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

 

Certification of the President and Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

I, Bowen S. Diehl, President and Chief Executive Officer of Capital Southwest Corporation, certify that, to my knowledge:

|  | 1. |  | The Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2016, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2017 (“accompanied report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--|----|--|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | 2. |  | The information contained in the accompanied report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of Capital Southwest Corporation. |
|--|----|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

|                         |   |                                  |
|------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
| Date:  February 7, 2017 | By:    | /s/ Bowen S. Diehl                    |
|                         |   | Bowen S. Diehl                        |
|                         |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
### Review of the general geology and solid-phase geochemical studies in the vicinity of the Central Oklahoma aquifer

By: Elwin L. MosierJohn H. Bullock

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1019

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
# May 2021 FOIA Log
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Catherine Pabst, Respondent, v. J. P. Carlson, Inc., et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Taylor and Hamm, JJ., concur; Reynolds, J., dissents and votes to reverse on the ground that there is no substantial support in the evidence for the board’s findings of accidental injury and causal relationship.
# Jurnalul Oficial C 330A/7 oc

| | ISSN 1977-1029 |
| --- | --- |
| Jurnalul Oficial
  al Uniunii Europene | C 330A |
| | |
| Ediţia în limba română | Comunicări şi informări | Anul 587 octombrie 2015 |

ISSN 1977-1029

Jurnalul Oficial

al Uniunii Europene

C 330A

Ediţia în limba română

Comunicări şi informări

Anul 587 octombrie 2015

---

| Informarea nr. | Cuprins | Pagina |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Anunţuri |
| | PROCEDURI ADMINISTRATIVE |
| | Oficiul European pentru Selecţia Personalului (EPSO) |
| 2015/C 330A/01 | Anunț de anulare | 1 |

Informarea nr.

Cuprins

Pagina

V   Anunţuri

PROCEDURI ADMINISTRATIVE

Oficiul European pentru Selecţia Personalului (EPSO)

2015/C 330A/01

Anunț de anulare

1

---

| RO | |
| --- | --- |

RO

---

V Anunţuri

PROCEDURI ADMINISTRATIVE

Oficiul European pentru Selecţia Personalului (EPSO)

| 7.10.2015 | RO | Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene | CA 330/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.10.2015

RO

Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene

CA 330/1

---

ANUNȚ DE ANULARE

(2015/C 330 A/01)

Publicarea în Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene
   (1) a concursului general EPSO/AD/321/15 – Administratori în domeniul auditului (AD 5/AD 7) se anulează.

---

(1)  JO C 316A, 24.9.15, p. 1.

---
Exhibit
      32(d)




CERTIFICATION
      FURNISHED 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 of Carolina Power &
Light Company (the “Company”) for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Peter M. Scott III, Executive Vice President 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), 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 result of operations of the Company.








/s/ Peter M. Scott
      III


Peter
      M.
      Scott IIIExecutive Vice President and


Chief
      Financial OfficerMay 9, 2006






This
      certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed filed by the Company
      for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
      or incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Exchange Act
      of
      1934, as amended, or the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-14-00436-CR 

KENNETH ALLEN TARRILLION, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 002-82080-2014, Honorable Richard Davis, Presiding 

 

June 17, 2015 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. 

Appellant Kenneth Allen Tarrillion appeals from his jury conviction of the 

misdemeanor offense of assault causing bodily injury.1 We dismiss the appeal for want 

of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b).2

 

1

See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01 (West 2013). 

2 Rule 37.3(b) provides: “If the trial court clerk failed to file the clerk's record because the 

appellant failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk's fee for preparing the clerk's record, the 

appellate court may - on a party's motion or its own initiative - dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution 

unless the appellant was entitled to proceed without payment of costs. The court must give the appellant 

a reasonable opportunity to cure before dismissal.”
2

Appellant filed his notice of appeal in November 2014. In December 2014, 

appellant’s retained counsel withdrew from the representation with the trial court’s 

approval. Appellant has appeared pro se since.

The clerk’s record was due in mid-December 2014. The court clerk notified us

appellant had not made payment arrangements for the record. Appellant did not 

correspond with the Court, despite being notified of his obligation to make payment 

arrangements. In February 2015, we remanded the case to the trial court to determine 

whether appellant desired to prosecute his appeal and whether he was indigent and 

entitled to a free record. The trial court held a hearing in March 2015, at which 

appellant personally appeared. The reporter’s record of that hearing shows appellant 

was aware of the cost of the appellate record. The trial court’s findings of fact and 

conclusions of law state that appellant is not indigent, and appellant’s statements to the 

trial court support that conclusion. The case was reinstated in this Court following that 

hearing.

By letter of May 19, we again ordered appellant to make payment arrangements 

for the appellate record. On June 10, the Court received a status report stating appellant 

still has not made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record. 

Appellant has had ample opportunity to cure his failure to make payment 

arrangements for the clerk’s record. Because no clerk’s record has been filed due to 

appellant’s fault, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b).

James T. Campbell

 Justice

Do not publish.
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

Laws & GuidanceGENERAL

Overview | Guidelines | Information Correction Requests and Appeals | Contact

## OMB Peer Review Disclaimer

Based on the review it has conducted, the U.S. Department of Education believes that it does not currently produce or sponsor the distribution of influential scientific information (including highly influential scientific assessments) within the definitions promulgated by OMB. As a result, at this time the U.S. Department of Education has no agenda of forthcoming influential scientific disseminations to post on its website in accordance with OMB’s Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review.

|        |
|--------|
|   | Printable viewShare this page |
|        |

## How Do I Find...

          - Student loans, forgiveness
          - College accreditation
          - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
          - FERPA
          - FAFSA
          - 1098, tax forms

More >

## Information About...

          - Transforming Teaching
          - Family and Community Engagement
          - Early Learning

 

|  |
|--|
|  |
|  | Key Policy Letters |  |
|  |

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a GrantEligibility for Grants

Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website

Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works Clearinghouse

About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy ProgramSubscribe to E-Mail Updates

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
#### 1433.103 Protests to the agency.

For protests filed with the agency, the CO shall coordinate with the regional and/or field solicitor and the Assistant Solicitor, Acquisitions and Intellectual Property, prior to making the protest decision and before suspending or terminating a contract award as a result of the protest. When a protest is denied by the CO, the decision issued shall advise the protester that the decision may be appealed to the GAO. All protest decisions must also contain a notice that appeals to GAO must include a copy of the CO's protest decision.
#### 1433.215 Contract clauses.

The Disputes clause contained in FAR 52.233-1 shall be used with its Alternate I in all solicitations and contracts.
#### Sam Moraca et al., Appellants, *v.*Edward Hurley, Respondent.

Fourth Department,

February 18, 1965.

*474*Gellmcm & Gellman (Jack E. Gellman*and *Philip S. Gellman*of counsel), for appellants.

*Grossman & Levine (Stanley Grossman*and *Morree M. Levine of*counsel), for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

In affirming this order dismissing the complaint, we do not reach or pass upon which of these parties has title or superior claim to the property found. The complaint sounds in conversion alleging that the plaintiffs are the owners and entitled to immediate possession of this property. «Special Term was entirely correct in dismissing this complaint. Article 7-B of the Personal Property Law (§§ 251-4158) became law September 1, 1958. It deals with lost and found property. It requires that such property, if the value is in excess of $10 and found within a city (as here), be deposited with the city police department (§ 252, subds. 1, 2). The police authorities are mandated to keep custody of funds so deposited for a prescribed period depending upon the value (§ 253, subd. 7). The provisions of section 254 make it clear that no one except the true owner has either title or a right to possession of such property until the time designated has passed. So far as this record shows the money which is the subject of the litigation has never been deposited with the police department (as correctly ordered by Special Term) but remains in the hands of the Sheriff under a warrant of attachment. It is therefore obvious that this action for conversion is premature. The determination of the rights of these litigants in the posture of this record might well be meaningless because of the possibility of other claims, including that of the true owner, being made during the required period of deposit. The dismissal of the complaint should be without prejudice to the right of the plaintiffs to protect their interests, if any, under subdivision 1 of section 254 or subdivision 6 of section 256, if so advised.

Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry, Noonan and Del Vecchio, JJ., concur.

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
#### 1511.011-76 Legal analysis.

Contracting Officers shall insert the clause at 1552.211-76 when it is determined that the contract involves legal analysis.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Julio Borrell, Also Known as Julio Cesar Borrell, Appellant.

[832 NYS2d 821]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated June 21, 2004 *(People v Borrell,*8 AD3d 583 [2004]), affirming two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered June 11, 1998, under indictment No. 3794/94, and December 10, 1998, under indictment No. 4841/94, respectively.

Ordered that the application is denied.

*872The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Ramchair,*8 NY3d 313 [2007]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). We note that the denial of this application is without prejudice to the defendant seeking relief in the Supreme Court, Queens County, if he be so advised, pursuant to CPL 440.20. Miller, J.P., Mastro, Rivera and Ritter, JJ., concur.
#### 2022.101-1 General.

The Head of the Contracting Activity shall designate programs or requirements for which it is necessary that contractors be required to notify the Government of actual or potential labor disputes that are delaying or threaten to delay the timely contract performance. Contractor notification shall be made in accordance with FAR 52.222-1, “Notice to the Government of Labor Disputes.”
#### SIMON v. BORDEN’S CONDENSED MILK CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

November 6, 1903.)

1. Dismissal of Action—Opening Default—Costs.

Though plaintiff’s attorney is negligent in permitting the case to be dismissed, plaintiff may have the default opened on payment of costs and defendant’s taxable fees for witnesses for attendance in court.

¶ 1. See Dismissal and Nonsuit, vol. 17, Cent. Dig. § 189.

Appeal from City Court of New York.

Action by Emanuel Simon against Borden’s Condensed Milk Company. From an order opening a default, defendant appeals. Modified.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and BISCHOFF and BLANCHARD, JJ.

F. M. Rowlette, for appellant.

S. D. Rosenthal, for respondent.

BLANCHARD, J.

The plaintiff’s attorney was negligent in permitting the case to be dismissed. Yet the plaintiff should have an opportunity to try the case upon the merits, and the default should be opened, but not without the imposition of costs.

*477The order appealed from is modified by providing for the opening of the default upon payment of $10 costs, and defendant’s taxable fees paid to witnesses for their attendance in court. The "appellant may have the disbursements of the appeal, but not costs. All concur.
162 So. 66

#### STATE v. GUILBEAUX.

No. 33414.

May 27, 1935.

Edwards & Greene, of Abbeville, for appellant.

Gaston L. Porterie, Atty. Gen., James O’Connor, Asst. Atty. Gen., James Gremillion, Dist. Atty., of Crowley, Edward Meaux, Asst. Dist. Atty., of Lafayette, and Lessley P. Gardiner, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen., for the State.

LAND, Justice.

Defendant is indicted for having carnal knowledge of an unmarried female between the ages of 12 and 18. He was tried by a *533jury of five, and found “guilty as charged,” and was sentenced to he incarcerated in the state penitentiary at hard labor for a term of not less than one year and not more than 3 years from the date of his incarceration.

After verdict and before sentence, defendant filed a motion in arrest of judgment on the ground: “That the verdict rendered in writing and signed by the foreman of the Jury is null and void and is meaningless being as follows: ‘Guilly as charged with the mercy of Court, J. C. Bernard, Foreman.’ ”

The same ground was assigned in a motion for new trial, and both the motion in arrest and motion for new trial were overruled by the trial judge.

Defendant has appealed from the conviction and sentence to this court, and renews here the same objection to the verdict.

The original indictment with the verdict written thereon has been brought up in the transcript by consent of counsel.

In the per curiam to bill No. 1, reserved by counsel for defendant to the overruling of the motion in arrest of judgment, it is stated by the trial judge:

> “The fifth letter in the word guilty, obviously intended for a ‘t,’ may be taken for the letter ‘1’ or for an uncrossed ‘t.’

> “The verdict as a whole clearly exhibits the intention of the jury to return a verdict of:

> “ ‘Guilty as charged with the mercy of court, J. C. Bernard, Foreman.’

> “The Clerk read the verdict to the jury as follows, as the court minutes show:

> *“*‘Guilty as charged with mercy of court, J. C. Bernard, Foreman.’

> “And the jury was asked by the Clerk if such was their verdict, to which the jurors answered ‘yes.’

> “The jury was then polled with respect, to the verdict as thus announced by the Clerk, with the result that each of the jurors declared it to be his verdict.

> “See: State v. Hightower, 136 La. 309, *67*So. 13; Marr’s Crim. Juris. (2d Ed.) pages 1072, 1073, 1074.” '

We have examined the original verdict returned by the jury in this case, and we agree with the trial judge that the fifth letter in the word “guilty,” although it may be taken for thé letter “1,” or for an uncrossed “t,” was manifestly intended for a “t”; and that the verdict as a whole clearly shows the intention of the jury to return a verdict of “Guilty as charged with the mercy of the court.”

The intention of the jury being obvious in this case, but imperfectly expressed, the verdict was perfected by the polling of the jury. State v. Hightower; 136 La. 309, 67 So. 13; State v. Blue, 134 La. 561, 64 So. 411.

The sentence and conviction appealed from are affirmed.
#### Harry S. Samuels, Appellant, v. Alexander P. Hirsch et al., Respondents.

In an action to recover commissions for services rendered as a finder in connection with a corporate merger, the plaintiff appeals: (a) from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated July 2, 1963, which granted defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint for plaintiff’s failure to diligently prosecute the action (Civ. Prac. Act, § 181; Rules Civ. Prae., rule 156), and which denied plaintiff’s motion to continue his pretrial examination of the defendants; and (b) from a judgment of said court entered July 29, 1963 upon said order, dismissing the complaint. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements; judgment vacated; defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint denied; and plaintiff’s motion to continue his pretrial examination of the defendants granted. The examination shall proceed on 10 days’ written notice or at such time and place as the parties may mutually agree by written stipulation. In our opinion, under all the circumstances it was an improper exercise of discretion to grant the cross motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to diligently prosecute the action. Any neglect on plaintiff’s part was acquiesced in by defendants. [For prior appeal in this action, see *Samuels*v. *Hirsch,*12 A D 2d 823.] Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Iileinfeld, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.
#### § 935.130 Applicability.

This subpart applies to self-propelled motor vehicles (except aircraft), including attached trailers.
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

CFO Memorandum to Chief State School Officers on New Guidance, dated 9/27/2007 MS Word |  (PDF)

Policy Memorandum on Extension of Liquidation Periods and Related Accounting Adjustments for Grantees under Department of Education State-Administered Programs, dated 6/5/2007  (MS Word)

Link to Earlier Letter to Chief State School Officers regarding requests for extensions for making liquidations in state-administered programs, dated 1/28/2005

Link to Earlier Policy Memorandum on Extension of Liquidation Periods and Related Accounting Adjustments for Grantees under Department of Education State-Administered Programs, dated 1/28/2005 (MS Word)

Link to Grants Policy and Guidance page

----

 

 Printable view

## How Do I Find...

          - Student loans, forgiveness
          - Higher Education Rulemaking
          - College accreditation
          - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
          - FERPA
          - FAFSA
          - 1098, tax forms

More >

## Information About...

          - Elevating Teaching
          - Early Learning
          - Engage Every Student
          - Unlocking Career Success
          - Cybersecurity

 

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a Grant

Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website

Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works ClearinghouseOpen Data PlatformCOVID Relief Data

About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy Program

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
          - vote.gov
#### In the Matter of Eileen Warner, Appellant, v Teachers Retirement Board of the City of New York et al., Respondents.

— Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County, entered on September 13, 1978, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Nadel, J., at Special Term, without costs and without disbursements. Concur — Evans, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan, Lane and Silverman, JJ.