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**

| (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. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                    |                                                 |                                     |
|-----------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|
| Dated:              June 28, 2007  | By:                                        | /s/ Nicholas              C. Taylor |
|                                    | Chief                Executive Officer and President |
|                                    |                                                 |

----
V 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4566

For the relief of Konstantinos Ritos. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 14, 2004

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

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

For the relief of Konstantinos Ritos.

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 

4 KONSTANTINOS RITOS. 

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

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

7 Act, Konstantinos Ritos shall be eligible for issuance of 

8 an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of 

9 an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon 

10 filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa 

11 under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of status 

12 to lawful permanent resident. 
2

•HR 4566 IH 

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Konstantinos 

2 Ritos enters the United States before the filing deadline 

3 specified in subsection (c), he shall be considered to have 

4 entered and remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligi5 ble, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 

6 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of 

7 the enactment 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 Konstantinos Ritos, the Secretary of State shall 

16 instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the cur17 rent or next following fiscal year, the total number of im18 migrant visas that are made available to natives of the 

19 country of the alien’s birth under section 203(a) of the 

20 Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the 

21 total number of immigrant visas that are made available 

22 to natives 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 4566 IH 

1 parents, brothers, and sisters of Konstantinos Ritos shall 

2 not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any right, 

3 privilege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality 

4 Act.

Æ
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

I, James W. Bernau, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Willamette Valley Vineyards Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects
the financial condition and results of operations of Willamette Valley
Vineyards Inc.

Date: November 14, 2005
By:	 /s/ James W. Bernau
Name: James W. Bernau
Title:   Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4541 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4541

     To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Pigment Red 185.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 9, 2004

 Mr. Langevin introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Pigment Red 185.

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

SECTION 1. PIGMENT RED 185.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.32.26 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States is amended by striking ``12/31/2002'' and 
inserting ``12/31/2006''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after January 1, 2003.
                                 <all>
```
Article Ref: J-031

Weights and Measures Connection, Vol. 11, Issue 1 January 2021 Page 1

New On-Demand Webinar on NIST HB130, Method of Sale, and NIST 

HB133, Test Procedure for Mulch and Soils Labeled by Volume 

Byline: David Sefcik 

The Office of Weights and Measures and the Mulch and Soil Council are pleased to announce an on-demand webinar 

on NIST Handbook 130, “Method of Sale” and NIST Handbook 133, “Section 3.10. Test Procedure for Packages of 

Mulch and Soils Labeled by Volume.” The individual modules cover the method of sale and labeling requirements 

for packages of mulch and soil, as well as the test procedure. The test procedure is primarily used for verifying the net 

quantity of contents for packages of mulch, but it can also be used to verify the net quantity of contents of potting soil 

and other packaged soil products sold by volume. 

The webinar contains individual learning modules and includes video demonstrations. You can choose to watch the 

complete webinar or specific modules, such as the method of sale or labeling requirements. If you are familiar with 

those, you can focus just on test equipment and test procedures. The webinar includes the following modules and is 

1.5 hours in total length:

• Introduction and Demonstration of the Test Procedure for Mulch and Soils

• Method of Sale for Mulch and Soils (NIST Handbook 130 “Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation”)

• Labeling Requirements for Mulch and Soils (NIST Handbook 130 “Uniform Packaging and Labeling 

Regulation”)

• Test Equipment (NIST Handbook 133, Section 3.10. “Mulch and Soils Labeled by Volume”)

• Test Procedure for Mulch and Soils Labeled by Volume (NIST Handbook 133, Section 3.10. “Mulch and 

Soils Labeled by Volume”)

• Evaluation of Test Results (NIST Handbook 133, Section 3.10. “Mulch and Soils Labeled by Volume”)

This on-demand webinar can be viewed at: www.nist.gov/pml/weights-and-measures/laws-and-regulations/lrresources. Since this is an on-demand webinar, no registration is required. Students will not receive a certificate of 

participation. 

Please contact David Sefcik at david.sefcik@nist.gov or Lisa Warfield at lisa.warfield@nist.gov or 

OWM@nist.gov for additional assistance and information.
IB 

Union Calendar No. 431

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4579

[Report No. 108–703] 

To modify the boundary of the Harry S Truman National Historic Site 

in the State of Missouri, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 15, 2004

Ms. MCCARTHY of Missouri (for herself, Mr. SKELTON, and Mr. BLUNT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2004

Additional sponsors: Mrs. EMERSON, Mr. HULSHOF, and Mr. CLAY

SEPTEMBER 28, 2004

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 

A BILL

To modify the boundary of the Harry S Truman National 

Historic Site in the State of Missouri, and for other 

purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 4579 RH 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This section may be cited as the ‘‘Truman Farm 

3 Home Expansion Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. HARRY S TRUMAN NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE 

5 BOUNDARY MODIFICATION. 

6 The first section of Public Law 98–32 (16 U.S.C. 

7 461 note) is amended—

8 (1) by redesignating subsection (d) as sub9 section (e); and 

10 (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the fol11 lowing: 

12 ‘‘(d) ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL LAND.—

13 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may acquire, 

14 by donation, purchase with donated or appropriated 

15 funds, transfer from another Federal agency, or any 

16 other means, the land described in paragraph (2) for 

17 inclusion in the Harry S Truman National Historic 

18 Site. 

19 ‘‘(2) DESCRIPTION OF LAND.—The land re20 ferred to in paragraph (1) consists of the approxi21 mately 5 acres of land (including the structure lo22 cated south of the Truman Farm Home site), as 

23 generally depicted on the map entitled ‘Harry S 

24 Truman National Historic Site Proposed Boundary’, 

25 numbered 492/80,027, and dated April 17, 2003. 
3

•HR 4579 RH 

1 ‘‘(3) BOUNDARY MODIFICATION.—On acquisi2 tion of the land under this subsection, the Secretary 

3 shall modify the boundary of the Harry S Truman 

4 National Historic Site to reflect the acquisition of 

5 the land.’’. 
Union Calendar No. 431

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4579

[Report No. 108–703] 

A BILL

To modify the boundary of the Harry S Truman 

and for other purposes. National Historic Site in the State of Missouri, 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2004

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed
#### Ronnie Odell POWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mark LUTTRELL; Robert Christie; Shelby County Correctional Center, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-6452.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

May 9, 2001.

Before SILER and GILMAN, Circuit *331Judges; DUGGAN, District Judge.*

*

The Honorable Patrick J. Duggan, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.

Ronnte Odell Powell, a Tennessee state prisoner, appeals pro se a district court order dismissing his civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l). Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

Seeking monetary and injunctive relief, Powell filed this complaint against two correctional officers and the Shelby County, Tennessee Correctional Center. He alleged that he had been told to go to the wrong place for a disciplinary hearing, which was then held in his absence. After filing a grievance, he was afforded a new hearing, at which he was found guilty. His appeal from that hearing was denied as untimely. Powell alleged that his due process rights were somehow infringed during this proceeding, and that he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.

The district court granted Powell pauper status and screened the complaint. Although it was not clear from the attachments whether Powell had exhausted his administrative remedies, the district court waived this procedural bar pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(2), concluding that the complaint was subject to dismissal as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)©. Powell reasserts his claims on appeal.

Upon review, we conclude that the dismissal of this complaint as frivolous must be affirmed, as Powell’s claim lacks any arguable basis in law or fact. *See Neitzke v. Williams,*490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). The district court correctly concluded that Powell had no liberty interest which entitled him to due process, as he was not subjected to an atypical and significant hardship. *See Sandin v. Conner,*515 U.S. 472, 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995). Furthermore, no facts were alleged which would rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation. Because Powell’s claims lacked any arguable basis in law or fact, the district court’s order dismissing the complaint as frivolous is affirmed. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-40660

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ROLANDO EUCEDA LOPEZ, also known as Orlando Lopez-Garcia, also 

known as Edgardo D. Castillo, also known as Molojo Palmarez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:13-CR-52-1

Before PRADO, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Rolando Euceda 

Lopez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Euceda Lopez has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 16, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-40660 Document: 00512598134 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/16/2014
No. 13-40660

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 13-40660 Document: 00512598134 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/16/2014
| 1.   | The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended November 30, 2010 (the “Form 10-K”) of the Company 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated: February 8, 2011 | /s/ Mark King            |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------|
|                    | Mark King                     |
|                    | Chief Executive Officer       |
|                    | (Principal Executive Officer) |
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Valentina LIZARRAGA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-10320.

D.C. No. CR 99-00757-RCC.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 14, 2001.*

Decided May 30, 2001.

Before PREGERSON, FERNANDEZ, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Valentina Lizarraga appeals from her guilty plea conviction and 120-month sentence imposed for importation of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a) and 960(b)(1)(B)(ii). Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Lizarraga’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no arguable issues for review, and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Counsel has identified and correctly rejected as a potential issue for appeal whether Lizarraga’s waiver of her statutory right to appeal *577was voluntary and knowing. The record confirms that this claim lacks merit.

Lizarraga filed a supplemental pro se brief raising one additional issue. She asserts that counsel was ineffective for failing to advise her of a “mere presence” defense. The record is not sufficiently developed on this claim; therefore, we decline to address it on direct appeal. *See United States v. Houtchens,*926 F.2d 824, 828 (9th Cir.1991) (declining to reach merits of defendant’s ineffective assistance claim because “such a claim cannot be advanced without the development of facts outside the original record”) (citations omitted). This disposition is without prejudice to Lizarraga raising an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas petition. *See id.*

Having conducted an independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83-84, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we conclude that there are no arguable appellate issues on direct appeal.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this' circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**EXHIBIT 10.130**

 

**CASH COMPENSATION FOR**

**NON-MANAGEMENT DIRECTORS OF THE REGISTRANT**

 

As of April 20, 2007, non-employee directors of Mechanical Technology, Incorporated (“the Company”) annually receive the following: 1) options to purchase 50,000 shares of the Company’s Common Stock, 2) the Chairman of the Audit Committee, the Chairman of the Governance, Compensation and Nominating Committee and the Chairman of the Technical Committee of the Company’s MTI MicroFuel Cells Inc. subsidiary each receive additional options to purchase 7,500 shares of our Company’s Common Stock, and 3) members of the Audit Committee, the Governance, Compensation and Nominating Committee and the Technical Committee of the Company’s MTI MicroFuel Cells Inc. subsidiary each receive additional options to purchase 5,000 shares of the Company’s Common Stock. Non-employee director compensation is issued on an annual basis on the third Monday of each March. These options are priced basedon the closing price of the Company’s stock on the Nasdaq Global Market System on the date of grant, vest immediately and have a seven year term. Each non-management director is also reimbursed for reasonable travel and related expenses incurred on behalf of the Company.

 

On March 12, 2008, the Board of Directors of the Company approved the deferral of the issuance of annual stock option compensation for the Company’s non-management directors until a later date in 2008.  Under the Company’s current compensation plan for its non-management directors, annual option compensation was scheduled to be issued on March 17, 2008.
#### W. W. Bryant *v.*W. D. Bryant et al.

Attachment — -Priority of Lien.

Attachments which were levied before a mortgage on the property was executed take precedence over the. mortgage, and a sale of the property under the mortgage will not remove the lien or place the mortgagee in any better condition.

Attachment — Control of Property by Court.

By a levy of attachment, the court acquires an equitable control over the property so far as is necessary -to accomplish the objects of the attachment.

APPEAL PROM HENRY CIRCUIT COURT.

June 17, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

The creditors whose attachments were sustained acquired a lien on the debtor’s property superior to that of appellant, because their attachments were levied before the mortgage on the same property was executed to him, and the sale of the attached property by the sheriff did not remove their liens or place the mortgagee in any better condition than he was before.

By the levy of the attachments the chancellor acquired an equitable control over the property so far as was necessary to accomplish the objects of the attachments, that must overreach all intermediate *8transfers. The debtor could himself have sold the property after the attachments were levied, and such sale and conveyance would not have been void. But the purchaser would have acquired only such title as the debtor had, subject to the liens of the creditors. And the sale'by the sheriff could pass no greater interest than the debtor himself had. *Oldham v.*Scrivener, 3 B. Mon. 579.

*DeHaven, Carroll, for appellant.*

*Webb & Barbour, for appellee.*

The judgment of the court below accords with these views, and the same must be *aiñrn%ed.*

Judge Pryor did not sit in this case.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

DAVID CRANK,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D22-335

LT Case No. 2016-CA-979-A

MARY JANE CRANE AND LUZ M. SAMA,

Appellees.

________________________________/

Decision filed March 14, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Citrus County,

Carol A. Falvey, Judge.

Kevin K. Dixon, of Kevin K. Dixon, 

P.A., Inverness, for Appellant.

Casey C. Harrison, of Harrison 

Estate Law, P.A., Gainesville, for 

Appellee, Mary J. Crane.

No Appearance for Appellee, Luz M. Sama.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WALLIS, EISNAUGLE and MACIVER, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 23
                                                                      ----------



                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED
                             PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

DRYCLEAN USA, Inc.
Miami, Florida

We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements  on Form S-8 (File No.  333-37574,  333-37576  and  333-37582) of our
report  dated  September  1,  2004  except  for Note 11, as to which the date is
September  27,  2004,  relating  to the  consolidated  financial  statements  of
DRYCLEAN USA, Inc.  appearing in the Company's  Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for
the fiscal year ended June 30, 2004.

                                                       BDO Seidman, LLP

Miami, Florida
September 27, 2004
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

I, James W. Bernau, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Willamette Valley Vineyards Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects
the financial condition and results of operations of Willamette Valley
Vineyards Inc.

Date: Nov 14, 2006
By:	 /s/ James W. Bernau
Name: James W. Bernau
Title:   Chief Executive Officer