alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### 215.370-3 Contract clause.

Use the clause at 252.215-7006, Use of Employees or Individual Subcontractors Who Are Members of the Selected Reserve, in solicitations and resulting contracts that include an evaluation factor considering whether an offeror intends to perform the contract using employees or individual subcontractors who are members of the Selected Reserve.

[87 FR 15814, Mar. 18, 2022]
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Lubys, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the
fiscal quarter ended May 6, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Christopher J. Pappas, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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; and

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



|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                                      
|------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
|                    |  |  | 
|Date: June 12, 2009 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Christopher J. Pappas            
|                    |  |  |  |     |  | Christopher J. Pappas                
|                    |  |  |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 12

- 00454

- CR

CHRISTOPHER ALLEN GILLETTE

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS
On Appeal from the 362nd District Court of Denton County , Texas Trial Cause No. F

- 2011

- 0668

- D

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having consider ed this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with its opi nion

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. August 26, 2014
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          701275
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                701275
<PP&E>                                            9939
<DEPRECIATION>                                    9939
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  752417
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             8200
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          2015
<OTHER-SE>                                      742202
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    752417
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                102991
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 74831
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  28160
<INCOME-TAX>                                     11962
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              16198
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     16198
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 49 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 49

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That in the enrollment of the bill S. 2553, the Secretary of the Senate 
shall make the following correction:
            Amend the title so as to read: ``A bill to amend title 
        XVIII of the Social Security Act to prohibit Medicare part D 
        plans from restricting pharmacies from informing individuals 
        regarding the prices for certain drugs and biologicals.''.

            Passed the Senate September 28, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
115th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            S. CON. RES. 49

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

        Providing for a correction in the enrollment of S. 2553.
```
115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 14 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. USE OF EMANCIPATION HALL FOR EVENT TO 

4 CELEBRATE BIRTHDAY OF KING KAMEHA5 MEHA I. 

6 (a) AUTHORIZATION.—Emancipation Hall in the 

7 Capitol Visitor Center is authorized to be used on June 

8 11, 2017 for an event to celebrate the birthday of King 

9 Kamehameha I. 

10 (b) PREPARATIONS.—Physical preparations for the 

11 conduct of the event described in subsection (a) shall be 

12 carried out in accordance with such conditions as may be 

13 prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol. 

Passed the Senate April 27, 2017. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 14 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the 

the birthday of King Kamehameha I. Capitol Visitor Center for an event to celebrate
Exhibit
      23(a)











Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm








We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in PPL Corporation’s Registration
      Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-116478, 333-116478-01, 333-116478-02,
      333-85716, 333-85716-01, 333-85716-02, 333-106200, 333-106200-01, 333-132574,
      333-132574-01, 333-132574-02, and 333-132574-03), the Registration Statements
      on
      Form S-3D (Nos. 333-128543 and 333-102845), and the Registration Statements
      on
      Form S-8 (Nos. 333-02003, 333-112453, 333-110372, and 333-95967) of our reports
      dated February 26, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
      and schedule of PPL Corporation, PPL Corporation’s management's assessment of
      the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the
      effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of PPL Corporation,
      included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,
      2006.











/s/
      Ernst
& Young LLP


Philadelphia,
      Pennsylvania


February
      26, 2007
#### Brian PARKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert CASSA, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-1586.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

June 13, 2008.

BEFORE: MARTIN and BATCHELDER, Circuit Judges; JORDAN,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Leon Jordan, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee, sitting by designation.

ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff-Appellant Brian Parker (“Parker”) is an inmate in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections and was, at the time of the events giving rise to this action, under the supervision of Defendant-Appellant Robert Cassa (“Cassa”), a corrections officer at the Parnall Correctional Facility in Jackson, Michigan. Parker is a diabetic and Cassa, who was responsible for monitoring Parker’s food intake, had several times witnessed Parker have diabetic reactions prior to the incident in question. After a meal on August 12, 2005, Cassa informed Parker that it was time to leave the dining hall. Finding Parker unresponsive, Cassa radioed for help and then yelled at Parker and slammed his open palm on the table near Parker in an attempt to elicit a response. Receiving minimal or no reaction, Cassa, surmising that Parker was having a diabetic reaction and in need of immediate help, dragged Parker to the prison medical facility. It took Cassa about 90 seconds to get Parker to the medical facility, while the standard medical response might have taken as much as 15 minutes. Parker does not dispute that his blood-sugar level was elevated at the time of the incident. Furthermore, Parker failed to submit any admissible evidence that he suffered any injury as a result of Cassa’s dragging him.

Parker filed this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Cassa alleging that Cassa violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Both parties moved for summary judg*464ment and Parker moved for entry of default, contempt, and sanctions. On March 30, 2007, the district court granted Cassa’s motion for summary judgment. *See Parker v. Cassa,*No. 06-10564, 2007 WL 1016992, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23346 (E.D.Mich. March 30, 2007). Parker timely appealed that decision to this court.

After carefully reviewing the record, the law, and Parker’s brief, we conclude that the district court’s opinion correctly sets out the applicable law as established in *Hudson v. McMillian,*503 U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992), and correctly applies the law to the facts contained in the record. The issuance of a full written opinion by this court would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion, we AFFIRM.
IA 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 36 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 28, 2017 

Referred to the Committee on House Administration 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for the appointment of Roger W. Ferguson as 

a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That, in accordance with section 5581 of the Revised Stat4 utes (20 U.S.C. 43), the vacancy of the Board of Regents 

5 of the Smithsonian Institution, in the class other than 

6 Members of Congress, occurring by reason of the expira7 tion of the term of Robert P. Kogod of the District of 

8 Columbia on May 5, 2017, is filled by the appointment 

9 of Roger W. Ferguson of the District of Columbia. The 

10 appointment is for a term of 6 years, beginning on May 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

SJ 36 RFH 

1 6, 2017, or the date of the enactment of this joint resolu2 tion, whichever occurs later. 

Passed the Senate March 27, 2017. 

Attest: JULIE E. ADAMS, 

Secretary. 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### 217.7701 Procedures.

Follow the procedures at PGI 217.7701 when acquiring over and above work.

[71 FR 27643, May 12, 2006]
#### 1309.406-1 General.

Debarments and proposed debarments shall be effective throughout the Executive branch of the Government unless the designee authorized in CAM 1301.70 states in writing compelling reasons justifying DOC doing business with the contractor.
#### In the Matter of Albert W. Rumsey, Jr., et al., Appellants, v. Leslie Crate et al., Constituting the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Sullivan, Respondents.

Memorandum by the Court. In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules petitioners sought a review of the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Sullivan, Madison County, granting an application for a special use permit. Special Term annulled the determination and remitted the proceeding to the board with the direction that it “meet in formal session and vote on the application for the special use permit.” Petitioners appeal only from that part of the order which remitted the proceeding. The voting procedures which the record shows to have been adopted by the board were grossly irregular and it is obvious that there was no compliance with other provisions of section 267 of the Town Law. We agree with Special Term that a member who had been designated as a chairman of the board was not disqualified by the expiration of his term since no successor had been chosen or qualified. (Public Officers Law, § 5.) Its power to remit is clear but we think the directions given to the board should be amplified. Order modified by striking therefrom its last paragraph and substituting therefor a provision remitting the proceeding to the Zoning Board of Appeals with a direction that within 15 days after the service of the order to be entered hereon with notice of entry a meeting of the board open to the public be convened for action on the application for the permit whereat all other material provisions of subdivision 1 of section 267 of the Town Law shall be complied with, without costs to either party. Settle order. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.
| 1.  | the Form 10-Q, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2010 (“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: August 5, 2010 | By: /s/ Tracy L. Morris             |
|----------------------|------------------------------------------|
|                 | Tracy L. Morris, Chief Financial Officer |
#### 1847.7001 Contract clause.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.247-71, Protection of the Florida Manatee, in solicitations and contracts when deliveries or vessel operations, dockside work, or disassembly functions under the contract will involve use of waterways inhabited by manatees. The clause shall also be included in applicable subcontracts (including vendor deliveries).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheet, statement of income and statement of cash flows contained in
Form 10-Q of Cambridge Electric Light Company for the nine months ended
September 30, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000016573
<NAME> CAMBRIDGE ELECTRIC LIGHT COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                            <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                   SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        9-MOS
<BOOK-VALUE>                      PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>          100,759
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>          9,744
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>              20,685
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>            72,850
<OTHER-ASSETS>                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     204,038
<COMMON>                             8,665
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>           27,953
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                 13,995
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>      50,613
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                 7,301
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                  26,500
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>           0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>       10,100
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>              0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                         0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>     109,524
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>      204,038
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>           88,257
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                 3,964
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>          78,656
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>          82,620
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>              5,637
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                   2,572
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>       8,209
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>             2,528
<NET-INCOME>                         5,681
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>              0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>        5,681
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>             3,293
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>            1,082
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>              12,648
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0
        


</TABLE>
#### LeSueur *v.*Pounds *et al.*

Hill, J.

The plaintiff brought suit against the principal and sureties on a ne exeat bond. To the petition the defendants filed a general and special demurrer, which was overruled, but no exceptions were taken to the overruling of the demurrer. The plaintiff proved her case substantially as laid; but the defendants filed a special plea of res adjudieata, and an answer to the merits of the case, in which it was averred, among other things, that the defendants were not liable, because the bond sued on was an appearance bond only, and', the defendant having been present at the trial of the divorce suit when the final verdict and decree were rendered in the case in which the bond was *471given, the defendants were relieved from all further liability on the bond. It appears from the plea of res adjudicata, that, upon an application of the plaintiff to have judgment entered on the ne exeat bond, in the superior court, the trial judge rendered the following judgment: “After hearing the above application, the same is denied. I think a ne exeat bond in an alimony case, which is ordered on the ground that the defendant is about to remove himself beyond the jurisdiction of the court, is an appearance bond, and that if he appears subsequently at the trial of the application for alimony, and is present in court when the judgment is rendered, the ne exeat bond is functus officio.” To this judgment the plaintiff excepted, and brought the case to this court, and the judgment of the lower court was affirmed. See *Pounds*v. *Pounds,*136 *Ga.*196 (71 S. E. 137). The present case was heard by tlio trial judge upon an agreed statement of facts, the above being the most material. After the evidence was all in, the court sustained the plea of res adjudicata, and also found for the defendants against the plaintiff upon the merits of the case. Upon a careful review of the entire record, we think the court did not err in the judgment rendered.

February 14, 1913.

Action upon bond. Before Judge Bell. Fulton superior court. October 5, 1911.

*W. H. Terrell,*for plaintiff. *Alonzo Field,*for defendants.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JOSE GUADALUPE MURRILLO

LOPEZ,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 15-10002

D.C. No. 2:14-cr-01190-DJH

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Diane J. Humetewa, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 18, 2015** 

Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Jose Guadalupe Murrillo Lopez appeals from the district court’s judgment

and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 14-month sentence for reentry of a

removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California,

FILED

NOV 23 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
386 U.S. 738 (1967), Murrillo Lopez’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there

are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. 

We have provided Murrillo Lopez the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental

brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. 

Murrillo Lopez waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our

independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United

States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss

the appeal. See id. at 988. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED. 

2 15-10002
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             749
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,239
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    339,876
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               354,093
<PP&E>                                         231,530
<DEPRECIATION>                                 231,306
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 359,856
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          882,528
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        97,014
<OTHER-SE>                                   (619,686)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   359,856
<SALES>                                        195,011
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               195,011
<CGS>                                          176,695
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  176,695
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,144
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,828)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,828)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,828)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors
Am Communications, Inc.

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form
S-8 (No. 33-53822 and No. 33-81500) of AM Communications, Inc. of our report
dated May 9, 1997, except as to Notes 11 and 12, as to which the dates are June
11 and June 23, respectively, relating to the balance sheet of AM
Communications, Inc. as of March 29, 1997 and the related statements of
operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the year ended March 29,
1997, which report is included in the March 29, 1997 Annual Report of Form
10-KSB of AM Communications, Inc.



/s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
-------------------------
KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
June 26, 1997