alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Energen Corporation and Alabama Gas Corporation (the
Registrants) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies with respect to each
registrant, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated as of August 8, 2008



|   |  |                                                                                                                                        
|-- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|By |  | /s/ James T. McManus, II                                                                                                               
|   |  | James T. McManus, II                                                                                                                   
|   |  | Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of Energen Corporation; Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Alabama Gas Corporation
|   | 
|By |  | /s/ Charles W. Porter, Jr.                                                                                                             
|   |  | Charles W. Porter, Jr.                                                                                                                 
|   |  | Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of Energen Corporation and Alabama Gas Corporation                               

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Energen Corporation and Alabama Gas Corporation
and will be retained by Energen Corporation and Alabama Gas Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Docket EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0870

South Dakota Regional Haze Proposal Section III.B

Visibility Conditions Corrections

Corrections to SIP Table 3-7

Baseline versus Natural Background (deciviews)

Baseline Natural Difference Baseline Natural Difference

Badlands 6.89 2.86 4.03 17.14 8.06 9.08

Wind Cave 5.14 1.88 3.26 15.84 7.71 8.13

Corrections to SIP Table 3-8

Annual Uniform Rate of Progress (URP) (deciviews)

Class I Area Baseline 2018 URP goal Reduction Needed 2064 Natural

Badlands 17.137 15.019 2.118 8.05906

Wind Cave 15.8412 13.944 1.897 7.711

Baseline-Natural % URP 14/60 Reduction Needed URP

9.07794 0.233 2.118 0.1513

8.1302 0.233 1.897 0.1355

Class I Area 20% Least Impaired Days 20% Most Impaired Days

Worst 20%

Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9

<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
     QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
     TO SUCH FINANCIAL INFORMATION.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          5,612
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                    3
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                    0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    77,648
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         12,686
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           12,495
<LOANS>                                       411,860
<ALLOWANCE>                                     2,987
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                523,468
<DEPOSITS>                                    337,063
<SHORT-TERM>                                   93,717
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             3,598
<LONG-TERM>                                    30,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       20,963
<OTHER-SE>                                     38,127
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                523,468
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 7,581
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               1,560
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                9,141
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              3,607
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              5,024
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           4,117
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                     120
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 3,039
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 1,404
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                      911
<EPS-BASIC>                                       .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .17
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   3.33
<LOANS-NON>                                       591
<LOANS-PAST>                                        0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                     0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                2,941
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                     100
<RECOVERIES>                                       26
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               2,987
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            2,987
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             0



</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 159

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 159 appear by USCG-2008-0179, 73 FR 35015, June 19, 2008.

#### § 159.97 Safety: inspected vessels.

The Commanding Officer, USCG Marine Safety Center, approves the design and construction of devices to be certified for installation and operation on board inspected vessels on the basis of tests and reports of inspection under the applicable marine engineering requirements in subchapter F of Title 46, Code of Federal Regulations, and under the applicable electrical engineering requirements in subchapter J of Title 46 Code of Federal Regulations.

[CGD 73-83, 40 FR 4624, Jan. 30, 1975, as amended by CGD 75-213, 41 FR 15326, Apr. 12, 1976; USCG-2001-9286, 66 FR 33641, June 25, 2001]
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Robert F. Woods, Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer of IKON Office Solutions, Inc. (the Company), do hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 (the Report) 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: July 8, 2005                               
|                                                 
|/s/ ROBERT F. WOODS                              
|Robert F. Woods                                  
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
§ 144.01-15 Alternates for life floats. ( a ) Approved lifeboats, approved life rafts or approved inflatable life rafts may be used in lieu of approved life floats for either all or part of the capacity required. When either lifeboats or life rafts are used approved means of launching will be required. Inflatable life rafts, when used, shall be distributed and mounted as required for life floats under § 144.01-5.
( b ) The equipment required for a lifeboat is a bailer, boat hook, bucket, hatchet, lantern, life line, two life preservers, matches, full complement of oars and steering oar, painter, plug, and rowlocks, of the same type, kind, and character as required for lifeboats carried on vessels engaged in navigating bays, sounds, and lakes other than the Great Lakes, and rivers.
( c ) The equipment required for a life raft is a boat hook, life line (if not a Type A life raft), full complement of oars and steering oar, painter, and rowlocks of the same type, kind, and character as required for life rafts carried on cargo and miscellaneous vessels navigating on bays, sounds, and lakes other than the Great Lakes.
( d ) Inflatable liferafts shall be approved by the Coast Guard under approval series 160.151. An approved “Limited Service” or “Ocean Service” liferaft installed on board a platform before May 9, 1997, may continue to be used to meet the requirements of this section provided it is maintained in good and serviceable condition.
[CGFR 56-4, 21 FR 903, Feb. 9, 1956, as amended by CGFR 60-35 25 FR 10132, Oct. 25, 1960; CGD 85-205, 62 FR 35392, July 1, 1997]
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 0 2
- 00 414
- CR NO. 03
- 02
- 00415
- CR

Alan Watson

, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 331ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT NOS. 9024047 & 9024048 , HONORABLE FRED A. MOORE , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

In both causes, a jury found appellant Alan Watson guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. ' 22.02 (West 1994). The district court assessed punishment in each cause, enhanced by previou s felony convictions, at imprisonment for twenty

- five years. Appellant = s court

- appointed attorney filed briefs concluding that the appeals are frivolous
and without merit. The briefs meet the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be
advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (T ex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State , 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State , 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Copies of2

counsel = s brief s were delivered to appellant, and appellant was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have reviewed the records and counsel = s briefs and a gree that the appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the records that might arguably support the appeals. Counsel = s motions to withdraw are granted.

The judgments of conviction are affirmed.

__________________________________________ Jan P. Patterson, Justice Before Justices Kidd, Yeakel and Patterson
Affirmed Filed: March 13, 2003
Do Not Publish
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 29, 2017.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, June 29, 2017

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17D0515. MARQUISE ALI ROBBINS v. HAYS STATE PRISON MEDICAL 

DEPARTMENT.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2017CA42
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 73 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 73

        Designating February 6, 2007, as ``Ronald Reagan Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 6, 2007

Mr. Allard (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Stevens, Mrs. 
Dole, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Hatch, Mr. McCain, Mr. McConnell, 
and Mr. Reid) submitted the following resolution; which was considered 
                             and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
        Designating February 6, 2007, as ``Ronald Reagan Day''.

Whereas President Ronald Wilson Reagan, a man of humble background, worked 
        throughout his life serving as an entertainer, a corporate spokesman, 
        Governor of California, and President of the United States;
Whereas Ronald Reagan served for 2 terms as the 40th President of the United 
        States;
Whereas Ronald Reagan was elected to his second term by almost three-fifths of 
        the electorate, a percentage surpassed only by the election of President 
        Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1964, and was victorious in 49 of the 50 States 
        in the general election, an electoral college record unsurpassed in the 
        history of Presidential elections in the United States; and
Whereas February 6, 2007, will be the 96th anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birth, 
        and June 5, 2007, will be the third anniversary of his passing: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates February 6, 2007, as ``Ronald Reagan Day''; 
        and
            (2) encourages the people of the United States to observe 
        the day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
                                 <all>
```
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

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18,
United States Code), the Trustee of Marine Petroleum Trust (the Trust) does hereby certify, to its knowledge, that:

The
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2018 (the Form 10-K) of the Trust fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Trust as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-K.



|                                                                                                                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Ron E. Hooper                                                                                                                                
|Ron E. Hooper Senior Vice President on
behalf of Simmons Bank, not in its individual capacity but solely as the Trustee of Marine Petroleum Trust

Dated: September 28, 2018

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

The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-K pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of
Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by
reference into any filing of the Trust, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

______________________________

No. 96-60043

______________________________

HERWIN NOE,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

RAYMOND ROBERTS,

SUPERINTENDENT,

MISSISSIPPI STATE PENITENTIARY,

Respondent-Appellee.

____________________________________________

Appeal From the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

3:95-cv-435-BN

____________________________________________

January 6, 1997

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Petitioner-Appellant Herwin Noe appeals from the district

court’s order adopting the Report and Recommendation of the

magistrate judge and dismissing Noe’s Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Noe contends primarily
 

1 AEDPA §§ 101-106, Pub. L. No. 104-132, Sec. 101-106, 110

Stat. 1214, 12-14-21 (1996), codified at, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241-2255.

 

2 Because the notice Noe received in connection with the

Report and Recommendation did not comply with Douglass v. United

Services Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en

banc), we apply our former standard which bars a party from

attacking on appeal any factual findings accepted or adopted by the

district court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest

injustice. Nettles v. Wainright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 (5th Cir. 1982

(en banc).

2

that the district court erred in determining that (1) he was not

subject to constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel, (2)

the evidence adduced at trial was constitutionally sufficient to

support a guilty verdict on the charge of murder, (3) the

introduction of autopsy photographs did not render his trial

unfair, (4) his constitutional right to a speedy trial was not

violated, and (5) his other claims not objected to at trial or on

direct appeal were procedurally barred by an adequate and

independent state procedural rule.

In conducting our review of all these issues pursuant to the

standards provided in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty

Act of 1996 (AEDPA),1 and in light of Noe’s failure to object to

the factual findings contained in the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation,2 we carefully evaluated the record on appeal, the

arguments of both pro se Petitioner Noe and the Respondent as set

forth in their respective briefs, and the applicable law, and we

have come to the same legal conclusions as did the district court.

We found particularly persuasive the articulate and well-reasoned
3

findings contained in the Report and Recommendation submitted to

the district court by United States Magistrate Judge Alfred G.

Nichols. We therefore affirm in all respects the district court’s

dismissal of Noe’s petition for the reasons set forth in the

magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, a copy of which is

attached.

AFFIRMED.
#### § 783.31 Criteria for employment “as a seaman.”

In accordance with the legislative history and authoritative decisions as discussed in §§ 783.28 and 783.29, an employee will ordinarily be regarded as “employed as a seaman” if he performs, as master or subject to the authority, direction, and control of the master aboard a vessel, service which is rendered primarily as an aid in the operation of such vessel as a means of transportation, provided he performs no substantial amount of work of a different character. This is true with respect to vessels navigating inland waters as well as ocean-going and coastal vessels (*Sternberg Dredging Co.* v. *Walling,* 158 F. 2d 678; *Walling* v. *Haden,* 153 F. 2d 196, certiorari denied 328 U.S. 866; *Walling* v. *Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co.,* 149 F. 2d 9, certiorari denied 327 U.S. 722; *Douglas* v. *Dixie Sand and Gravel Co.,* (E.D. Tenn.) 9 WH Cases 285). The Act's provisions with respect to seamen apply to a seaman only when he is “employed as” such (*Walling* v. *Haden,* supra); it appears also from the language of section 6(b)(2) and 13(a)(14) that they are not intended to apply to any employee who is not employed on a vessel.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Todd David Rogers v. Gina Marie Rogers

Appellate case number: 01-15-00224-CV

Trial court case number: 12-DCV-199022

Trial court: 434th District Court of Fort Bend County

On January 26, 2015, appellant, Todd David Rogers, filed a premature notice of 

appeal in the trial court, deemed filed after the final decree of divorce was signed by the 

trial court on September 14, 2015. See TEX. R. APP. P. 27.1(a). On December 15, 2015, 

appellant filed his appellate brief, setting appellee’s brief to be due within 30 days. See 

id. 38.6(b). Because appellee failed to timely file her brief, the Clerk of this Court sent a 

notice on January 29, 2016, informing appellee that the time for filing appellee’s brief 

had expired and, unless appellee’s brief or an extension was filed within 10 days of that 

notice, that this Court may set this appeal for submission without an appellee’s brief. See 

id. 10.5(b), 38.6(d). However, appellee failed to file a timely appellate brief or extension.

Accordingly, this Court requests that an appellee’s brief be filed with an extension 

request, or a notice that no brief will be filed, from appellee’s counsel, Marlene A. 

Zinsmeister, within 10 days of the date of this order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2, 10.5(b), 

38.6(b), (d). The Court notifies appellee that, if no appellee’s brief or extension is timely 

filed within 10 days of the date of this order, this Court will set this appeal for submission 

on the appellant’s brief only. See id. 38.9(a). Appellant’s reply brief, if any, must be 

filed within 20 days after the appellee’s brief is filed, if any. See id. 38.6(c).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura Carter Higley

  Acting individually 

Date: March 10, 2016
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk July 26, 2010

s0719 

# Order

July 26, 2010

140920

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140920 COA: 290279 Wayne CC: 08-006502-FC CHRISTOPHER LEROME JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e February 25, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.