alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30,
2003 of Edelbrock Corporation (the "Company") as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, O. Victor Edelbrock,
Chairman, President and Chief Executive 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 (15 U.S.C. Section 78m(a)
or Section 78o(d)); and

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

September 26, 2003                                O. VICTOR EDELBROCK
                                                  -------------------
                                                  O. Victor Edelbrock
                                                  Chairman, President and Chief
                                                  Executive Officer
Exhibit 21.1
  Delek US
    Holdings, Inc.
  Subsidiaries
    of the Registrant
  State ofCompany Name:

Incorporation:MAPCO Express, Inc.


DEGasoline Associated Services, Inc.


ALLiberty Wholesale Co., Inc.


ALDelek Refining, Inc.


DEDelek U.S. Refining GP, LLC


TXDelek Refining, Ltd.


TXDelek Pipeline Texas, Inc.


TXMPC Pipeline Acquisition, Inc.


TXDelek Land Texas, Inc.


TXMPC Land Acquisition, Inc.


TXDelek Marketing & Supply, Inc.


DEDelek Marketing & Supply, LP


DEDelek Marketing GP, LLC


DEDelek Finance, Inc.


DEMAPCO Fleet, Inc.


DE
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and in connection with the filing by Intermost
Corporation, a Wyoming Corporation (the “Company”) with the Securities and
Exchange Commission of its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months
ended September 30, 2009 (the “Report”), the undersigned, Thomas Lee, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, that to the best of his
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.





This certification is being provided
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 and is not to be deemed a part of this Report, nor is
it to be deemed to be “filed” for any purpose whatsoever.





Date:  November
13, 2009





By:
                  /s/ Thomas LeeThomas
      LeeChief
      Financial Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Vasquez, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 181]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), rendered March 31, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury’s credibility determinations.

Since defendant requested and accepted an adverse inference charge regarding the People’s failure to produce an arrest photograph, and sought no other relief, he has waived appellate review of his challenge to the sufficiency of that sanction *(People v Alvarez,*198 AD2d 171, *lv denied*83 NY2d 802). In any event, that sanction was sufficient, since there was no bad faith on the part of the prosecution and no proof that the missing photograph would have supported the defense position that defendant had been misidentified as the drug dealer.

Defendant’s current challenge to the closure of the courtroom during the undercover officer’s testimony is unpreserved, since he never objected to closure and expressly declined to be heard at the end of the hearing. In any event, closure was proper, since the officer’s *Hinton*hearing testimony demonstrated that he then was working in a precinct that was in close proximity to the area where defendant had been arrested, and that he could be reassigned to the latter area; that he had many pending cases from his former assignment area; and that he found it necessary "to protect his undercover status by, among other things, entering the courthouse through a non-public doorway *(see, People v Rash,*238 AD2d 195, *lv denied*90 NY2d 897).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-06-015-CV

BRIAN DANIEL AUSTIN, EDNA 	APPELLANTS

MARY MALLOUF MALLICK, AND 

FRED MALLICK

	V.

RURAL/METRO OF NORTH 	APPELLEE

TEXAS, L.P. INDIVIDUALLY 

AND D/B/A RURAL/METRO 

AMBULANCE AND RURAL/METRO 

CORPORATION

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

	FROM THE 96TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	Appellants Brian Daniel Austin, Edna Mary Mallouf Mallick, and Fred Mallick are attempting to appeal the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of appellee Rural/Metro of North Texas, L.P.  Because this order is not appealable, we will dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 	On January 19, 2006, we notified appellants of our concern that this court lacked jurisdiction over their appeal because the order is a partial summary judgment that does not dispose of all parties in the case and does not appear to be a final, appealable interlocutory order.  See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 192-93 (Tex. 2001).  Additionally, we informed appellants that the trial court had confirmed that no severance order has been signed severing their case against Rural/Metro of North Texas, L.P. from the remainder of the case pending in the trial court.  We also informed appellants that their appeal was subject to dismissal unless they or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response with this court showing grounds for continuing the appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).  We have not received any response.

	Because there is no final judgment or appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss this case for want of jurisdiction.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

							PER CURIAM

PANEL D:	WALKER, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and MCCOY, J.

DELIVERED: March 2, 2006
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Sergio TAFOLLA-MORENO, also known as Ramiro Prado-Tafolla, also known as Sergio Tafallo-Moreno, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-10249

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 19, 2011.

Nancy E. Larson, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.

Kevin Joel Page, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, William Ernest Hermesmeyer, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Sergio Tafolla-Moreno has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Tafol-la-Moreno has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 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.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under die limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit 21 - Subsidiaries

The following is a list of all subsidiaries of the Company:



|                                                  |  |                               |  |                      |  
|------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------- |  | -------------------- | -
|Name of Subsidiary                                |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation |  | Ownership Percentage |  
|Teletouch Licenses, Inc.                          |  | Delaware                      |  | 100                  | %
|Visao Systems, Inc.                               |  | Delaware                      |  | 100                  | %
|TLL Georgia, Inc.                                 |  | Delaware                      |  | 100                  | %
|Progressive Concepts, Inc. (acquired August 2006) |  | Texas                         |  | 100                  | %
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3319 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3319

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 440 South Gulling Street in Portola, California, as the ``Army 
       Specialist Jeremiah Paul McCleery Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 23, 2009

 Mr. McClintock (for himself, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Nunes, Ms. Watson, Mr. 
Calvert, Mr. Baca, Mr. Radanovich, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California, 
 Mr. Gallegly, Mr. Herger, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Schiff, Mrs. Bono Mack, Mr. 
Farr, Mr. Thompson of California, Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California, 
     Mr. McNerney, Mrs. Davis of California, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. 
  Rohrabacher, Mr. McCarthy of California, Ms. Lee of California, Mr. 
 Gary G. Miller of California, Ms. Matsui, Ms. Harman, Ms. Waters, Ms. 
 Woolsey, Mr. Waxman, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. George Miller of California, Mr. 
   Issa, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, Mr. Cardoza, Mr. Costa, Mr. 
 Hunter, Mr. Royce, Mr. Lewis of California, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Honda, 
     Mrs. Capps, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Becerra, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Ms. 
 Richardson, Mr. Berman, Mr. Dreier, Mr. Stark, Ms. Speier, Ms. Eshoo, 
Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California, Ms. Chu, and Mr. Filner) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight 
                         and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 440 South Gulling Street in Portola, California, as the ``Army 
       Specialist Jeremiah Paul McCleery Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. ARMY SPECIALIST JEREMIAH PAUL MCCLEERY POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 440 South Gulling Street in Portola, California, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Army Specialist Jeremiah Paul McCleery 
Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Army 
Specialist Jeremiah Paul McCleery Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Manuel MARTINEZ-ANDRES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-40761

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 19, 2011.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Molly Estelle Odom, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Manuel Martinez-Andres has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Martinez-Andres has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 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.

*

 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.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-3499

_____________________________

JPM OUTLOOK ONE LIMITED 

PARTNERSHIP and GRANDE PARK 

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,

Appellants,

v.

FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE 

CORPORATION and HTG

HAMMOCK RIDGE II, LLC,

Appellees.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Florida Housing Finance Corporation.

June 13, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, ROBERTS, and JAY, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Kimberly A. Ashby of Foley & Lardner LLP, Orlando, for 

Appellants.

Chris McGuire, Assistant General Counsel, Tallahassee, for 

Appellee Florida Housing Finance Corporation.

Maureen McCarthy Daughton of Maureen McCarthy Daughton, 

LLC, Tallahassee, for Appellee HTG Hammock Ridge II, LLC.
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S NO. WR-11,944-12

EX P ARTE ANTHONY EUGENE ROBINSON, App licant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 970258 IN THE 147 DISTRICT COURT T H F ROM TRAVIS COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisions of Ar t i cl e 1 1
. 07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim
. Ap p . 1 9 6 7). Applicant was convicted of ag g ravated assault and sentenc ed to thirty -five year s’ imprisonment. The Third Court of Appea ls a ffirme d his conviction. Robinson v. State , No. 03-97-00215- CR (Tex. App. – Austin, J anuar y 29, 1998, pet. ref’d. ). In the i nstant application, Applicant contends in his first and th ird grounds for revie w t hat he is a ctually innocent and is e ntitled to an expunction of his c onviction. In his se cond g round for2

revie w, Applicant c ontends that he is beingimproperly denied r elea se to parole
. This Court has review ed Applica nt's f irst and third g rounds for revie w and has deter mined that they are barr ed from revie w u n d er Ar t i cl e 11.07, Section 4 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e. There fore , those claims are dismiss ed. Applican t 's rema ining claim conce rning the denial of pa

role is without merit; thus, itis denied.

Filed: Oc tober 22, 2014 Do not publish
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3445 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3445

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow baby formula to be 
 reimbursed under a health flexible spending arrangement if the mother 
      has had a mastectomy and is medically unable to breastfeed.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 31, 2009

Ms. Wasserman Schultz (for herself and Mr. Meek of Florida) 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 allow baby formula to be 
 reimbursed under a health flexible spending arrangement if the mother 
      has had a mastectomy and is medically unable to breastfeed.

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

SECTION 1. BABY FORMULA REIMBURSEMENT UNDER HEALTH FLEXIBLE SPENDING 
              ARRANGEMENT.

    (a) In General.--Section 106 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(f) Special Rule for Health FSA Reimbursement.--A plan shall not 
fail to be treated as a health flexible spending arrangement under this 
section merely because such plan provides for reimbursement of baby 
formula for a child in cases in which the mother of the child has had a 
mastectomy and is medically unable to breastfeed.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to distributions on or after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
----

----

| (1)    | the      Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended      December 31, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements      of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15      U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
| (2)    | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the      Company.                                                                                                                   |
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |

| Dated:  March      1, 2010 | /s/ Gregory E.      Abel           |   |
|--------------------------------------|------------------------------------|--------|
|                                 | Gregory      E. Abel               |   |
|                                 | President                          |   |
|                                 | (principal      executive officer) |   |

----

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gerald Lapiere, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 82]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion of defendant to withdraw his guilty plea. The record does not support the contention that, during the plea colloquy, defendant consistently asserted his innocence. Defendant admitted his involvement in the homicide and acknowledged that he was pleading guilty because he felt that he could not prove that he acted in self-defense.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress the results of a blood test performed on a sample taken from defendant pursuant to court order. The People presented evidence that a latent fingerprint matching defendant’s fingerprint was discovered on the kitchen table adjacent to the location of the victim’s body and that witnesses observed a vehicle matching the description of defendant’s vehicle parked at the victim’s residence around the time of the homicide. That evidence constituted probable cause to believe that defendant had committed the crime and thus the blood sample was properly ordered *(see, People v Bigio,*237 AD2d 453, *lv denied*90 NY2d 891; *People v McCreary,*186 AD2d 1070, 1071, *lv denied*80 NY2d 1028).

The court properly rejected defendant’s challenge to the constitutionality of a prior felony conviction and properly sentenced defendant as a second felony offender. The court’s determination that defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel in pleading guilty to the prior felony is supported by the record. We further conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Cattaraugus County Court, Himelein, J.—Manslaughter, 2nd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Lawton, Wisner, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001088213
<NAME> EMERGENCY FILTRATION PRODUCTS
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             901
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,109
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,092)
<INVENTORY>                                     84,216
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                94,134
<PP&E>                                         146,534
<DEPRECIATION>                                (63,403)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 232,857
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          459,892
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,717
<OTHER-SE>                                   (371,452)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   232,857
<SALES>                                         13,532
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,532
<CGS>                                            5,928
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  343,725
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 241
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (330,434)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (330,434)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (330,434)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)


</TABLE>