alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(October 23, 1964)

#### Angelo J. Giaccio, Respondent, v. Kiamesha Concord, Inc., Appellant.

Per *Curiam.*

This is an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Sullivan County, at a Special Term held on December 17, 1962, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for neglect to prosecute (Civ. Prac. Act, § 181; now CPLR 3216) unless the plaintiff served a bill of particulars within 10 days after entry and service of the order. It is a condition to defense of a motion to dismiss for neglect that the plaintiff furnish an aEdavit of merit. While, as we have held, the aEdavit need not be made by the plaintiff *(Sznukowski*v. *B. F. Goodrich Co.,*18 A D 2d 861), it must be by a person having knowledge of the facts and must be as good as the kind of aEdavit which could defeat a motion for summary judgment on the ground that there is no issue of fact *(Sortino*v. *Fisher,*20 A D 2d 25, 32). The only aEdavit which has been submitted is the obviously hearsay aEdavit of counsel. Such an aEdavit is insufieient *(Keating*v. *Smith,*20 A D 2d 141). As to the allegation that the action has been neglected we examine the chronological background. The action is to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff on the defendant’s premises on July 9, 1959, when, as alleged in the complaint, the plaintiff, a paying guest, “brushed or touched a window in the main lobby of the hotel” which “shattered causing pieces of glass to fall some of which struck plaintiff ”. The action was commenced on March 21,1961, by the service of a copy of the summons and complaint. Issue was joined on April 17, 1961, on which date a demand for a bill of particulars was served. The demand was not complied with and nothing further transpired until October 19, 1962, approximately 19 months after the suit had been instituted, at which time the defendant moved to dismiss for lack of prosecution. The plaintiff’s attempted explanation of the untimely delay is contained in his attorney’s aEdavit, which states that “ after the pleadings had been served, the Ee in this action became lost ” and that “ after the service upon deponent of the present motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, deponent eventually located the Ee.” It is also stated by the plaintiff’s attorney that he moved his law oEee on January 1, 1960, but this was more than 14 months prior to the institution of the action and seems all but irrelevant. In the light of the complete inadequacy of the aEdavit of merit we find the excuse of the temporary loss of the Ee insuEcient for this delay of approximately 19 months. Order modEed, on the law and the facts and m the exercise of discretion, so as to dismiss the eomplamt and, as so modified, aErmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., HerlEy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ., concur.
#### Faber-Musser Company, appellant, v. William E. Dee Company, appellee.

Gen. No. 7,981.

Action for breach of contract. Judgment for defendant. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Sangamon county; the Hon. E. S. Smith, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1926.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed July 1, 1926.

Barnett, Wilson & Tichenor and Robert H. Patton, for appellant.

William L. Patton and John M. Quinlan, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Shurtleff

delivered the opinion of the court.
**Exhibit 32-7** **Certificate    Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of    Title 18 United States Code**     The undersigned officer hereby certifies, as to the quarterly    report on    Form 10-Q    of PECO Energy Company for the quarterly period ended    March 31, 2007, that (i) the report fully complies    with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the    Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information    contained in the report fairly presents, in all material    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of    PECO Energy Company. /s/  John    L. Skolds    John L. Skolds    President    Exelon Energy Delivery     Date: April 25, 2007
----

| CLECO CORPORATION   | EXHIBIT32(a) |
|-------------------------------|--------------|

| Cleco Corporation                              |
|------------------------------------------------|
| 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 ClecoCorporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005,as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, Michael H. Madison, President and Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, and I, Kathleen F. Nolen, Senior Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to §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;                                     |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2) The information contained in the Report fairly  presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of  operations of the Company. |

 

| /s/  Michael H. Madison                                           |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Michael H.  Madison    President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

| /s/  Kathleen F. Nolen                                                                     |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Kathleen F.  Nolen    Senior Vice President and     Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 11

- 00055

- CV

CITIZENS ENTERPRISES , INC., AND

MOHAMMAD SIDDIQUE

, Appellant s

v.

HEAVEN SENT PIZZA, L P

, Appellee

From the 66th District Court

Hill County, Texas

Trial Court No. 48264

MEMORANDUM OPINION

T he parties in this appeal have filed a joint motion to dismiss the appeal,

pursuant to Rule 42.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, after making a

complete settlement of all claims in the underlying case.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. T E X

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a).

TOM GRAY

Chief JusticeCitizens Enterprises, Inc. v. Heaven Sent Pizza, L.P. Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed June 22, 2011

[CV06]
#### § 1001.70 Producer-settlement fund.

See § 1000.70.
EXHIBIT 32



<PAGE>


                                  CERTIFICATION

      In connection with the Annual Report of San Juan Financial, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Rex Doyle, the Chief
Executive and Financial Officer and the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

(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 the
            Company.



Date:  April 11, 2006                /s/ Rex Doyle
                                     ---------------------------------------
                                     Rex Doyle, Chief  Executive and
                                       Financial Officer
970.4905-1 Termination for convenience of the government and default. ( a ) The contracting officer shall include the clause at 48 CFR 52.249-6, Termination (Cost Reimbursement), as modified pursuant to paragraph (b) of this subsection, in all cost-reimbursement management and operating contracts, regardless of whether the contract is for production, or research and development with an educational or nonprofit institution.
( b ) The contracting officer shall modify paragraph (i) of the clause to insert “as supplemented in subpart 970.31 of the Department of Energy Acquisition Regulation,” after the phrase, “part 31 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation.”
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 99.3

                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 on Form 10-Q of Chicago Rivet & Machine
Co. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
John C. Osterman, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

         (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.


/s/ John C. Osterman
-----------------------------
Name:  John C. Osterman
Title: Chief Financial Officer
Date:  May 5, 2003

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Chicago Rivet & Machine Co. and will be retained by Chicago Rivet &
Machine Co. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.




                                       19
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1098 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 50 East Derry Road in East Derry, New 

Hampshire, as the ‘‘Chief Edward B. Garone Post Office’’. 

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

•HR 1098 EH

1 SECTION 1. CHIEF EDWARD B. GARONE POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 50 East Derry Road in East 

4 Derry, New Hampshire, shall be known and designated 

5 as the ‘‘Chief Edward B. Garone Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Chief Edward B. 

10 Garone Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 3, 2024. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1098 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostB. Garone Post Office’’. Derry, New Hampshire, as the ‘‘Chief Edward al Service located at 50 East Derry Road in East
#### In the Matter of Francis J. Cattanach, Deceased. Chemical Bank *New York*Trust Company, et al., Respondents; May L. Cattanach et al., Appellants.

In a discovery proceeding by the executor to recover certain bonds or their proceeds from decedent’s second wife (the respondent Lillian Cattanach), who claimed that the bonds were given to her by decedent as an *inter vivos*gift, decedent’s first wife and their daughter appeal from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County, entered January 22, 1964 after a nonjury trial upon the court’s decision and opinion, which adjudged that the said respondent Lillian Cattanach is the owner and entitled to the possession of the bonds, and which dismissed the petition. Decree affirmed, with costs to respondent Lillian Cattanach payable out of the estate. The record presents, primarily, a question of fact as to whether the claimed gift was made. In our opinion, the Surrogate’s determination, namely: that respondent Lillian Cattanach had sustained the burden of proving the essential elements of a gift *inter*vivos, is supported by adequate proof (cf. *Matter of Presender,*285 App. Div. 109, 118). We aré also of the opinion that the examination of said respondent by appellants’ counsel with respect to the sale of some of the bonds by decedent subsequent to the alleged gift opened the door to respondent’s further testimony, on cross-examination by her attorney, that the sale had been made at her request (cf. *Matter of Berardini,*238 App. Div. 433, 435, affd. 263 N. Y. 627). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 23.1**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting FirmWe consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No.333-84672, Form S-8 No. 333-45410, Form S-8 No. 333-11537 and Form S-8 No. 333-110106) of AndrxCorporation and in the related Prospectus of our reports dated March 13, 2006 with respect to theconsolidated financial statements of Andrx Corporation, Andrx Corporation management’s assessmentof the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting of Andrx Corporation, included in this Annual Report(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2005./s/ Ernst & Young LLP
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 11-760V (Not to be published)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* PATRICIA A. SAYO, *
* Filed: March 4 , 2015 Petitioner, *
* Decision by Stipulation; Attorney’s
v. * Fees & Costs
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES , *
* Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Ann e Carrion Toale

, Sarasota, FL

, for Petitioner

Michael Patrick Milmoe , Washington, DC, for Respondent

ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS DECISION 1

On November 14, 2011

, Patricia A. Sayo filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program ( A the Vaccine Program @ ). On February 10, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation detailing an amount to be awarded to Petitioner. I subsequently issued a decision finding the parties’ stipulation to be reasonable and granting
Petitioner an award as outlined by the stipulation.

On March 4 , 2015 , counsel for both parties filed another joint stipulation, this time in regards to attorne y’s fees and costs. The parties have stipulated that Petitioner’s counsel should receive a lump sum of $ 31,617.51 , in the form of a check payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s

1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my action in this case, I will post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No.
107

- 347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the posted decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 days within which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the discl osure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole decision will be available to the public. ( Id. )counsel. This amount represents a sum to which R espondent does not object. In addition, and in compliance wi th General Order #9, Petitioner has represented that she did incur any reimbursable costs in proceeding on this petition.

I approve the requested amount for attorney’s fees and costs as reasonable. Accordingly,
an award in the amount of $31,617.51 should be made in the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, Anne Carrion Toale, Esq. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court SHALL ENTER
JUDGMENT in accordanc e with the terms of the parties’ stipulation. 2



### IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing the ir right to seek review.
Greg Wilkes – Manager Permian Operations

### Showcasing a Profitable PermianBased Water Recycling Program to Demonstrate the Financial Benefit of Water Treatment in Texas

## History of Broad Oak Energy II 

# • First Permian well spudded November 2007 

# • Drilled 410 vertical Wolfberry wells through July 2011 

# • Merged with Laredo Petroleum in July 2011 

# • Formed Broad Oak Energy II in late 2012 

# • Began drilling in Irion county in August 2013!"#$$%&'()*+)%%

Source: 2007 USGS National Oil & Gas Assessment Data Central Basin Platform Delaware Basin Midland Basin

MarathonOuachita Fold Belt Val Verde Basin Ozona Arch Palo Duro Basin

Matador Arch ,)(-.*/%!*0./1%2)03%4)5*0%6%7#%8)9%:)5.';% :.<=*/<%!*0./%2;=>'*-?%:*?%6%7@*=)%!*0./%A*.(9*B%

## Horizontal Wolfcamp Completions



# • 29 stages initially – 40 stages currently 

# • 8500 bbls /stage – 7700 bbls /stage 

# • 1200 lbs / ft – 1700 lbs / ft 

### 7500’ LateralDockum AquiferConstructing Fresh Water PitConstructing Fresh Water PitConstructing Fresh Water PitConstructing Fresh Water PitEvaporation Cover with Sump PumpLaying 8” Aquamine LineProduced Water TankProduced Water TanksWater Management Footprint

## The Story of Broad Oak Energy II


# • Drilled 39 horizontal Wolfcamp wells 

# • Produced over 4 million bbls of water 

# • Disposed of 246,000 bbls 

# • Over 90% re-use rateProduced Water AnalysisProduced Water AnalysisFresh Water AnalysisFresh Water AnalysisFresh Water AnalysisFresh Water AnalysisTreating Produced WaterClO 2 Treating of Frac WaterScale Inhibitor

## Cost Comparison Assumptions



# • 2 well zipper pad – 640,000 bbls of water 

# • Produced water rate is 10,000 BPD 

# • Fresh water rate is 13,000 BPD 

# • Fresh water cost is $0.50/ bbl 

# • Disposal cost via pipeline is $0.50/ bbl

## Cost of Water Using Mixed



# • 28 days of storage $116,000 

# • Treatment of produced water $ 67,000 

# • Cost of fresh water makeup $180,000



# • TOTAL $363,000

## Cost of Water Using Only Fresh



# • Cost of fresh water $320,000 

# • Disposal of produced (49 days) $245,000



# • TOTAL $565,000

## Conclusions 

# • Saving approximately $200,000 per zipper frac by utilizing our produced water 

# • Able to develop our field at a quicker pace by utilizing our produced water 

# • Being good stewards by minimizing the use of fresh water

## Production Graph

# QUESTIONS??
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
Napster, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of, Wm. Christopher Gorog, Chairman of the
Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant and Suzanne M. Colvin, Vice President, Finance and Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his or her respective knowledge:



1. The Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 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 Registrant.



|    |  |                                                                                                                            
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/    WM. CHRISTOPHER
GOROG                                                                                               
|    |  | Wm. Christopher Gorog Chief Executive Officer, and Chairman of the Board of Directors (Principal Executive Officer)        
|    |  | June 11, 2008                                                                                                              
|By: |  | /s/    SUZANNE M.
COLVIN                                                                                                   
|    |  | Suzanne M. Colvin Vice President, Finance, and Interim Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
|    |  | June 11, 2008                                                                                                              



This certification accompanies
this periodic report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This
certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by reference.
#### 901.603-70 Appointment of contracting officers and contracting officer's representatives.

*See* the DOE Order 541.1B, Appointment of Contracting Officers and Contracting Officer Representatives, or its successor order, for procedures on the appointment of contracting officers and contracting officer's representatives.

[76 FR 7689, Feb. 11, 2011]
#### 123X Corp., Respondent, v Beverly A. McKenzie et al. Appellants.

[776 NYS2d 893]

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated February 26, 2003, which granted the plaintiffs motion to “restore” the action to the calendar and denied their cross motion to dismiss the action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs motion to *770“restore” this action after it had been marked inactive due to the parties’ failure to appear at a status conference. CPLR 3404 does not apply to this pre-note of issue action *(see Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv.,*282 AD2d 190 [2001]), there was no 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216, and there was no order dismissing the complaint pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27. Accordingly, the motion was properly granted *(see Lucious v Rutland Nursing Home of Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr.,*2 AD3d 412 [2003]; *Gendus v Sheraton|Atl. City W.,*302 AD2d 427 [2003]; *Torres v Nu-Way Mach. Corp. Co.,*296 AD2d 545 [2002]; *Farley v Danaher Corp.,*295 AD2d 559 [2002]).

The defendants’ remaining contention is without merit. Santueci, J.P., Smith, Luciano and Adams, JJ., concur.