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 Annual Report of Team, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended May 31, 2010 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Philip J. Hawk, Chairman 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. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/ PHILIP J. HAWK                  
|Philip J. Hawk                      
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|August 6, 2010
Case: 1:12-cv-01099 Document #: 30 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:97
Case: 1:12-cv-01099 Document #: 30 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:98
Case: 1:12-cv-01099 Document #: 30 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:99
Case: 1:12-cv-01099 Document #: 30 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:100
#### Nederlandsche Handel-Maatschappij N. V. v. Julius Schreiber.

—Motion to dispense with printing granted insofar as to dispense with the printing in the record on appeal of Schedules A through I inclusive, on condition that six typewritten copies of each schedule are filed with this court on or before the Wednesday preceding the first day of the term for which the appeal is noticed for argument. Concur —Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.
#### 1833.215 Contract clause.

The contracting officer shall use the clause at FAR 52.233-1, Disputes, with its Alternate I whenever continued performance is vital to national security, the public health and welfare, important Agency programs, or other essential supplies or services whose timely reprocurement from other sources would be impracticable.

[61 FR 55771, Oct. 29, 1996, as amended at 80 FR 36722, June 26, 2015]
#### Herbert B. Smith, Respondent, v. Henry Helbraun et al., Constituting the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of Peekskill, Appellant.

In an action by a School Superintendent to recover damages for breach of a written contract, the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of Peekskill appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated September 5, 1963, which denied its motion to dismiss the amended complaint or, in the alternative, to strike out certain of its paragraphs. Order reversed, without costs; motion to dismiss the amended complaint granted; and amended complaint dismissed, with leave to serve a second amended complaint within 30 days after entry of the order hereon, if the plaintiff be so advised. In our opinion the power of the Board of Education, pursuant to section 2507 of the Education Law, to appoint a Superintendent of Schools for a term not to exceed five years, does not empower the board to enter into a written contract with the Superintendent for such services. Section 2507 is derived from former section 2565 of the Education Law. Prior to 1948 the Board of Education of a city had no power to contract with a Superintendent of Schools; it could only appoint a Superintendent of Schools to serve at its pleasure, with the right in the Superintendent to resign by giving written notice (L. 1917, ch. 786, § 869). In 1948 the Legislature added to the predecessor section 2515 the clause permitting an appointment for a term not to exceed five years (L. 1948, ch. 111). The Legislature did not rescind the right of the Superintendent to resign on written notice; nor did the Legislature expressly confer the power to contract with a School Superintendent, found elsewhere in *830the Education Law (ef. Education Law, § 1711). A Board of Education may enter into such contracts only when permitted to do so by statute *(Matter of Boyd*v. *Collins,*11 N Y 2d 228; *Walcott*v. *Fisher,*274 App. Div. 339; *Matter of Wilson*v. *Board of Educ.,*26 Misc 2d 1075; see, also, *Matter of Burr,*66 N. Y. St. Dept. Rep. 10). We confine our opinion and our holding strictly to the issue of the lack of capacity of the Board of Education to contract with the Superintendent of Schools. We have neither considered nor passed: (a) upon any other rights or duties between these parties which may have accrued upon a prior administrative determination (see 1 Ed. Dept. Rep. 536); or (b) upon any quasi-eontraetual rights existing between the parties which may have arisen out of the power to appoint (Education Law, § 2507, subd. 1). Beldoek, P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Reynaldo Espinoza v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-13-00980-CR

Trial court case number: 1841842

Trial court: County Criminal Court At Law No. 6, Harris County

Following the denial of his motion to suppress, Appellant requested the trial court to 

make findings of fact and conclusions of law. As Appellant points out in his brief, no findings of 

fact and conclusions of law have been filed. In State v. Cullen, the Court of Criminal Appeals 

held that, “upon the request of the losing party on a motion to suppress evidence, the trial 

court . . . must make findings of fact and conclusions of law adequate to provide an appellate 

court with a basis upon which to review the trial court’s application of the law to the facts.” 195 

S.W.3d 696, 699 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

For this reason, the appeal is abated and remanded for the trial court to make written 

findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding its ruling on appellant’s motion to suppress. 

The trial court shall make the appropriate findings and conclusions and shall cause them to be 

filed with the trial court clerk within 20 days of the date of this order. 

The trial court clerk is ordered to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial 

court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law with this Court within 30 days of the date of this 

order.

The appeal is removed from the Court’s February 4, 2015 submission docket.

This appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s active 

docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket without further order of the 

Court when the supplemental clerk’s record is filed in this Court.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura Carter Higley

Acting individually 

Date: January 27, 2015
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 the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of Meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Special Projects Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Wednesday, February 10, 2021.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Antoinette Ross at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-4110.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Special Projects Committee will be held Wednesday, February 10, 2021, at 1:30p.m. Eastern Time. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited time and structure of meeting, notification of intent to participate must be made with Antoinette Ross. For more information please contact Antoinette Ross at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-4110, or write TAP Office, 1111 Constitution Ave. NW, Room 1509, Washington, DC 20224 or contact us at the website:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*                     The agenda will include various IRS issues.                

Dated: January 15, 2021.

Kevin Brown,

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. 2021-01371 Filed 1-21-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
No. 46,989

#### State of Kansas, *Appellee,*v. Betty Rae Stafford, *Appellant.*

(518 P. 2d 136)

Opinion filed November 3, 1973;

opinion ordering modification and denying rehearing filed January 2, 1974.

(For original opinion reversing with directions, see *State v. Stafford,*213 Kan. 152, 515 P. 2d 769.)

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Harman, C.:

The appellee, state of Kansas, seeks rehearing of this appeal, wherein the judgment convicting appellant, Betty Rae Stafford, was reversed and new trial was direoted *(State v. Stafford,*213 Kan. 152, 515 P. 2d 769).

We have reexamined the record and the former opinion and have considered the brief in support of the motion for rehearing. Reversal and new trial were ordered because of this court’s conclusion that the combined effect of the several errors noted was such that appellant was deprived of a fair trial and the errors therefore, could not be deemed harmless.

Paragraph 6 of the syllabus and the corresponding portion of our former opinion are withdrawn and ordered deleted. Other than as. here modified, that opinion is adhered to and the motion for rehearing is denied.

APPROVED BY THE COURT.
Order filed, December 10, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-00923-CR

____________

WILLIAM MICHAEL JENKINS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 228th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1342365

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due November 30, 2012. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. The 

record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed 

timely, we issue the following order.

We order Cantrece Addison, the substitute court reporter, to file the record in this 

appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
#### Gloria J. Kenyon (Lowery), Appellant, v. State of New York, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and facts, with costs to claimant and matter remitted to the Court of Claims for assessment of the amount of damages. Certain findings of fact and conclusions of law disapproved and reversed and new findings and conclusions made. Memo*852randum: Claimant appeals from a judgment dismissing her claim for personal injuries and property damage sustained on August 6, 1956 when, because of the alleged presence of a muddy stretch on a straight and level State highway, her car skidded off the highway and struck a tree. The accident occurred in front of a construction site where trucks with dual wheels, entering and leaving the construction job, caused mud to he deposited on the highway throughout the Summer. When it rained a slippery condition was created. During the day of the accident it had been intermittently rainy and drizzly. About a quarter of a mile from the scene of the accident claimant passed a car traveling in the same direction by accelerating her speed to 45 miles per hour without incident. As she attempted to pass another car about 100 feet from the point of the accident her car skidded off the highway at the construction site and struck a tree. There was nothing to warn claimant of the slippery condition or that she could not safely pass the second ear in the same manner as she passed the first one. All of the foregoing was established by ample evidence from which factual inferences of negligence and freedom from contributory negligence should have been drawn. *(Minotti*v. *State of New York,*18 A D 2d 769.) It is well settled that the State is under an obligation to maintain its highways in a reasonably safe condition; that when a condition renders it unsafe for persons using it in the exercise of reasonable care and such condition has existed long enough to give the State constructive notice it is incumbent upon the State to take whatever action is reasonably required for the protection of travelers on the highway, even though a third person created that condition. (See *Meil*v. *Syracuse Constructors,*19 A D 2d 10; *Shaffer*v. *State of New York,*256 App. Div. 1053; *Laitenberger*v. *State of New York,*190 Misc. 633, affd. 273 App. Div. 942.) Contributory negligence on the part of claimant may not be inferred from the fact alone that the car skidded and went out of control. *(Lahr*v. *Tirrill,*274 N. Y. 112, 117.) We find that the State was negligent in failing to give any warning of the dangerous condition on the highway of which it had constructive notice; that such condition was the proximate cause of the accident and that claimant was not guilty of contributory negligence. (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims dismissing a claim.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry, Noonan and Del Vecchio, JJ.
Mr. Michael F. Martin United States Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 November4, 2014 Dear Mr. Martin; , . . -.



# . ·Scoits:i3JuffCounty Commissioners }\dministration Building q : .. )



### ~?5 

# 1Oth Street Gering, Nebraska 69341-2487 (308) 436-6600

Iam writing on behalfofour local Airport Authority and in support oftheir decision to accept the Aerodynamics Inc. (ADI) bid for our Essential Air Service. Iwas first elected County Commissioner in 1983, and have been its Chairman forthe last 16 years, and I would like to believe that I have some experience in making decisions for our community. In the early years the airport was managed by an Advisory Board, made up ofelected and private sector representatives from the communities within the county. Ten years ago the County Board of Commissioners made the airport its own political subdivision and allowed for the election of representatives to the Scotts Bluff County Airport Authority. We have great confidence in their abilities. During mytime as Commissioner, and certainly since the Authority was established we have been struggling to provide reliable, dependable, and affordable air service between our Panhandle communities and Denver Colorado, our closest hub. Ithink we can all agree that air service is a critical part ofthe economic growth, and probablythe economic survival ofany communitytoday. We have been through a myriad of providers and have had marginal success with all ofthem. But none ofthem have provided reliability, dependability and affordability. The One thingthat all ofthe providers have in common is that they were "Low Bid". As a Commissioner providing otherservices to our communities, I have learned that the "Low Bid" is almost neverthe best bid. As you consider the proposals offered to The Scotts BluffCounty AirportAuthority for Essential Air Service, I implore you weigh heavily on their recommendation and award the contract to ADI. Although their proposal is more expensive, it is my beliefthat their plan and type ofaircraft will be the best choice for Scottsbluff/Gering, and the entire Panhandle of Nebraska. Thank you foryour consideration. Mark

### J. Masterton

Chairman ofthe Board
JONATHAN R. DIXON

HRS! SftN çiN ES A’ OE ‘Fi YEARS O AGE AND N0 A 4R” TO SS’ 4\ 3 A RE SERED EMPQYEE QF PR ‘AE DEECT yE AGENC 1 uC2c2 STERN -RQCESS & N\ESTGAON

L C 2C5 A’ RANDO PH ST CHICAGO iL C6OC L. CENSED BY HE L NCIS DEPA MN JE HNANO AL AND

P5 SSONA RECJATON

CORPORATE SERVICE

SER’ED HE ih:N SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT AND HOMEOWNERS NOTICE

ON H UTHN NAMED DEFENDANT ii’ MORGAN CHASE RANK, N A

PERSQN SER ED GINA LEND, PROCESS SPECIALIST

I1 LtANG A COPY CH- EACH WTH THE SD DEFENDANT ON 2//12

GINA LEND, PROCESS SPECIA_IST FOR CT CORPORATION SYSTEM, THE REGISTERED AGENT FOR JP MORGAN

CHASE RANK. N A STATED THAT PEP COMPANY POLICY SHE IS AJTHORZED TO ACCEPT SERViCE OF THE

DDCJMEtCS

ir at the €x, race and agremate age o tne prsor whom ieft the dOcdmerEs)

Se EM4LE Race

H9Ight 55 Build HN HaIr RCAN

CATCr, C SFRCICF 208 S. LASALL STREET, SVTE 814

CHICAGO, IL, 60604

Ca’ Serse 2/6/12

/

J NATHAN RIXON

aei& Prc Server

PIE PC

9 Id 5 t. y 3 S th OOn B Ce fC

C r .e e 3- 1dtOT$ B 3

C’” er

J

csd LersigneB

a
JONATHAN R. DIXON

F RS 0 LV SWORN ON OrH 3AE5 THAT AM Q5R 1 YEARS OF AGE A1D NOT A PARTY TO THIS sUIT AND 13

A SEC STEREO EMPLOYEE OF RVAF DETECT yE AGENCY #17 OO22 STERN PROCESS & INVESTIGATION

t RANJO ST CHICAGO L O6O6 L CENSED EV THE I NO’S DEPARTMENT OF FINANCAL AND

ROESSONP REGULATON

CORPORATE SERVICE

$ ‘TH SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT AND HOMEOWNERS NOTICE

ON THE A THIN NN1ED DEFENDAN TJP MORGAN CHASE & CO

PERSON SERVED GINA LENCI, PROCESS SPECIALIST

EY LEING A COPy’ OF EACH TITH THE SAID DEENDANT ON 2/6/12

O NA LENDI PROCESS SPECALIST FOR CT CORPORATION SYSTEM, THE REGISTERED AGENT hON JP MORGANCHASE & CO STATED THAT PEP COMPANY POLCY SHE IS AUTHORIZED TO ACCEPT SERVCE OF THE

ThDCLMENTO

TIrE tx a e ano op Ox r i ge n H roori woo oft th docuri H(s

are OL frIIOw

Sx PEMALE Race WHITF

HeIght 5

A9e 2O

Hair DPCAr

OATlO OF SER’CE 208 S. LASALL STREET, SUlT 814

CHICAGO, 1L. 60604

DaV Tf Sr’ Cb 2/6/12 i,e cY Sevc 1 32

y a de’t’r a1M Se

ertf €C le era oBuc cc I

I r c e cc ron, oeIe
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 15 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 15

    Expressing support for the designation of October 28, 2017, as 
            ``Honoring the Nation's First Responders Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 18, 2017

    Ms. Warren (for herself and Mr. Cotton) submitted the following 
concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
    Expressing support for the designation of October 28, 2017, as 
            ``Honoring the Nation's First Responders Day''.

Whereas first responders include professional and volunteer fire, police, 
        emergency medical technician, and paramedic workers in the United 
        States;
Whereas there are more than 25,300,000 first responders in the United States 
        working to keep communities safe;
Whereas first responders deserve to be recognized for their commitment to 
        safety, defense, and honor; and
Whereas October 28, 2017, would be an appropriate day to establish as ``Honoring 
        the Nation's First Responders Day'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That the Senate--
            (1) supports the designation of October 28, 2017, as 
        ``Honoring the Nation's First Responders Day'';
            (2) honors and recognizes the contributions of first 
        responders; and
            (3) encourages the people of the United States to observe 
        Honoring the Nation's First Responders Day with appropriate 
        ceremonies and activities that promote awareness of the 
        contributions of first responders in the United States.
                                 <all>
```
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 810 

To facilitate construction of a bridge on certain property in Christian County, 

Missouri, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 4, 2017 

Mr. BLUNT (for himself and Mrs. MCCASKILL) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

A BILL 

To facilitate construction of a bridge on certain property 

in Christian County, Missouri, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. RIVERSIDE BRIDGE PROJECT. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Riverside Bridge Project is 

5 authorized to be carried out notwithstanding— 

6 (1) any agreement entered unto under, or re7 striction pursuant to, section 404(b)(2) of the Rob8 ert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency As9 sistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170c(b)(2)); or 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 810 IS

1 (2) any other Federal restriction that requires 

2 the covered property to be maintained for open 

3 space, recreation, or wetland management. 

4 (b) CONDITIONS.—As a condition of the authoriza5 tion under subsection (a), Christian County, Missouri— 

6 (1) shall carry out the Riverside Bridge Project 

7 in a manner that ensures that no flood damage at8 tributable to the Project occurs; and 

9 (2) shall be liable for any such flood damage 

10 that does occur. 

11 (c) DISASTER ASSISTANCE PROHIBITED.—No Fed12 eral financial assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Staf13 ford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 

14 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) may be provided with respect to the 

15 covered property or any improvements thereon. 

16 (d) DEFINITIONS.—In this Act, the following defini17 tions apply: 

18 (1) COVERED PROPERTY.—The term ‘‘covered 

19 property’’ means the property— 

20 (A) in Christian County, Missouri; 

21 (B) conveyed to such County by the River22 side Inn, Inc.; and 

23 (C) that is approximately 1.5 acres and 

24 482 lineal feet adjacent to the westerly line of 

25 Riverside Road to the center of Finley Creek. 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 810 IS

1 (2) RIVERSIDE BRIDGE PROJECT.—The term 

2 ‘‘Riverside Bridge Project’’ means the project to 

3 construct and operate a bridge on and over the cov4 ered property. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS