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








**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Croff Enterprises, Inc. (the "Company")
      on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gerald L. Jensen,
      Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
      as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:





(1)  This
      Report on Form 10-Q
      for the period ended September  30, 2007 fully complies with the
      requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
      and





(2)  I
      further certify to the
      best of my knowledge that the information contained in the Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of Croff Enterprises, Inc.







Date:
                  November 12, 2007
              By:
              /s/
                Gerald L. JensenGerald
                  L. Jensen, President,
                Chief
                  Executive Officer








*A
      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
      provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 23, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 67069]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33390]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER92-533-003]


Louisville Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Filing

December 17, 1997.
    Take notice that on September 17, 1997, Louisville Gas and Electric 
Company (LG&E) filed a notification of a change in status describing a 
proposed transaction between certain affiliates of LG&E and Big Rivers 
Electric Corporation (Transaction). LG&E's only role in the Transaction 
is to cede a portion of its retail service territory to an affiliate, 
LG&E Station Two Inc.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before December 29, 1997. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-33390 Filed 12-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>


 
 
<ARTICLE>                     UT
 
<LEGEND>                      The schedule contains summary financial
                              Information extracted from Consolidated  Balance
                              Sheet, Income Statement and Statement of Cash 
                              Flows for Consolidated Edison, Inc. and is 
                              qualified in its entirety by reference to such
                              financial statements and the notes thereto.

 </LEGEND>
<CIK>  0001047862
<NAME> Consolidated Edison, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                        1,000
       
<S>                                 <C>
 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   Dec-31-1998
 
<PERIOD-END>                        Jun-30-1998
 
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       6-Mos
 
<BOOK-VALUE>                        Per-Book
 
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>           11,295,832
 
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>         341,424
 
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>              1,139,813
 
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>            559,325
 
<OTHER-ASSETS>                      899,799
 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      14,236,193
 
<COMMON>                            585,378
 
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>           860,130
 
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                 4,409,589
 
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>      5,855,097
 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               84,550
 
<PREFERRED>                         233,468
 
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                4,197,577
 
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                     0
 
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>              0
 
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>      44,024
 
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>       200,000
 
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>              0
 
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>         38,475
 
<LEASES-CURRENT>                    2,790
 
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>      3,580,212
 
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>       14,236,193
 
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>           3,414,088
 
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                127,976
 
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>          2,883,500
 
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>          3,011,476
 
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>             402,612
 
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                  7,152
 
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>      409,764
 
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>            166,799
 
<NET-INCOME>                        242,965
 
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>         9,072
 
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>       233,893
 
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>            249,619
 
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>           156,043
 
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>              561,463
 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         .99
 
<EPS-DILUTED>                         .99

        
 

</TABLE>
#### Carroll DUNSCOMBE, Petitioner, v. BEACH CLUB COLONY OF STUART, INC., City of Stuart, a Florida Municipal Corporation and Ecological Utilities, Inc., Respondents.

No. 43299.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 22, 1973.

Rehearing Denied April 25, 1973.

Certiorari dismissed. 264 So.2d 465.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Transmitter Log

Date Time Location PIC VO Flight Duration WeatherTakoff/Landing Incident Observations
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 66059]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32854]



[[Page 66059]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force


HQ USAF Scientific Advisory Board Meeting

    The Air and Space Command & Control Agency (ASC2A) Advisory Group 
Panel Meeting in support of the HQ USAF Scientific Advisory Board will 
meet at Langley Air Force Base, VA on January 13-14, 1998 from 8:00 
a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    The purpose of the meeting is to gather information and receive 
briefings.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with Section 
552b of Title 5, United States Code, specifically subparagraphs (1) and 
(4) thereof.

    For further information, contact the HQ USAF Scientific Advisory 
Board Secretariat at (703) 697-8404.
Barbara A. Carmichael,
Alternate Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-32854 Filed 12-16-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3910-01-P
#### Ruth STONEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MORGAN, CAMERON & WEAVER, P.C., a Montana Professional Corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-35197.

D.C. No. CV-00-00034-RFC.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted to Aug. 12, 2002.*

Decided Aug. 19, 2002.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Ruth Stoneman appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment for the law firm Morgan, Cameron & Weaver, on her claims for legal malpractice and violation of the Montana Consumer Protection Act (“MCPA”), Mont.Code. Ann. § 30-14-101 et seq.1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Delta Sav. Bank v. United States,*265 F.3d 1017, 1021 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment as to Stoneman’s legal malpractice claim because she failed to present any evidence that the law firm failed to use reasonable care and skill. *See Hauschulz v. Michael Law Firm,*306 Mont. 102, 30 P.3d 357, 359-60 (2001).

The district court also properly granted summary judgment as to Stoneman’s claim that the defendant violated the MCPA because she did not present any evidence that any “ascertainable loss of money or property” she may have suffered was the result of the law firm’s alleged conduct. *See*Mont.Code Ann. § 30-10-133.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. Stoneman does not challenge the district court’s earlier orders granting judgment on the pleadings on Stoneman’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act and Sherman Antitrust Act claims. Therefore we decline to consider them on appeal.
Draft Proposal CB-15 

This concept has been developed by the DOE Building Energy Codes Program (BECP) as a possible code

change proposal to the Commercial provisions of the 2012 International Energy Conservation Code

(IECC).   Interested parties are asked to submit any and all comments on DOE's initial concepts and draft

code change proposals. For instructions on submitting comments, visit:

www.energycodes.gov/development/commercial/codes/iecc/concepts/

Continuous Air Barriers (CB-15) 

Objective: Clarify the language pertaining to the sealing of penetrations in the building 

envelope. 

Suggested Code Change Proposal

Renumber and revise Section C402.4.2 as follows:  

C402.4.2 Air barrier penetrations. (move as a new item 3 to C402.4.1.1 Air barrier construction) 

3. Penetrations of the air barrier and paths of air leakage shall be caulked, gasketed or otherwise sealed in 

a manner compatible with the construction materials and location. Joints and seals associated with 

penetrations shall be sealed in the same manner or taped or covered with moisture vapor-permeable 

wrapping material. Sealing materials shall be appropriate to the construction materials being sealed. The 

joints and seals and shall be securely installed in or on the joint for its entire length around the penetration 

so as not to dislodge, loosen or otherwise impair its ability to resist positive and negative pressure from 

wind, stack effect and mechanical ventilation. 

Reason:  Clarification and to increase simplicity of the code.  The provisions of C402.4.2 are currently out

of place.  They have the same standing in the order of the code as C402.4.1 yet are actually a

component of the air barrier provisions.  They are more appropriately located as a part of the code text

addressing air barrier construction.  In addition, the present item 2 is duplicated by C402.4.2 to a large

degree so the text has been revised to focus on penetrations.   

Cost Impact:   There is no cost impact associated with this proposed change.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7597

BARBARA LEONE CORBIN, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. BARBARA J. WHEELER, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (7:09-cv-00270-sgw-mfu)

Submitted: November 19, 2009 Decided: December 4, 2009

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Barbara Leone Corbin, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Barbara Leone Corbin seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Corbin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
#### Solomon HARRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-30.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 16, 1978.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Marc R. Goldstein, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Harry M. Hipler, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

DAUKSCH, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of possession of heroin and delivery of heroin. Both crimes occurred during a single transaction in which the appellant delivered heroin to an undercover agent. Appellant was adjudicated guilty of these charges and sentenced to five years on each count to be served concurrently.

This sentence was error because the appellant could only be sentenced for the higher of the two crimes. *Story v. State,*355 So.2d 1213 (Fla. 4 DCA 1978).

*859The appellee has referred us to Section 775.021(4), Florida Statutes (1976)1 but we have determined that statute is inapplicable here because the appellant committed the crimes before the effective date of the statute. *State v. Munford,*357 So.2d 706 (Fla. 1978).

The convictions and the sentence for the delivery are affirmed but the sentence for the possession is set aside.

ANSTEAD and MOORE, JJ., concur.

1

. § 775.021(4), Fla.Stat.(1976): “Whoever, in the course of one criminal transaction or episode, commits an act or acts constituting a violation of two or more criminal statutes, upon conviction and adjudication of guilt, shall be sentenced separately for each criminal offense, excluding lesser included offenses, committed during said criminal episode, and the sentencing judge may order the sentences to be served concurrently or consecutively.”
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT

TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Sara Lee Corporation (the Company) for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Brenda C. Barnes, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant 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; and

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

Dated: November 9, 2006



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/ Brenda C. Barnes,               
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32

 

FORM OF 906 CERTIFICATION

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 2, 2005 (the "Report") for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

David G. Whalen, the Chief Executive Officer and Kevin F. Mahoney, the Chief Financial Officer of A.T. Cross Company, each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Nuevo Energy Company:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 33-
43329) on Form S-8, registration statement (No. 33-70108) on Form S-8,
registration statement (No. 333-21063) on Form S-8, registration statement
(No. 333-51211) on Form S-8, registration statement (No. 333-51217) on Form S-8,
registration statement (No. 333-51231) on Form S-8, registration statement
(No. 333-16231) on Form S-3 and registration statement (No. 333-90235) on
Form S-4 of Nuevo Energy Company of our report dated February 8, 2001, relating
to the consolidated balance sheets of Nuevo Energy Company and subsidiaries as
of December 31, 2000 and 1999, and the related consolidated statements or
operations, changes in stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2000, which report appears in
the December 31, 2000 annual report on Form 10-K of Nuevo Energy Company.

Our report dated February 8, 2001, contains an explanatory paragraph that states
that, effective January 1, 2000, the Company changed its method of accounting
for its processed fuel oil and natural gas liquids inventories.



                                                                        KPMG LLP



Houston, Texas
March 28, 2001
PatrickN. Bergt Law Office ofBrentR. Cole, P.C. 821 N Street, Suite 208 Anchorage, AK 99501 (907) 277-8001 Attorneys for Redemption Air, Inc. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC Inthe matter of: ) ) FAA Case No. 2013AL030106 Redemption Air, Inc. ) DocketNo. FAA-2014-0115

______________ ) (Civil PenaltyAction) STATE OF ALASKA ) ) ss. THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT ) AFFIDAVIT OF PATRICKN. BERGT I, PatrickN. Bergt, state under oath that: 1. I am an associate attorney at the Law Office of Brent R. Cole, P.C. ("Firm") attorneys of record for Redemption Air, Inc. ("Redemption Air") in the abovecaptionedmatter. 2. I am familiar with the costs and expenses incurred by Redemption Air in preparation for Christina Bryant's ("Ms. Bryant") deposition. I am also familiar with the attorney time spent preparing the motion to compel, the memorandum in support ofthe motion, and the proposed order. 3. To date, Redemption Air has incurred the following costs, expense, or fees associated with Ms. Bryant's deposition:

Affidavit ofPatrick N. bergt In re: RedemptionAir, Inc., DocketNo. FAA-2014-0115 Page 1of3a. $54.00 owed to Computer Matric Court Reporters, LLC for its attendance at the time and place scheduled for the deposition Ms. Bryant failed to appear for. b. Mr. Cole billed .5 hours, or $125, to the client for his preparation ofthe deposition that Ms. Bryant failed to appear for.

c. Mr. Cole billed .6 hours, or $250, and I billed 4.75 hours, or $831.25, to the client for research and drafting ofthe motion to compel, the memorandum in support ofthe motion, the proposed order, and this affidavit.

DATED this3/

# ~ofDecember, 2014, at Anchorage, Alaska.

Affidavit ofPatrickN. bergt LAW OFFICE OF BRENT R. COLE, P.C. Attorneys for Redemption Air, Inc.

In re: RedemptionAir, Inc., DocketNo. FAA-2014-0115 Page 2 of3CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on this "<..(..;:::,day of December, 2014, atrue and correct copy¥thef"oregoing document was SMailed 0 Hand-delivered ti(Faxed to the following: Original and one copy: Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 WilburWright Building-Suite2W1000 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 One copy: Craig Wm. Black, Esq. Office ofthe Regional Counsel 222 West 7th Avenue, #14 Anchorage, AK 99513-7587 Craig.Black@faa.gov Fax: 271-2800 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 Richard.Goodwin@dot.gov Fax: 202-366-7536

Affidavit ofPatrickN. bergt In re: RedemptionAir, Inc., DocketNo. FAA-2014-0115 Page 3 of3
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 23, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 67044]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33469]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board
[Order No. 943]


Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 46, Cincinnati, Ohio, Area, 
Approval of Manufacturing Activity Within FTZ 46, Cincinnati Milacron, 
Inc. (Horizontal Turning/Grinding Machinery)

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act (the 
Act) of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-
Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
    Whereas, an application from the Greater Cincinnati Foreign Trade 
Zone, Inc. (GCFTZ), grantee of FTZ 46, for authority to expand its 
general-purpose zone in the Cincinnati, Ohio, area, to include a second 
site located in Cincinnati, Ohio, owned by Cincinnati Milacron, Inc. 
(CM), and for authority, on behalf of CM, to manufacture horizontal 
turning and grinding machinery and metalworking consumable products 
under FTZ procedures within FTZ 46 (filed 5-23-97, FTZ Doc. 42-97, 62 
FR 30567, 6-4-97);
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal 
Register and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act 
and the Board's regulations; and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the Act and the 
Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the 
public interest;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby authorizes the grantee to expand 
its zone as requested in the application, and approves the request for 
manufacturing authority, subject to the Act and the Board's 
regulations, including Section 400.28.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 15th day of December, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate 
Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.

    Attest:
John J. Da Ponte, Jr.,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-33469 Filed 12-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

|  | 1. | The      Report, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or      Section 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 results of operations of the  Registrant. |
|--|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/    ANGELL      CHANG |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Angell Chang                                 |   |
|   | (Principal      Financial Officer)           |   |
|   |                                         |   |   |

----