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

**Certification Required by Rule 13a-14(b) or**

**Rule 15d-14(b) and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Permian Basin Royalty Trust (the “Trust”) on Form 10-Q for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2023, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuantto 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge: 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust. 

 
  ARGENT TRUST COMPANY, TRUSTEE FOR PERMIAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUSTDate: August 9, 2023  By: 
/s/ RON E. HOOPER
   Ron E. Hooper,   SVP Royalty Trust Services
A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Permian Basin Royalty Trust andwill be retained by Permian Basin Royalty Trust and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 
**
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





To The Board of Directors


Princeton Security Technologies, Inc.


Princeton, New Jersey





We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Princeton Security Technologies, Inc. (the Company) and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity (deficit), and cash flows for the years then ended. These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our audits.





We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States of America). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting, as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.





In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Princeton Security Technologies, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the years then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.








/s/ Child, Van Wagoner & Bradshaw, PLLC


Child, Van Wagoner & Bradshaw, PLLC


Salt Lake City, Utah


March 14, 2012
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7421

JIMMY GARFIELD DRIGGERS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

D. SMITH, Warden; M. GILLIGAN, Officer; E. O.

TRENT, Sergeant,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

KENNY HALL; OFFICER CAMPBELL,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District

Judge. (CA-96-1169-AM)

Submitted: February 26, 1998 Decided: March 18, 1998

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Jimmy Garfield Driggers, Appellant Pro Se. Collin Jefferson Hite,

SANDS, ANDERSON, MARKS & MILLER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Driggers v. Smith, No. CA-96-1169-AM (E.D. Va. Sept. 3,

1997). 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.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit
      35.1**




**SERVICER
      COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)**




RE: FIRST
      HORIZON MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH TRUST 2007-2




We,
      the
      undersigned authorized officers of First Horizon Home Loans, a division of
      First
      Tennessee Bank National Association, and First Tennessee Bank National
      Association, as successor by merger to First Tennessee Mortgage Services, Inc.
      (collectively, the “Servicer”), pursuant to the applicable servicing agreement,
      do hereby certify that:




1.  A
      review
      of the Servicer’s activities during the period from March 1, 2007 and through
      December 31, 2007 and of the Servicer’s performance under the above described
      servicing agreement has been made under our supervision.




2.  To
      the
      best of our knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all
      of
      its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material
      respects throughout such period .






Date:
      March 24, 2008




First
      Horizon Home Loans, a
      division of First Tennessee Bank National Association





By:
      /s/  Kim
      Yowell


Name:
      Kim
      Yowell


Title:
      SVP, Servicing Manager





First
      Tennessee Bank National Association, as successor by merger to First Tennessee
      Mortgage Services, Inc.





By:/s/ Terry
      L. McCoy


Name:
      Terry L. McCoy


Title:
      Executive Vice President
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 89 (Monday, May 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 21831]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-10881]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,593]


OSF Brands Inc., Plant <greek-i>8, Huntingburg, IN; Notice of 
Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on March 16, 2009 in response to a petition 
filed on behalf of the workers of OSF Brands, Inc., Plant <greek-i>8, 
Huntingburg, Indiana.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of April 2009.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-10881 Filed 5-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### Smith *v.*The Western Union Telegraph Company.

In an action against a telegraph company for the recovery of the statutory penalty, a declaration alleging that the company held, and permitted a message delivered to it for transmission “ to remain there in the sending office, or in the receiving office,” for a period of about thirty-six hours, and that “said company was-grossly careless and negligent in the delivery of said message ” to the plaintiff, and “ that for said gross negligence and disregard of duty said company became liable to pay [the plaintiff] the penalty of $100, as the statute provides,” sufficiently charged a want of clue diligence on the part of the defendant. It was, moreover, the right of the plaintiff to amend by alleging in terms that the company failed to deliver the message “ with due diligence.”

July 23, 1894.

*Judgment reversed.*

*442Action for penalty. Before Judge Hutchins. Clarke superior court. October term, 1898.

R. L. J. Smith and Lumpkin & Burnett, by Harrison & Peeples, for plaintiff. Dorsey, Brewster & Howell .and George Dudley Thomas, for defendant.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         158,068
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               55,559,989
<ALLOWANCES>                                   577,085
<INVENTORY>                                  7,183,400
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            75,288,046
<PP&E>                                      12,615,147
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,489,788
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             268,439,678
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       59,621,181
<BONDS>                                    117,494,013
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       354,684
<OTHER-SE>                                  81,644,329
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               268,439,676
<SALES>                                      5,472,932
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            44,899,127
<CGS>                                        4,099,375
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               30,091,779
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               482,344
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                59,361
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,817,054
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                248,241
<INCOME-TAX>                                   515,528
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (781,432)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (781,432)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.02)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7884

JOHN EDDIE CHAPPELL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-94-2249-3-6BD)

Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 30, 1996

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Eddie Chappell, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief

Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

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

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988), as amended by Antiterrorism

and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110

Stat. 1217, petition. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent that a certificate

of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate. We dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Chappell v.

South Carolina, No. CA-94-2249-3-6BD (D.S.C. Oct. 19, 1995). 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
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 8, 2018

No. 04-18-00577-CV

IN RE L.S.D,

From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017PA01575

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s motion for an extension of time to file the appellant’s brief is granted. We 

order counsel for appellant, Shawn Sheffield, to file the appellant’s brief by November 9, 2018.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 8th day of November, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
#### In the Matter of Vanessa R. Jesus Berrios, Appellant; Mental Hygiene Legal Services, on Behalf of Vanessa R., Respondent.

Submitted April 20, 2009;

decided June 9, 2009

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution *(see McDermott v Manhattan*Eye, *Ear & Throat Hosp.,*15 NY2d 20, 23 n 2 [1964]). Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
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 FLM Minerals Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended November 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the “report”), I, Xin Chen, 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:





(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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated this 14th day of March, 2011.








XIN CHENXin ChenChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
| Name      of Subsidiary                                                                                       |   | State      of Organization |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------|
| SemGroup      Energy Partners Operating, L.L.C.                                                               |   | Delaware                   |
| SGLP      Management, Inc.                                                                                    |   | Delaware                   |
| SemGroup      Energy Partners, L.L.C. (d/b/a SemGroup Energy Partners of Delaware,      L.L.C. (in Oklahoma)) |   | Delaware                   |
| SemPipe      G.P., L.L.C.                                                                                     |   | Delaware                   |
| SemPipe,      L.P.                                                                                            |   | Texas                      |
| SemGroup      Crude Storage, L.L.C.                                                                           |   | Delaware                   |
| SemMaterials      Energy Partners, L.L.C.                                                                     |   | Delaware                   |
| SGLP      Asphalt, L.L.C.                                                                                     |   | Texas                      |
AURORA LOAN SERVICES *A Lehman Brothers Company*Depositor: Structured Asset Securities Corporation 745 Seventh Avenue 8th Floor New York, NY 10019 Trustee:   U.S. Bank National Association  One Federal Street 3rd Floor  Boston, MA 02110 Securities Administrator: Subject: Annual Officer's Certification Fiscal Year:    2007 Securitization:  LXS 2007-4N I, E. Todd Whittemore, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Aurora Loan Services LLC (the "Master Servicer"), do certify the following for the Calendar Year 2007: 1.A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period beginning on the cut-off date and ending on December 31, 2007 (the "reporting period") and of its performance under the Agreement for such period has been made under my supervision. 2.To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material aspects throughout such reporting period. Certified by: A U R O R A   L O A N   S E R V I C E S   L L C  By: /s/ E. Todd Whittemore N a m e :  E .   T o d d   W h i t t e m o r e  Title: Executive Vice President
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

May 1, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 05-16443

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-00030-MC-17-TGW

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

MICHAEL S. FLANAGAN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(May 1, 2006)

Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Tracy Dreispul, appointed counsel for Michael S. Flanagan in his direct
2

criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the

appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct.

1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals

that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit,

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Flanagan’s conviction and

sentence are AFFIRMED.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Gregory Boomer, Appellant, v James Conway, Superintendent of Attica Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Submitted November 30, 2009;

decided January 14, 2010

Reported below, 2009 NY Slip Op 87253CU).

*930Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BULL RUN CORPORATION FOR THE THREE MONTHS
ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         103,494
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,348,302
<ALLOWANCES>                                    80,000
<INVENTORY>                                  5,457,011
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,008,499
<PP&E>                                       5,137,573
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,539,406
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             105,745,637
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       18,684,295
<BONDS>                                     53,377,296
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       228,243
<OTHER-SE>                                  28,564,142
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               105,745,637
<SALES>                                      7,532,940
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,728,238
<CGS>                                        5,374,925
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               705,641
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,511
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,205,033
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,107,908)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   520,604
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,056,984)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,056,984)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.05)
        
 

</TABLE>
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.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,431]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on February 27, 2009 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of CWR Manufacturing Corporation, East Syracuse, New York.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 15th day of April 2009.

Elliott S. Kushner,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-10906 Filed 5-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4044 

To clarify the treatment of certain charitable contributions under title 11, 

United States Code. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2006 

Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. OBAMA) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice 

SEPTEMBER 30 (legislative day 29), 2006 

Considered, read the third time, and passed 

A BILL 

To clarify the treatment of certain charitable contributions 

under title 11, United States Code. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Religious Liberty and 

5 Charitable Donation Clarification Act of 2006’’. 


jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with BILLS
2 

•S 4044 CPS

1 SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CONTRIBUTIONS IN 

2 BANKRUPTCY. 

3 Section 1325(b)(3) of title 11, United States Code, 

4 is amended by inserting ‘‘, other than subparagraph 

5 (A)(ii) of paragraph (2),’’ after ‘‘paragraph (2)’’. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with BILLS