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 on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 (the Report) of PlainsCapital Corporation (the
Company), the undersigned hereby certify in their capacities as Chief Executive Officer and Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, 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 their knowledge:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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 presented in the Report.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |  |  |        |  |                                      
|---------------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: November 9, 2010 |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/ ALAN B. WHITE                    
|                       |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Alan B. White                        
|                       |  |  |  | Title: |  | President and Chief Executive Officer



|                       |  |  |  |        |  |                                                     
|---------------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 9, 2010 |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/ ALLEN CUSTARD                                   
|                       |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Allen Custard                                       
|                       |  |  |  | Title: |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is furnished as an exhibit to the Report and will not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the
date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
EXHIBIT 15.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-134593, 333-148932, 333-148933, 333-164330, 333-164331, 333-170900 and 333-170901) and Form F-3 (Nos. 333-163353 and 333-164332) of our reports dated March 31, 2011, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of EZchip Semiconductor Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 2010 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of EZchip Semiconductor Ltd. included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010.




/s/ Kost, Forer, Gabbay & KasiererHaifa, Israel

KOST, FORER, GABBAY AND KASIERERMarch 31, 2011

A member of Ernst & Young Global
<PAGE>
LAUREL CAPITAL GROUP, INC.
FORM 10-k
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                       FOR THE        FOR THE         FOR THE
                                                     YEAR ENDED     YEAR ENDED       YEAR ENDED
                                                   June 30, 2002   June 30, 2001   June 30, 2000
                                                   -------------   -------------   -------------

<S>                                                   <C>             <C>             <C>
NET INCOME                                           $3,075,000      $3,639,000      $3,408,000
                                                     ----------      ----------      ----------

BASIC EPS:

        WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING           1,937,545       1,963,365       2,107,711
                                                      ---------       ---------       ---------

        BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE                          $1.59           $1.85           $1.62
                                                          -----           -----           -----

DILUTED EPS:

        WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING           1,937,545       1,963,365       2,107,711
        DILUTIVE EFFECT OF EMPLOYEE STOCK OPTIONS       100,062          73,244          72,779
                                                        -------          ------          ------

        DILUTED WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING   2,037,607       2,036,609       2,180,490
                                                      ---------       ---------       ---------

        DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE                        $1.51           $1.79           $1.56
                                                          -----           -----           -----

</TABLE>
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 4372

_____________________________ A RTHUR L. B ELTON ,
Petitioner
,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

— Original Jurisdiction

.

March 11, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
D ISMISSED

. See Baker v. State , 878 So. 2d 1236 (F la. 2004).

R OBERTS , R AY , and J AY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Arthur L. Belton, pro se
, Petitioner

. Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Respondent

.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 26 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 26

    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reset the income 
  threshold used to calculate the refundable portion of the child tax 
credit and to repeal the sunset for certain prior modifications made to 
                              the credit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 7, 2009

 Mrs. Lincoln introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reset the income 
  threshold used to calculate the refundable portion of the child tax 
credit and to repeal the sunset for certain prior modifications made to 
                              the credit.

    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 ``Working Family Child Assistance 
Act''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF CHILD TAX CREDIT; REPEAL OF SUNSET.

    (a) Modification of Threshold Amount.--
            (1) In general.--Clause (i) of section 24(d)(1)(B) of the 
        Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 
        ``$10,000'' and inserting ``$8,500''.
            (2) Repeal of inflation adjustment to earned income base.--
        Subsection (d) of section 24 of such Code (relating to portion 
        of credit refundable) is amended by striking paragraph (3).
            (3) Conforming amendment.--Section 24(d) of such Code is 
        amended by striking paragraph (4).
            (4) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
        shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2009.
    (b) Repeal of EGTRRA Sunset.--Title IX of the Economic Growth and 
Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (relating to sunset of provisions 
of such Act) shall not apply to sections 201 and 203 of such Act 
(relating to modifications to child tax credit and refunds disregarded 
in the administration of federal programs and federally assisted 
programs).
                                 <all>
```
Grant Applicant/Awardee 

Technical Assistance (GAATA)

TOPIC: Demystifying the Panel 

Review Process for Grant Funding

DATE: May 2, 2024

TIME: 11 AM - 12:30 PM, CST

VIRTUAL PLATFORM: Zoom, 

Registration required

WWW.NIFA.USDA.GOV/EVENTS/GAATA-MAY-2024

LEARN ABOUT:

How peer review panels work

Different panelist roles

How you can participate!

USDA IS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY PROVIDER, EMPLOYER AND LENDER
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JOSEPH DUPEROUX
, Appellant,

v.

PHILIPPE SYMONOVICZ
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 22

- 784

[ February 2, 2023 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Carlos A. Rodriguez , Judge; L.T. Case No. 18

- 16018 (14)

.

Joseph Duperoux, Lauderdale Lakes, pro se.

Philippe Symonovicz of t he Law Offices of Philippe Symonovicz, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ROSS
, D AMOORGIAN and K UNTZ

, JJ., c oncur

.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2657 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on strontium halophosphate 

doped with europium. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 2, 2009 

Mr. BUNNING introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on strontium 

halophosphate doped with europium. 

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

3 SECTION 1. STRONTIUM HALOPHOSPHATE DOPED WITH 

4 EUROPIUM. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.22.73 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

7 strontium halophosphate doped with europium) is amend8 ed by striking the date in the effective column period and 

9 inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2657 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant-Respondent, v Manuel Rodriguez, Respondent-Appellant.

Submitted October 18, 2010;

decided October 21, 2010

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Robert S. Dean, Esq., Center for Appellate Litigation, 74 Trinity Place, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the respondent-appellant on the appeal herein.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2808 

To improve the Express Loan Program of the Small Business Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 20, 2009 

Mrs. SHAHEEN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship 

A BILL 

To improve the Express Loan Program of the Small Business 

Act. 

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 ‘‘Express Loan Im5 provements Act of 2009’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXPRESS LOAN PROGRAM. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 7(a)(31) of the Small 

8 Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)(31)) is amended— 

9 (1) in subparagraph (A)(iii), by striking ‘‘50 

10 percent’’ and inserting ‘‘75 percent’’; and 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2808 IS

1 (2) in subparagraph (D), by striking 

2 ‘‘$350,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$1,000,000’’. 

3 (b) PROSPECTIVE REPEAL.—Effective 2 years after 

4 the date of enactment of this Act, section 7(a)(31)(A)(iii) 

5 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)(31)(A)(iii)) 

6 is amended by striking ‘‘75 percent’’ and inserting ‘‘50 

7 percent’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                              52
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     7471
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1514
<INVENTORY>                                       4417
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 11956
<PP&E>                                           10270
<DEPRECIATION>                                    7874
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   16215
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             9117
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                       7000
<COMMON>                                         12213
<OTHER-SE>                                     (28996)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     16215
<SALES>                                          24407
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 24407
<CGS>                                            15925
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     7082
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  1026
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 913
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (539)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (539)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (889)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .38
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles Cox, Appellant.

[976 NYS2d 665]

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), dated August 22, 2012, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The People bear the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, the facts supporting the assessment of points under the Guidelines issued by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (hereinafter the Board) under the Sex Offender Registration Act *(see*Correction Law art 6-C; Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 5 [2006]; *People v Johnson,*109 AD3d 972, 973 [2013]; *People v Kost,*82 AD3d 729 [2011]). Contrary to the defendant’s *801contention, the County Court properly assessed him 15 points under risk factor 11 for a history of alcohol abuse. The defendant’s history of alcohol abuse was established by clear and convincing evidence in the form of the defendant’s presentence report and the case summary completed by the Board *(see People v Fryer,*101 AD3d 835 [2012]; *People v Warren,*42 AD3d 593, 594 [2007]). Accordingly, the defendant was properly designated a level two sex offender. Rivera, J.E, Dillon, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            20650
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      (20650)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  1000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (1000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.001)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.001)
        

</TABLE>
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Roche Surety Company/Forrest , Appellant

No. 06

- 22

- 00095

- CR v.

The State of Texas , Appellee Appeal from the 361st District Court of Brazos County, Texas (Tr. Ct

. No. 19

- 04703

- CRF

- 361 ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice van Cleef

, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Stevens participating

.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the motion of the appellant to dismiss the appeal should be granted. Therefor e, we dismiss the appeal. We further order that the appellant, Roche Surety Company/Forrest , pay all costs incurred by reason of this appeal.

RENDERED NOVEMBER 17, 2022 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
<PAGE>   1


                                  EXHIBIT 23.1



                               ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



         As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation of our report included in this Form 10-K into the Company's
previously filed Registration Statement File Nos. 33-66980, 33-86230, 333-01874,
333-03865, 333-22943, 333-28717, 333-45991, 333-53413, 333-60321, 333-73201, and
333-82879.


                                               /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP



Phoenix, Arizona
     December 28, 1999
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-13-00469-CR

Jacqueline Kae Norris, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 70429, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Jacqueline Kae Norris pled guilty before a jury to the offense of

intoxication manslaughter with a motor vehicle. Tex. Penal Code §49.08(a)(1). The jury returned

a verdict of guilty, and the trial court sentenced her to ten years’ imprisonment and a fine of

$10,000. Appellant’s appointed attorney has filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous

and without merit.

Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable

grounds to be advanced. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); Anders, 386 U.S. at 743-44;

High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811-13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684,

684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).

Appellant’s attorney sent appellant a copy of the brief and advised her that she had the right
to examine the record and file a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Jackson v. State,

485 S.W.2d 553, 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972).

Afterreviewing the evidence presented to the trial court and the procedures that were

observed, we have found nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. We agree

with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw

and affirm the judgment of conviction.1

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin and Field

Affirmed

Filed: July 8, 2014

Do Not Publish

No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of 1

her case by the court of criminal appeals, she must either retain an attorney to file a petition for

discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See generally Tex. R. App. P.

68-79 (governing proceedingsin theTexasCourt ofCriminal Appeals). Any petition for discretionary

review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the date this Court

overrules the last timely motion for rehearing filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. The petition must be

filed with this Court, after which it will be forwarded to the court of criminal appeals along with the

rest of the filings in the cause. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3, 68.7. Any petition for discretionary review

should comply with rules 68.4 and 68.5 of the rules of appellate procedure. See Tex. R. App. P.

68.4, 68.5.

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>     0000821616
<NAME>    BENTLEY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS                        
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1998       
<PERIOD-START>                 JUL-01-1998        
<PERIOD-END>                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                         8,430          
<SECURITIES>                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                  2,267
<ALLOWANCES>                   17
<INVENTORY>                    936
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               13,732
<PP&E>                         4,830
<DEPRECIATION>                 1,643
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 19,980
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          4,722
<BONDS>                        5,409
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>          168
<PREFERRED>                    2,440             
<COMMON>                       2,440
<OTHER-SE>                     6,952
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   19,980
<SALES>                        3,674
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               3,800
<CGS>                          1,585          
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  3,803         
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>             285
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (288)
<INCOME-TAX>                  (132)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           (156)
<DISCONTINUED>                 0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                0
<CHANGES>                      0                  
<NET-INCOME>                  (156)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                 (0.02)
        

</TABLE>