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           3,347,834
<BONDS>                                         1,886,068
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                              508
<OTHER-SE>                                      (374,683)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    4,490,522
<SALES>                                           334,876
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  334,876
<CGS>                                             251,807
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     638,773
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  643,963
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    1,542
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 41,782
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (947,860)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (947,860)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (947,860)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0.19)
                                               


</TABLE>
#### La Fora S. Baker and Charles S. Murray v. Amos R. Morehouse.

*Contract*— Pa/rol *evidence.*

In an action on a written contract parol evidence of stipulations not in it is inadmissible.

Error to Mecosta.

Submitted Apr. 20.

Decided Apr. 25.

AssuMPsrr. Plaintiffs bring error.

.Affirmed.

*W. W. Carpenter*for appellants.

*Fra/nk Dumon*for appellee.

Campbell, J.

Plaintiffs sued defendant for not carrying-out an agreement to furnish them with shingles.

The agreement made by Morehouse was to *“*sell to said Baker & Murray all the shingles made by him at his shingle mill out of his own timber, and his one-half made from Seaman’s timber, in the township of Colfax, during the year 1880.” The contract contained some provisions as to size, quality, and handling, and payment of price, which do not become material.

As the case was given to the jury they must have found that all the shingles made by Morehouse out of his own timber, and out of his half of Seaman’s timber, in Colfax, were delivered.

The court below refused to allow parol evidence that it was agreed the mill should be kept running continuously and that shingles should be made from timber in other towns also. The whole ground of complaint seems to have been the failure to do this.

The contract contains no such agreement, and the parties were governed by their written agreement.

There was no error in the rulings, and. the judgment must be affirmed with costs.

Cooley and Marston, JJ. concurred.