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

 

Alpha Pro Tech, Ltd.

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Alpha Pro Tech, Ltd. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Sheldon Hoffman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

(2)                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 
|   |                |
|--------|---------------------|
| DATE:  | April 27, 2004 |   | BY: | /s/ Sheldon Hoffman |   |
|   |                | SHELDON HOFFMAN |
|   |                | CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER |
|        |                     |  |  |  |  |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-2383

CHARLES DERECK ADAMS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, District Judge. (1:16-cv-01468-AJT-TCB)

Submitted: January 18, 2018 Decided: January 22, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Dereck Adams, Appellant Pro Se. R. Trent McCotter, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles Dereck Adams seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 

his complaint challenging the denial of his request for early retirement from the 

Department of Defense. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice 

of appeal was not timely filed. 

When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal 

must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or 

order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). 

“[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” 

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on September 29, 2017. The 

notice of appeal was filed on November 30, 2017. Because Adams failed to file a timely 

notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we grant the 

Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 681

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit an authorized committee of a winning candidate for election for Federal office 

which received a personal loan from the candidate from making any 

repayment on the loan after the date on which the candidate begins 

serving in such office. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 11, 2003

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

Committee on House Administration 

A BILL

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to 

prohibit an authorized committee of a winning candidate 

for election for Federal office which received a personal 

loan from the candidate from making any repayment 

on the loan after the date on which the candidate begins 

serving in such office.

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

•HR 681 IH 

1 SECTION 1. PROHIBITING REPAYMENT OF CANDIDATE 

2 PERSONAL LOANS AFTER DATE ON WHICH 

3 CANDIDATE BEGINS SERVING IN ELECTED 

4 OFFICE. 

5 Section 315 of the Federal Election Campaign Act 

6 of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a), as amended by section 304(a) 

7 of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002, 

8 is amended by adding at the end the following new sub9 section: 

10 ‘‘(k) LIMITATIONS ON REPAYMENT OF PERSONAL

11 LOANS MADE BY CANDIDATE TO COMMITTEE.—An au12 thorized committee of a winning candidate for an election 

13 for Federal office occurring after December 2003 which 

14 received a personal loan from the candidate may not make 

15 any repayment with respect to such loan on or after the 

16 date on which the candidate begins serving in the office.’’.

Æ
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5327

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an increased exclusion of gain from the sale of a principal residence by certain widows 

and widowers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 8, 2004

Mrs. LOWEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

an increased exclusion of gain from the sale of a principal residence by certain widows and widowers.

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

3 SECTION 1. INCREASED EXCLUSION ON SALE OF PRIN4 CIPAL RESIDENCE BY CERTAIN WIDOWS AND 

5 WIDOWERS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 121(b) of the Internal 

7 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end 

8 the following new paragraph: 
2

•HR 5327 IH 

1 ‘‘(4) SPECIAL RULES FOR WIDOWS AND WID2 OWERS.—In the case of an unmarried individual who 

3 was married and whose marriage ceased by reason 

4 of the death of such individual’s spouse, paragraph 

5 (1) shall be applied by substituting ‘$500,000’ for 

6 ‘$250,000’ if—

7 ‘‘(A) such property was owned by such in8 dividual or such individual’s spouse immediately 

9 before the death of such spouse, 

10 ‘‘(B) the requirements of paragraphs 

11 (2)(A) and (3) would have been met if such 

12 property had been sold immediately before the 

13 death of such spouse, and 

14 ‘‘(C) the sale or exchange of such property 

15 is during the 1-year period beginning on the 

16 date of the death of such spouse.’’. 

17 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 121(c)(1) 

18 of such Code is amended by striking ‘‘or (2)’’ and insert19 ing ‘‘, (2), or (4)’’. 

20 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

21 this section shall apply to sales and exchanges after the 

22 date of the enactment of this Act, in taxable years ending 

23 after such date.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000811831
<NAME> BETHEL BANCORP
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                       3,962,657
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                      18,428,495
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 12,510,182
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                    170,039,108
<ALLOWANCE>                                  2,394,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             216,198,973
<DEPOSITS>                                 149,335,274
<SHORT-TERM>                                19,904,648
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,460,829
<LONG-TERM>                                 22,950,000
<COMMON>                                     1,203,486
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,999,980
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,616,003
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             216,198,973
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              8,176,899
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              456,895
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               373,552
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             9,007,346
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           3,287,660
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,563,362
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        4,443,984
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  295,563
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             206,383
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              3,951,595
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,361,598
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,361,598
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   865,073
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.58
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   4.356
<LOANS-NON>                                  3,624,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               410,706
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                              4,175,000
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             2,396,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  318,339
<RECOVERIES>                                    20,775
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            2,394,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           643,586
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                      1,750,414
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6883

EDWARD HAROLD SAUNDERS, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

KENNETH E. LAY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:11-cv-00566-BO)

Submitted: September 4, 2012 Decided: September 12, 2012

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward Harold Saunders, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Edward Harold Saunders, Jr. appeals the district 

court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint 

as frivolous. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s 

order. See Saunders v. Lay, No. 5:11-cv-00566-BO (E.D.N.C. 

Apr. 20, 2012). 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
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5357 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5357

  To direct the Secretary of Education to establish a music education 
pilot program to make grants to a university to fund a music education 
                        center for young people.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 9, 2004

 Mr. Ryan of Ohio introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
              the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To direct the Secretary of Education to establish a music education 
pilot program to make grants to a university to fund a music education 
                        center for young people.

    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 ``Youngstown State University Music 
for Our Youth Program Establishment Act''.

SEC. 2. MUSIC EDUCATION PILOT PROGRAM.

    (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Education shall establish the 
``Youngstown State University Music for Our Youth Program'', a 6-year 
pilot program to make grants to fund a music education center at 
Youngstown State University in Youngstown, Ohio, to provide music 
education for children in grades 7 through 12.
    (b) Use of Funds.--Youngstown State University shall use funds 
received under this Act to establish a music education center to--
            (1) provide exposure to different varieties of music;
            (2) teach the importance and value of music;
            (3) offer exposure to musical concepts, such as rhythm; and
            (4) provide lessons in playing musical instruments and 
        singing.
    (c) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under this Act, 
Youngstown State University shall submit an application to the 
Secretary at such a time, in such manner, and containing such 
information and assurances as the Secretary may require.
    (d) Reports.--
            (1) University report.--Not later than 18 months after 
        receiving a grant under this Act, Youngstown State University 
        shall submit a report to the Secretary documenting how the 
        university used the grant funds and evaluating the level of 
        success of the music center funded by the grant.
            (2) Report to congress.--Not later than 3 years after 
        establishing the pilot program under this section, the 
        Secretary shall submit a report to Congress evaluating the 
        success and viability of the pilot program.
    (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this Act such sums as may be necessary for 
each of fiscal years 2005 through 2011.
                                 <all>
```
Order entered May 1 4 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 15
- 00253
- CV DOROTHEA LASTER, Appellant
V. SHARON THOMAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause N o. DF
- 04
- 10316 

### O RDER Because Dallas County District Clerk Felicia Pitre has failed to comply with our April 27, 2015 order directing her to file, no later than May 1, 2015, a supplemental clerk’s record containing the items designated by Dorothea Laster in her “First Supplemental Designation,” we again ORDER Ms. Pitre to file the requested record. The record shall be filed no later than May
1 9 , 2015.
We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to Ms. Pitre and all parties.
/s/ CRAIG S TODDART JUSTICE
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 Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting:

*Time and Date:*                         10:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m., July 31, 2009 (Closed).                    

*Place:*                         Teleconference.                    

*Status:*                         The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in section 552b(c) (4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.                    

*Matters To Be Discussed:*                         The meeting will include the initial review, discussion, and evaluation of “Impact of Tic Disorders, Including Tourette Syndrome, in Youth, on Individuals, Families, and Communities, FOA DD09-004.”                    

*Contact Person for More Information:*                         Michael Dalmat, Scientific Review Administrator, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop K92, Atlanta, GA 30333, Telephone (770) 488-6423.                    

                        The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                         **Federal Register**                         notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                    

Dated: July 9, 2009.

Elaine L. Baker,

Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. E9-16921 Filed 7-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
# cpsaat06
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 654

To require the head of each Federal agency in the Department of the 

Interior to consider whether actions of the agency have any disparate 

impact on any member of a racial, ethnic, or religious minority. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2003

Mr. ANDREWS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Resources, 

for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case 

for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 

committee concerned 

A BILL

To require the head of each Federal agency in the Department of the Interior to consider whether actions of the 

agency have any disparate impact on any member of 

a racial, ethnic, or religious minority.

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 ‘‘Environmental Justice 

5 Act’’. 
2

•HR 654 IH 

1 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO CONSIDER DISPARATE IMPACTS 

2 OF FEDERAL AGENCY ACTIONS. 

3 The head of each Federal agency in the Department 

4 of the Interior shall—

5 (1) before authorizing, funding, or carrying out 

6 any action under any Federal law, consider whether 

7 the action will have any disparate impact on any 

8 member of a racial, ethnic, or religious minority; and 

9 (2) in authorizing, funding, or carrying out any 

10 action under any Federal law, seek to limit such dis11 parate impacts to the extent possible consistent with 

12 such law. 

13 SEC. 3. ENFORCEMENT. 

14 A violation of section 2 with respect to any individual 

15 who is a member of a racial, ethnic, or religious minority 

16 shall be treated as a deprivation of a right of the indi17 vidual for purposes of section 1979 of the Revised Statutes 

18 (42 U.S.C. 1983). 

19 SEC. 4. AGENCY DEFINED. 

20 In this Act the term ‘‘agency’’ has the meaning given 

21 that term by section 551 of title 5, United States Code. 

22 SEC. 5. APPLICATION. 

23 (a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection 

24 (b), this Act applies to any agency action taken on or after 

25 the date of the enactment of this Act. 
3

•HR 654 IH 

1 (b) LIMITATION.—This Act does not apply to an 

2 agency action to the extent that there is involved a matter 

3 relating to agency management or personnel.

Æ
HOUSEHOLD DATA

ANNUAL AVERAGES

35. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex

[In thousands]

Category

Total Age Sex

2019 2020

16 to 24

years

25 to 54

years

55 years

and over Men Women

2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020

Total not in the labor force. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95,636 99,587 16,656 17,278 22,102 23,416 56,879 58,893 38,667 40,718 56,970 58,869

Do not want a job now1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90,593 92,464 15,153 15,364 20,023 20,052 55,417 57,048 36,252 37,256 54,341 55,208

Want a job1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,043 7,123 1,503 1,914 2,078 3,363 1,462 1,846 2,415 3,462 2,629 3,661

Did not search for work in previous

year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,084 4,588 883 1,176 1,157 2,068 1,045 1,344 1,430 2,166 1,654 2,423

Searched for work in previous year,

but not in past 4 weeks2. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,959 2,535 620 739 921 1,295 418 501 984 1,296 975 1,239

Not available to work now. . . . . . . . . . . . 556 572 229 193 252 299 75 80 242 241 314 331

Marginally attached (available to

work now)3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,403 1,962 391 545 669 996 343 421 742 1,055 661 907

Discouraged over job

prospects4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382 574 86 136 193 301 103 137 239 343 143 231

Reasons other than

discouragement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,021 1,388 306 409 476 694 240 285 503 712 519 676

Family responsibilities. . . . . . . . . . . 156 124 21 18 103 84 32 22 44 40 112 84

In school or training. . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 141 116 110 27 29 4 2 76 68 70 73

Ill health or disability. . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 123 14 14 63 57 58 52 73 68 63 55

Other5

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 584 1,000 155 267 283 524 147 209 310 536 274 464

1

Includes some persons who are not asked if they want a job.

2 Persons who had a job in the prior 12 months must have searched since the end of that job.

3 Persons ′′marginally attached to the labor force′′ are those who want a job, have searched for work during the prior 12 months, and were available to take a job during

the reference week, but had not looked for work in the past 4 weeks.

4 Discouraged workers are persons marginally attached to the labor force who did not actively look for work in the prior 4 weeks for reasons such as thinks no work

available, could not find work, lacks schooling or training, employer thinks too young or old, and other types of discrimination.

5

Includes those who did not actively look for work in the prior 4 weeks for such reasons as child-care and transportation problems, as well as a small number for which

reason for nonparticipation was not ascertained.

NOTE: Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

1
# cpsaat49