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

 

**CERTIFICATION OF THECHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OFGLOBAL PARTNERS LPPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

** **

In connection with the accompanying report on Form 10-Qfor the period ended June 30, 2008 of Global Partners LP (the “Partnership”)and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Eric Slifka, President and Chief Executive Officer of Global GP LLC, thegeneral partner of the Partnership, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.               The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.               The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Partnership.

 

 
| Dated:  August 8, 2008 | By:    |  /s/Eric  Slifka                                                |
|-----------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                        |   |      Eric  Slifka                           |
|                        |   |      President  and Chief Executive Officer |
|                        |   |      of  Global GP LLC, general partner     |
|                        |   |      of  Global Partners LP                 |

 

----
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Morris Stein, Respondent, v. 200 Lafayette Street Corporation et al., Appellants, and Special Disability Fund, Respondent. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Gibson, P. J.

The board properly found, upon substantial evidence, that, in February, 1962 and until March 6, 1962, by reason of the frequent mechanical failures of the passenger elevator of which he was the regular operator, claimant had *“*to expend strenuous physical effort by shaking the elevator, slamming doors and jumping up and down to get the elevator started”; and that during this period, because this elevator had sometimes to be used in place of a broken-down freight elevator, claimant had to employ *“*extra physical exertion ” in shifting piled mail sacks, weighing over 100 pounds each; that during this period claimant experienced chest pain and on March 6, 1962 *“*terrific chest pain” requiring his immediate hospitalization; and that the work effort, “ with attendant pain and resultant myocardial infarction constitute[d] an accidental injury”. In their application for board review, the employer and carrier specified two grounds for reversal, to which they are, of course, limited on this appeal *(Matter of Hedlund*v. *United Exposition Decorating Co.,*15 A D 2d 973, mot. for lv. to app. den. 11 N Y 2d 646). The above-quoted findings, being based on substantial evidence, belie the first ground urged—that “ claimant has failed to describe an occupational accident”—this, apparently, because his “activities were in no way different at that time as compared to his activities for the major part of his employment ”, but if this contention were factually correct it would not bar an. award *(Matter of Schechter*v. *State Ins. Fund,*6 N Y 2d 506, 510), or because the work incidents described were not shown to have occurred at the time of claimant’s collapse, but a failure of proof in that respect would not negate causality *(Matter of Sheflick*v. *Lefrak,*11 A D 2d 828). The second ground urged for reversal is stated by appellants to be the “ [m] ore important ” and that is the “ question of causal relationship ” and in support of this they cite the evidence elicited from their medical expert; but claimant’s consultant cardiologist reported that claimant “ incurred a severe myocardial infarction on March 6, while engaged with work of an unusually strenuous nature”; and the impartial specialist in cardiology designated by the board found causal relationship between the work activity and the myocardial infarction, which he also said was evident at the time of claimant’s hospitalization on March 6, 1962. The board was, of course, entitled to determine the conflict in the medical proof as it did. Decision affirmed, with one bill of costs to respondents filing briefs. Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Hamm, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 70217]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28927]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Docket ID: DOD-2010-OS-0034]


Defense Transportation Regulation, Part IV

AGENCY: United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM), DoD.

ACTION: Response to comments received.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense has issued an interim response and 
disposition of comments received in connection with the Defense 
Personal Property Program (DP3), Phase III Final-Draft Business Rules. 
The notice was published in the Federal Register April 1, 2010 (75 FR 
16445-16446). The interim response and disposition of comments can be 
viewed on the USTRANSCOM Web site (under misc) at http://www.transcom.mil/dtr/part-iv/misc.cfm.
    Additional review of remaining comments received is on-going. Any 
subsequent changes will be published in a Federal Register Announcement 
and incorporated into the Defense Transportation Regulation (DTR) Part 
IV (DTR 4500.9R).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jim Teague, United States 
Transportation Command, TCJ5/4-PI, 508 Scott Drive, Scott Air Force 
Base, IL 62225-5357; (618) 229-1985.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A complete version of the DTR is available 
via the Internet on the USTRANSCOM homepage at http://www.transcom.mil/j5/pt/dtr_part_iv.cfm.

    Dated: November 10, 2010.
Morgan F. Park,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2010-28927 Filed 11-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
# A dak 

# C ommunity 

# D evelopment 

# C orporation

March 17 th 2015

Mr. Kevin Schlemmer

Essential Air Service Division Office of Aviation Analysis US Dept. of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC, 20590

RE: DOT-OST-2000-8556- Continuation of Alaska Airlines EAS Service at Adak, Alaska

Dear Mr. Schlemmer,

This letter is to express strong support for Alaska Airlines being selected to continue to provide essential air service using jet aircraft to our community.

Adak Community Development Corporation (ACDC) is a non-profit community organization devoted to promoting seafood harvesting and processing capacity in Adak. ACDC has invested in seafood infrastructure in Adak that is extremely dependant on the type and reliability of service provided by Alaska Airlines.

We have reviewed the proposal for provision of Essential Air Service and firmly believe

that Alaska Airlines is the best value.

The service Alaska Airlines is currently providing is critical for the continued access and economic well being of Adak as well as that of this entire region of the state.

The existing pattern of service – using jet aircraft – offers important benefits that would be difficult, if not impossible, to match with any other type of service or aircraft type:

 Route network / ease of connections – Alaska Airlines route system now stretches coast to coast and marketing partnerships with other carriers provide virtually a global reach. Service from our community to the hub in Anchorage provides easy

access to this network.

 Incoming freight capabilities – Our community depends on scheduled air freight shipments for many of our daily necessities and the added cargo capacity of Alaska’s“combi” aircraft is extremely important. Additionally, our economic base is closely tied to commercial fishing.

 Outgoing freight capabilities - Alaska’s jet service offers key cargo capacity allowing transport of 10,000 lbs or more of fresh seafood products to the rest of the U.S. in a timely, dependable manner. ACDC is involved in shipping live crab and fresh halibut out of Adak on Alaska Airlines, and this marketing channel has been critical

to our local fleet.

Given the lack of any road system connecting our extremely remote community with the rest of the state, Adak is particularly isolated. Accordingly, ACDC and the other participants in the seafood industry are extremely dependent on reliable air access. Alaska Airlines has provided this access very capably for the many years.

For these reasons, we respectfully urge DOT to select Alaska Airlines for continued

essential air service to Adak.

Thank you for your consideration of our comments.

Sincerely,

Adak Community Development Corporation

P.O. Box 1943 Adak AK, 99546
# Phantom 3 Pre

- Flight Inspection Check List

Pre

- Flight Check List

ο Visual inspection for defects

ο Batteries fully charged and checked

- Transmitter, UAS, iPad, iPhone , approved/compatible device

ο Props tightened and locked

ο SD card in camera

ο Lens cap removed (As necessary)

ο Antennae up and parallel

ο Transmitter turned on (press once, release, then press and hold for 3 seconds)

ο Ensure Transmitter is in P Mode

ο UAS turned on (press once, release, then press and hold for 3 seconds)

ο Flick the transformation switch on transmitter up and down 4 times quickly to convert from travel mode to flight mode or use the app

ο DJI Pilot app quit and restarted, no other running apps on iPad

ο Tap bar at top of app (Safe to Fly GPS) for full status

ο Maps are cached (move the map around, zoom in an out)

ο Minimum return height adjusted (check for tallest object and set accordingly)

ο UAS placed in safe laun ch and recover position

ο Home point reprogrammed via app

ο Area clear of people / obstructions

Flight Check List

ο Hover close for 20 seconds. Look / Listen for defects

ο Confirm expected stick operation

ο Monitor batt ery power

ο Monitor signal strength

ο Keep line

- of

- sight with UAS

o Ensure area/zone of intended flight path is clear of other aerial traffic.

o Ensure area/zone of intended flight path is clear of any electrical/power lines

o Ensure atmospheric c onditions are optimal for safe operation of UAV/UAS

o Select a safe zone to “ditch” the UAV/UAS in the event an emergency landing is required
#### §§ 1737.52-1737.59 [Reserved]
#### § 1775.64 [Reserved]
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of American Community Newspapers Inc. (the ‘‘Company’’) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2007 (the ‘‘Report’’), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Daniel J. Wilson, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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, 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.

|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |  |  |                                  |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|----------------------------------|
| By: /s/   Daniel J. Wilson                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |  |  | Dated: August 14, 2007 |
|              Daniel J. Wilson             Vice President and Chief Financial Officer             (Principal Accounting and Financial Officer) |  |  |                             |

----
§ 1735.90 Preliminary approvals. ( a ) In cases where the borrower's schedule for completion of the proposed action leaves insufficient time for RUS to prepare and process the required documentation, including new mortgages and replacement notes, the borrower may request RUS to give preliminary approval to the acquisition or merger. However, the borrower may not obtain additional loan funds until the documentation is completed to RUS's satisfaction.
( b ) Consideration of preliminary approvals generally will not be practicable in cases in which compensating benefits are required.
( c ) RUS will not give preliminary approval when the lien of the mortgage on after-acquired property may be affected.
( d ) Before RUS will grant preliminary approval, the borrower shall submit: ( 1 ) Merger or acquisition documents required by state law;
( 2 ) Acquisition agreements covering the transaction;
( 3 ) Any required franchises, licenses, and permits;
( 4 ) All required regulatory body approvals;
( 5 ) All required corporate actions;
( 6 ) Leases, contracts, and evidence of titles to be assigned to the purchaser; and
( 7 ) The latest audited financial statements for any nonborrowers involved.
( e ) If the information in (d) of this section is acceptable to RUS, the borrower may proceed with the closing.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0572-0084) [54 FR 14626, Apr. 12, 1989, unless otherwise noted. Redesignated at 55 FR 39395, Sept. 27, 1990.]
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                               5
<CIK>                                   0000792989
<MULTIPLIER>                            1
<CURRENCY>                              U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                  1772250
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        0
<PP&E>                                  12923218
<DEPRECIATION>                          5709530
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          9050011
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   0
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                                0
<OTHER-SE>                              0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            9050011
<SALES>                                 2645296
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        2707174
<CGS>                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         1080214
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     1080214
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                            1080214
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           0
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0
        

</TABLE>
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Internal Revenue Service annualreport.**
 
SuDoc Number:T 22.1:

Item Number:0955 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001119442
 
1998 | 2000
 
April 22, 2020
#### In re MADEO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 12, 1906.)

In the matter of the judicial settlement of the account of Antonio Madeo, as executor of the last will and testament of Joseph Prestera, sometimes known as Giusepe Prestera, deceased.

No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted.
Exhibit 32.1








CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








The undersigned, Peter Wilson, the Chief Executive Officer and William Thomas, Chief Financial Officer of Morgan Creek Energy Corp., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to their knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Morgan Creek Energy Corp. for quarter ended March 31, 2011, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Morgan Creek Energy Corp.




Date: May 16, 2011
By:
/s/ Peter WilsonName: Peter WilsonTitle: President, Chief Executive Officer




Date: May 16, 2011
By:
/s/ William ThomasName: William ThomasTitle: Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Morgan Creek Energy Corp. and will be retained by Morgan Creek Energy Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT  (21)


     SUBSIDIARIES  OF  REGISTRANT

   Registrant  owns  100%  of  the  outstanding stock of each of the following
   corporations:

      NAME                                             STATE  OF  INCORPORATION
   -------------------------------------------        ------------------------

   Harleysville  Insurance  Company  of  Ohio               Ohio

   Harleysville-Atlantic  Insurance  Company                Georgia

   Harleysville  Insurance  Company  of  New  Jersey        New  Jersey

   Harleysville  Preferred  Insurance  Company              Pennsylvania

   Harleysville  Lake  States  Insurance  Company           Michigan

   Mid-America  Insurance  Company                          Pennsylvania

   Harleysville  Insurance  Company                         Minnesota

   Harleysville  Insurance  Company  of  New  York          New  York

   Harleysville  Worcester  Insurance  Company              Massachusetts

<PAGE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 April 17, 2020

s0414

Order 

Clerk

April 17, 2020

160355

JENNIFER BUHL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 160355

COA: 340359

Oakland CC: 2017-157097-NI

CITY OF OAK PARK,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 29, 2019 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall 

address: (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the January 2017 

amendment to MCL 691.1402a(5), see 2016 PA 419, applies retroactively; (2) whether 

2016 PA 419 “attaches a new disability with respect to transactions or considerations 

already past,” In re Certified Questions from US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 

416 Mich 558, 571 (1982); (3) whether the Court of Appeals erred in creating and 

applying a “Brewer restoration rule,” in determining that 2016 PA 419 applies 

retroactively, see Brewer v A D Transp Express, Inc, 486 Mich 50 (2010); and (4) 

whether it makes a difference that the amendment was enacted before plaintiff filed her 

complaint when the amended statute states, “In a civil action, a municipal corporation . . . 

may assert . . . a defense that the condition was open and obvious.” MCL 691.1402a(5). 

The time allowed for oral argument shall be 20 minutes for each side. MCR 7.314(B)(1).

CAVANAGH, J., did not participate because of her prior involvement as counsel for 

a party.
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 22-30132 

Anthony J. Stewart; Diane Raley; Tomika Jordan; 

Sheena Altine; Tyelga J. Kearney; Et al, 

Plaintiffs—Appellees, 

versus

Entergy Corporation; Entergy New Orleans, L.L.C.; 

Entergy Louisiana, L.L.C., 

Defendants—Appellants. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Louisiana 

USDC No. 2:21-CV-1834 

Before Smith, Barksdale, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

This case presents a second appeal (this time under 28 U.S.C. § 1291) 

from the same district court decision remanding the case to the Louisiana 

state court. In Stewart v. Entergy Corp., 35 F.4th 930, 931 (5th Cir. 2022) (per 

curiam) (“Stewart I”), the Defendants-Appellants in this case (“Entergy”) 

appealed the district court’s remand order under 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1), 

*

 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Circuit Rule 47.5. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

December 12, 2022 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 22-30132 Document: 00516574568 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/12/2022
No. 22-30132 

2 

regarding the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”). We need not repeat the 

facts set out in that opinion; suffice it to say that the Plaintiffs in this case 

brought a class action against Entergy based upon alleged negligence and 

other breaches that caused extensive power outages following Hurricane Ida 

in southeast Louisiana in 2021. The district court concluded that CAFA 

jurisdiction did not apply and also rejected the other allegations of federal 

question and bankruptcy jurisdiction. 

In Stewart I, which addressed the CAFA jurisdiction issues, we 

concluded that CAFA did not provide jurisdiction because the statute’s local 

controversy and home state exceptions applied. 35 F.4th at 932–34. We also 

rejected the notion that our ability to address CAFA jurisdiction gave us 

jurisdiction to decide whether the district court properly remanded the case 

under federal question and bankruptcy arguments. Id. at 934–36; see 28 

U.S.C. § 1447(d) (denying appellate jurisdiction over most appeals of 

jurisdictional remands). Following that decision, the Plaintiffs filed a motion 

to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, which the motions panel carried 

with the case. Based upon the decision in Stewart I and the lack of any 

exception to Section 1447(d) applying in this appeal, we conclude that the 

motion to dismiss should be granted. 

Accordingly, we DISMISS this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

Case: 22-30132 Document: 00516574568 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/12/2022
#### Jerome Silverman, Administrator (Estate of Harold Nathan) *v.*Walter A. Camp et al.

*William B. Bush,*for the appellee (defendant Sava) on this motion only.

*Marshall 8. Feingold,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

Argued November 2

decided November 2, 1971

The motion by the defendant Gerard A. Sava to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in Fair-field County at Stamford is granted.