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





STATEMENT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 BY PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER





I,
Keith Brackpool, herby certify, to my knowledge, that:





1.
the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Cadiz Inc. for the period
ended June 30, 2009 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934, as amended; and




2.
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Cadiz
Inc.





IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Statement as of the date
first written above.





Dated:
August 10, 2009








/s/ Keith Brackpool


Keith
Brackpool


Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-10401 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ANDRES MARES REYNA, JR., also known as Andres Mares Reyna, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:99-CR-260-1-E

-------------------- December 13, 2000 Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Andres Mares Reyna, Jr., appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. The Government contends that Reyna waived the right to appeal his sentence. Because the district court did not ensure that Reyna understood the plea agreement’s waiver-of-appeal provision and its consequences, the provision is ineffective.No. 00-10401 -2- United States v. Robinson , 187 F.3d 516, 518 (5th Cir. 1999); Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(6). Reyna argues that the district court erred in denying him a reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 for acceptance of responsibility. We perceive no error in the district court’s denial of the reduction. See United States v. Flucas , 99 F.3d 177, 180 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v. Rickett , 89 F.3d 224, 226-27 (5th Cir. 1996). AFFIRMED.
§ 405.410 Conditions for properly opting-out of Medicare. The following conditions must be met for a physician or practitioner to properly opt-out of Medicare: ( a ) Each private contract between a physician or a practitioner and a Medicare beneficiary that is entered into prior to the submission of the affidavit described in paragraph (b) of this section must meet the specifications of § 405.415.
( b ) The physician or practitioner must submit an affidavit that meets the specifications of § 405.420 to each Medicare Administrative Contractor with which he or she would file claims absent the opt-out.
( c ) A nonparticipating physician or a practitioner may opt-out of Medicare at any time in accordance with the following: ( 1 ) The initial 2-year opt-out period begins the date the affidavit meeting the requirements of § 405.420 is signed, provided the affidavit is filed within 10 days after he or she signs his or her first private contract with a Medicare beneficiary.
( 2 ) If the physician or practitioner does not timely file the opt-out affidavit(s) as specified in the previous paragraph, the initial 2-year opt-out period begins when the last such affidavit is filed. Any private contract entered into before the last required affidavit is filed becomes effective upon the filing of the last required affidavit, and the furnishing of any items or services to a Medicare beneficiary under such contract before the last required affidavit is filed is subject to standard Medicare rules.
( d ) A participating physician may properly opt-out of Medicare at the beginning of any calendar quarter, provided that the affidavit described in § 405.420 is submitted to the participating physician's Medicare Administrative Contractors at least 30 days before the beginning of the selected calendar quarter. A private contract entered into before the beginning of the selected calendar quarter becomes effective at the beginning of the selected calendar quarter, and the furnishing of any items or services to a Medicare beneficiary under such contract before the beginning of the selected calendar quarter is subject to standard Medicare rules.
[63 FR 58901, Nov. 2, 1998, as amended at 80 FR 71370, Nov. 16, 2015]
§ 423.638 How a Part D plan sponsor must effectuate expedited redeterminations or reconsiderations. ( a ) *Reversals by the Part D plan sponsor* — ( 1 ) *Requests for benefits.* If, on an expedited redetermination of a request for benefits, the Part D plan sponsor reverses its coverage determination, the Part D plan sponsor must authorize or provide the benefit under dispute as expeditiously as the enrollee's health condition requires, but no later than 72 hours after the date the Part D plan sponsor receives the request for redetermination.
( 2 ) *Review of an at-risk determination.* If, on an expedited redetermination of an at-risk determination made under a drug management program in accordance with § 423.153(f), the Part D plan sponsor reverses its at-risk determination, the Part D plan sponsor must implement the change to the at-risk determination as expeditiously as the enrollee's health condition requires, but no later than 72 hours after the date the Part D plan sponsor receives the request for redetermination.
( b ) *Reversals other than by the Part D plan sponsor* — ( 1 ) *Requests for benefits.* If the expedited determination or expedited redetermination for benefits by the Part D plan sponsor is reversed in whole or in part by the independent review entity, or at a higher level of appeal, the Part D plan sponsor must authorize or provide the benefit under dispute as expeditiously as the enrollee's health condition requires but no later than 24 hours from the date it receives notice reversing the determination. The Part D plan sponsor must inform the independent review entity that the Part D plan sponsor has effectuated the decision.
( 2 ) *Review of an at-risk determination.* If the expedited redetermination of an at-risk determination made under a drug management program in accordance with § 423.153(f) by the Part D plan sponsor is reversed in whole or in part by the independent review entity, or at a higher level of appeal, the Part D plan sponsor must implement the change to the at-risk determination as expeditiously as the enrollee's health condition requires but no later than 24 hours from the date it receives notice reversing the determination. The Part D plan sponsor must inform the independent review entity that the Part D plan sponsor has effectuated the decision.
[83 FR 16753, Apr. 16, 2013]
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 18

- 00194

- CR

The State of Texas , Appellant

v.

Reynaldo Lerma , Appellee

FROM THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY NO. CR

- 15

- 0598 , THE HONORABLE JACK H. ROBISON , JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

The mandate i n this cause issued by this Court on November 1 6 , 20 2 1 , is

hereby withdrawn.

I t is so ordered on December 1 7 , 20 2 1

.

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Smith

Do Not Publish
699 A.2d 717

#### OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, v. Morris L. CHUCAS, Respondent.

No. 359 Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Aug. 7, 1997.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.:

AND NOW, this 7th day of August, 1997, there having been filed with this Court by Morris L. Chucas his verified Statement of Resignation dated June 24, 1997, stating that he desires to resign from the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in accordance with the provisions of Rule 215, Pa.R.D.E., it is

ORDERED that the resignation of Morris L. Chucas be and it is hereby accepted and he is DISBARRED ON CONSENT from the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and it is further ORDERED that he shall comply with the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E. Respondent shall pay costs, if any, to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Rule 208(g), Pa.R.D.E.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                              62
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,445
<ALLOWANCES>                                       519
<INVENTORY>                                      2,608
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                53,536
<PP&E>                                         314,446
<DEPRECIATION>                                 130,927
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 259,624
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          172,257
<BONDS>                                         56,006
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            65
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,521
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   259,624
<SALES>                                        146,180
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               146,180
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  141,813
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,234
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,867)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,503)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,364)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,364)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1>Fully diluted EPS calculation is anti-diluative
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
# C_2006139EN.01002801.xml

| 14.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 139/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/28

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4148 — Nouveaux Constructeurs/Goldman Sachs Group/Deutsche Bank/Lone Star/Zapf)

(2006/C 139/07)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 30 March 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4148. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4148. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex)

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6484

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

STANLEY HICKMAN,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:93-cr-00144-BO-3)

Submitted: July 21, 2011 Decided: July 26, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stanley Hickman, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., 

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Stanley Hickman appeals the district court’s order 

denying his “Motion Nunc Pro Tunc for Review of Sentence.” We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. United States v. Hickman, No. 5:93-cr-00144-BO-3 

(E.D.N.C. Jan. 25, 2011). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 10.02


                            FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE

     This Agreement amends and modifies that certain Triple Net Lease (the 
"Lease") between BGR ASSOCIATES, a California Limited Partnership as lessor 
and CHIRON CORPORATION, a California Corporation as lessee dated May 26, 1989 
with respect to 4560 Horton Street, Emeryville, California.

1.   AMENDMENT TO LEASE:

     This document amends and modifies the Lease. Except as expressly 
modified by the provisions of this amendment, the Lease shall remain in full 
force and effect.

2.   MODIFICATION OF PARAGRAPH 1.2:

     Paragraph 1.2 of the Lease entitled "LEASE TERM" is hereby modified by 
changing from "ten (10) years" in the third line of said paragraph to "twelve 
(12) years."

3.   AMENDMENT TO PARAGRAPH 3.2:

     "EXTENSION OF INITIAL TERM":  The reference in the third line of paragraph 
3.2 of the Lease to the "Initial Ten (10) year term" is hereby modified and 
amended to read "the Initial Twelve (12) year term" and the reference in the 
last line of said paragraph to "eleven (11) years" is hereby modified to read 
"thirteen (13) years".

4.   MODIFICATION TO PARAGRAPH 3.3:

     "OPTION TO TERMINATE":  Paragraph 3.3 is deleted.

5.   MODIFICATION TO PARAGRAPH 4.2:

     "ANNUAL RENT ADJUSTMENT":  The first sentence of paragraph 4.2 is hereby 
modified to read as follows:

          "During the first ten (10) years of the Lease Term and
          during any extension of the Lease Term pursuant to
          paragraph 19.0 of this Lease, the Base Monthly Rent
          specified in paragraph 1.3 shall be subject to annual
          increases determined by reference to the Consumer Price
          Index for All Urban Consumers, San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose,
          California. All Items (1992-84-100), published by the United
          States Bureau of Labor Statistics (the "CPI")."



<PAGE>

The following language shall be inserted after the first sentence of 
paragraph 4.2 of the Lease:

          "During the eleventh and twelfth year of the Lease Term,
          the Base Monthly Rent shall be identical to the Base
          Monthly Rent due and payable under the terms of the
          Lease for the last month of the tenth year of the 
          Lease Term."

6.   CONFLICT RESOLUTION:

     In the event of any conflict between the provisions of this amendment 
and the provisions of the Lease, the provisions of this amendment shall 
prevail.

This agreement entered into at Emeryville, California as of October 1, 1993.


     LANDLORD                                     TENANT

BGR ASSOCIATES, A CALIFORNIA               CHIRON CORPORATION, A
     LIMITED PARTNERSHIP                   CALIFORNIA CORPORATION


By: ________________________               By: _____________________

Address for Notices:                       Address for Notices:
1120 Nye Street                            4560 Horton Street
San Rafael, CA  94901                      Emeryville, CA  94608

                                    -2-
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsLeading-edge deflection optimization for a highly swept arrow wing configurationTests were also conducted to determine the sensitivity of the lateral stability derivative C sub l sub beta to geometric anhedral. The optimized leading edge deflection was developed by aligning the leading edge with the incoming flow along the entire span. Owing to the spanwise variation of upwash, the resulting optimized leading edge was a smooth, continuously warped surface. For the particular configuration studied, levels of leading edge suction on the order of 90 percent were achieved with the smooth, continuously warped leading edge contour. The results of tests conducted to determine the sensitivity of C sub l sub beta to geometric anhedral indicate values of delta C sub l sub beta/delta T which are in reasonable agreement with estimates provided by simple vortex lattice theories.Document ID19810006459Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Publication (TP)AuthorsCoe, P. L., Jr.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Huffman, J. K.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Fenbert, J. W.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateDecember 1, 1980Subject CategoryAerodynamicsReport/Patent NumberL-13820NASA-TP-1777Accession Number81N14974Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 533-01-43-02Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19810006459.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### Clyde Earl KELLEY v. M & M DODGE, INC., et al.

No. 65092.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 4, 1979.

In re Clyde Earl Kelley, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of Rapides. 370 So.2d 1267.

Writ denied,

DIXON, J., would grant the writ.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...International Migrants Day

# 									International Migrants Day							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

December 18, 2023

On International Migrants Day, we recognize the hundreds of millions of migrants living outside of their home countries.  It is imperative that countries expand lawful pathways, protect vulnerable migrants, promote inclusion, and advance policies and processes to promote safe, orderly, and humane migration.  The United States is committed to leading these efforts globally.

The United States has led the largest expansion in decades of lawful migration pathways to help vulnerable migrants, refugees, and other displaced persons.  We commend other countries that are likewise expanding regular pathways, creating safe options for migrants while respecting national sovereignty and security.  Tens of thousands of individuals have benefited from rapid processing and support through the Safe Mobility initiative since its launch in June 2023.  We have resettled more refugees than any other country in the world, welcoming more than 3.5 million refugees into communities across the country since 1975.  Immigrants make tremendous social and economic contributions that drive our nation’s competitiveness and innovation on the global stage.

Worldwide, we are the largest single provider of humanitarian assistance reaching people in need, including refugees, conflict victims, internally displaced persons, stateless persons, and vulnerable migrants.  In FY 2023, the United States provided nearly $15 billion in life-saving humanitarian assistance.  Together with our partners we are working toward a future where migration is a safe, regular, voluntary, and informed choice.

Tags

Bureau of Population, Refugees, and MigrationMigrationOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
EXHIBIT 23


                     CONSENT OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



The Board of Directors
Princeton National Bancorp, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.'s
333-62643, 333-10641, 333-69010) on Form S-8 of Princeton National Bancorp,
Inc., of our report dated January 31, 2003, relating to the consolidated balance
sheets of Princeton National Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31,
2002 and 2001, and the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive
income, changes in stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in
the three-year period ended December 31, 2002, which report appears in the
December 31, 2002 annual report on Form 10-K of Princeton National Bancorp, Inc.



/s/ KPMG LLP

Chicago, Illinois
March 26, 2003
Order entered March 12, 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 17
- 00577
- CV
NIXDORF GMBH & CO. K G AND WATERCREST PAR TNERS, L.P., Appellant s V. TRA MIDLAND PROPERTI ES , LLC, ET AL., Appellee s On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 17
- 06190



### O RDER Before the Court is appellees’ March 7, 2018 unopposed third motion for extension of time to file appellees’ brief. W e GRANT the motion and ORDER appellees’ brief filed on or
before MARCH 14, 2018

. We caution appellees that further extension requests will be
disfavored.

/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
#### Mrs. Penny LANDRY et al. v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY.

No. 9698.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Dec. 17, 1973.

*294Russell T. Tritico, Lake Charles, for appellants.

James J. Davidson, III, Lafayette, for appellee.

W. Eugene Davis, New Iberia, for Emp. Liability.

Before LOTTINGER, BLANCHE and CRAIN, JJ.

ON MOTION TO REMAND

BLANCHE, Judge.

We erroneously ordered a remand of this case to the trial court for the express purpose of taking additional evidence on certain issues relating to the improper behavior of certain jurors during the conduct of the trial. We relied on Article 1814 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides :

> “A new trial shall be granted if it be proved that the jury was bribed or has behaved improperly so that impartial justice has not been done.”

Our error in relying on this provision lies in the fact that we had overlooked that the delay for applying for a new trial had long since expired and the judgment was, therefore, final. Any consideration we may have entertained thereafter to remand the case should have been on appeal.

On further review of the record, we note that the matters on which appellant sought a new trial had been thoroughly considered by the trial judge and by him rejected as insufficient cause for which to grant a new trial. Moreover, writs were applied for by appellant to this Court which sought our review of the trial court’s judgment refusing to grant a new trial. We refused to issue writs, statiñg that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant a new trial. No notice of intention to apply for a writ of review to the Supreme Court of Louisiana to review our judgment refusing the writ application has been made, and the delays for such an application have expired.

Since the judgment of the trial court is a final judgment and is properly reviewable by us on appeal, the motion to remand is recalled.

Motion to remand recalled.