alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| 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. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ Patricia L. Moss                       |   |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|
| Patricia      L. Moss                      |   |
| President      and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                                       |   |
| /s/ Gregory D, Newton                      |   |
| Gregory      D. Newton                     |   |
| Executive      Vice President and          |   |
| Chief      Financial Officer               |   |

| Dated: | March 12, 2010 |   |
|--------|----------------|--------|

----
1

Appendix A

List of Divestiture Assets

Divested 

Outlet Address City State Fuel Divestiture Buyer

Empire 

Woody’s 3 

2413 W. 

Sycamore St Kokomo IN Gas

Good Oil 

Company, Inc

GPM Next 

Door Food 

Store 5104

1 N. Heaton St Knox IN Gas Skyway Fuels 

Inc

GPM Village 

Pantry 5637

26499 US 

Highway 20 South Bend IN Gas

Diesel SM Gas Inc.

Empire 

Stevensville 

Citgo

101 Duke St Stevensville MD Gas Nadeem Javed

Empire 

Marathon 6011 218 E. Main St Edmore MI Gas

Diesel

Marathon Flint 

Oil Company 

Empire 

Phillips 66 

5353

1335 N. 

Broadway St Hastings MI Gas Marathon Flint Oil Company

Empire Corner 

Store 722

4600 S. Collins 

St Arlington TX

Gas

Diesel

Groves Fuel 

Management 

LLC
258 La. 366

#### James M. TURNER et al. v. DENKMANN LUMBER COMPANY, Inc.

No. 51335.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 22, 1971.

In re: James M. Turner et al. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of St. Helena. 244 So.2d 868.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, the judgment is correct.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### FEB 14 2001 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT GARY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. U.S. WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant-Appellee. No. 99-1587 (D.C. No. 98-D-1143) (D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BRORBY , PORFILIO , and BALDOCK , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a dec ision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Plaintiff/appellant Robert Gary appeals from summary judgment granted in favor of defendant/appellee U.S. West Communication s, Inc. on his claims brought pursuant to sections 1132 and 1140 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-146 1, federal common law, and state law. Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. The relevant facts are set forth in the district co urt’s thorough and wellreasoned order of November 24, 1999. On appeal, Mr . Gary argues that the district court erred in holding that: (1) his clai m for benefits should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; (2) his evidence was insufficient to support his claim for retaliation; and (3) dismissa l of his case should be with prejudice. “We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo , applying the same legal standard used by the distri ct court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c).” Deboard v. Sunshine Mining & Ref. Co. , 208 F.3d 1228, 1237 (10th Cir. 2000). After reviewing the parties’ briefs and conducting a de novo review of the record, this court concludes that th e district court correctly decided issues one and two for subs tantially the same reasons as stated in the district court’s order. See Appellant’s App. Vol. IV, at 1040-50. As U.S. West Communications points out, Mr. Gary did n ot appeal from the district court’s determination that, notwithstanding Mr. Gary’s failure to administratively appeal from the denial of benefits, U.S. West Communications did not abuse its-3-

discretion in denying his disability claim. Thus, dismissal of the case with prejudice was also proper. The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the District of Colorado is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Bobby R. Baldock Circuit Judge
Exhibit 32.2
 
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
 (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)
 
 In connection with the quarterly report of Del Global Technologies Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark Zorko, Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to my knowledge:
 
 1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 /s/ Mark A. ZorkoName:  Mark A. ZorkoTitle:   Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)Date:   December 7, 2010
 
 
 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.
 
 The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
Exhibit 99.1





August 19, 2013Analyst Contact:T.D. Eureste918-588-7167Media Contact:Brad Borror918-588-7582





ONEOK Partners to Participate in Citi MLP Conference





TULSA, Okla . – Aug. 19, 2013 – ONEOK Partners, L.P. (NYSE: OKS) will participate in the Citi One-on-One Master Limited Partnership/Midstream Infrastructure Conference on Wednesday and Thursday, Aug. 21-22, 2013, in Las Vegas, Nev.





John W. Gibson, ONEOK Partners chairman and chief executive officer, and Terry K. Spencer, ONEOK Partners president, will conduct a series of meetings with investment-community representatives at the conference.





The materials utilized at the conference will be accessible on the ONEOK Partners website, www.oneokpartners.com , on Wednesday, Aug. 21, at 5 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time (7 a.m. Central Daylight Time).











ONEOK Partners, L.P. (pronounced ONE-OAK) (NYSE: OKS) is one of the largest publicly traded master limited partnerships, and is a leader in the gathering, processing, storage and transportation of natural gas in the U.S. and owns one of the nation’s premier natural gas liquids (NGL) systems, connecting NGL supply in the Mid-Continent and Rocky Mountain regions with key market centers. Its general partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of ONEOK, Inc. (NYSE: OKE), a diversified energy company, which owns approximately 41.3 percent of the overall partnership interest, as of Aug. 12, 2013. ONEOK is one of the largest natural gas distributors in the United States, serving more than 2 million customers in Oklahoma, Kansas and Texas.





For more information, visit the website at http://www.oneokpartners.com/ .





For the latest news about ONEOK Partners, follow us on Twitter @ONEOKPartners .








###
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 10444]

# AGENCY:

Department of State.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

Notice of receipt of request from Algeria for cultural property protection.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Catherine Foster, Cultural Heritage Center, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs: 202-632-6301;                         *culprop@state.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The Government of Algeria has made a request to the Government of the United States under Article 9 of the 1970 UNESCO                     *Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.*                     The United States Department of State received this request on February 27, 2018. Algeria's request seeks U.S. import restrictions on archaeological and ethnological material representing Algeria's cultural patrimony. Pursuant to the authority vested in the Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs, and pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 2602(f)(1), notification of the request is hereby published. A public summary of Algeria's request and information about U.S. implementation of the 1970 UNESCO Convention will be available at the Cultural Heritage Center website:                     *http://culturalheritage.state.gov.*

Marie Therese Porter Royce,

Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2018-12677 Filed 6-12-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             299
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      327
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (13)
<INVENTORY>                                        100
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   855
<PP&E>                                           7,022
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,013)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,921
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,140
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              889
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             3
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,870
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,921
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   182
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      853
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   110
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (782)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         6
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (788)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (788)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.32)


</TABLE>
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Annual Report of GENESIS  COMPANIES  GROUP, INC (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending  December 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report").  I,
Daniel F. Medina, CEO of the company,  certify, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350,
as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that to
the best of my knowledge and belief.

        (1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
                or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


                                         /s/ Daniel F. Medina
                                         --------------------------------
                                         Daniel F. Medina,  CEO

Dated:  September 29, 2008
THE STATE OF TEXAS

MANDATE

TO THE 188TH DISTRICT COURT OF GREGG COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 21st 

day of July, A.D. 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment was determined; 

and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Roderick King, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

No. 06-14-00166-CR

Trial Court No. 43416-A

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Roderick King, has adequately indicated his inability to pay 

costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this 

behalf, and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Justice of our said Court of Appeals, with 

the seal thereof annexed, at the City of Texarkana, this the 16th day of September, A.D. 2015.

DEBRA K. AUTREY, Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

COMMISSIONERS: Jon Leibowitz, Chairman 

J. Thomas Rosch 

Edith Ramirez 

Julie Brill 

Maureen K. Ohlhausen 

In the Matter of 

MCWANE, INC., 

 a corporation, and Docket No. 9351 

STAR PIPE PRODUCTS, LTD., 

 a limited partnership. 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT 

On June 8, 2012, Respondent McWane, Inc. (hereinafter “Respondent”) filed a Motion 

For Summary Decision, and Complaint Counsel filed a Motion For Partial Summary Decision. 

On July 3, 2012, Respondent filed a Notice of Request For Oral Argument (hereinafter 

“Motion”) in which Respondent requested “oral argument on the pending motions for summary 

disposition.” Although the filing is styled as a Notice of Request, the Commission has 

determined to treat the filing as a Motion which Complaint Counsel have not opposed.1 

Commission Rule 3.52(h), 16 C.F.R. § 3.52(h), provides in relevant part that “oral 

argument will be held in all cases on appeal or review to the Commission, unless the 

Commission otherwise orders . . .” There is no equivalent rule addressing oral argument relating 

to motions for summary disposition. Moreover, Respondent’s Motion does not provide an 

explanation as to why oral argument is necessary.2 The parties have filed extensive briefs 

covering the issues presented by the motions for summary disposition, and oral argument is not 

1 Commission Rule 3.22(d), 16 C.F.R. § 3.22(d), provides that if a party opposing a given Motion 

does not file an Answer, the party will be deemed to have consented to granting the relief requested in the 

Motion. 

2 Indeed, although Commission Rule 3.22(c), 16 C.F.R. § 3.22(c), provides in relevant part that all 

Motions must state “the grounds” for the action requested, Respondent’s Motion states only that 

“McWane respectfully requests oral argument on the pending motions for summary disposition.” 

1
 
 

likely to provide any additional information not already thoroughly addressed in those briefs and 

the related materials.3 The Commission has therefore determined that oral argument is not 

necessary to determine the issues currently pending before the Commission. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Respondent’s Motion requesting that the Commission conduct an 

oral argument be, and it hereby is, DENIED. 

By the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark 

Secretary 

ISSUED: August 6, 2012 

 The Commission relied on these same principles to determine not to conduct an oral argument in In 

the Matter of Gemtronics, Inc., and William H. Isely, Docket No. 9330 (addressing the Respondents’ 

appeal from the Initial Decision on their application for attorney fees and other expenses). See Order 

Dispensing With Oral Argument (October 7, 2010), available at 

http://www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9330/101007gemtronicsorder.pdf. 

2 

3
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 0 A2 10 7 . TRAVI S MORRI S v

. STATE OF GEORGI A.

Th e St at e fi l ed a co m

p lai n t fo r fo rfei t u re i n w h i ch Trav i s Mo rri s , a n o n -p art y , fi led an an swer as s ert i n g a cl ai m t o $ 4 1,0 00 o f t h e s u bject cu rren cy . Th e t ri al co u rt

en t ered an o rd er di s m i s s i n g M o rri s ’ s cl ai m aft er fi n d i n g t h at h e d i d n o t h av e s t an d i n g

t o i n t e r v en e an d m ak e t he cl ai m

. M o rri s th en fi l ed t h is d i rect ap p eal

. W e l ack
ju ri s d i ct i o n

.

“ Th e den i al o f a m o t i o n t o i n t erv en e i s no t a fi n al ju dg m en t a n d t h u s , i s

rev i ewab l e u n d er t h e i n t erl o cu t o ry ap p eal pro ced u re” d el i neat ed i n OCGA § 5 -6 -3 4.

Mo r ma n v. Bd

. o f Reg en t s o f t h e U n i ver s i t y S ys t em o f Ga

. , 1 9 8 Ga. Ap p

. 5 4 4 (4 0 2

SE2 d 3 2 0 ) (1 9 9 1); see al s o W a l l a ce v. Bl ed

s o e , 2 4 4 Ga. 6 7 4 (2 6 1 SE2 d 3 9 9 ) (1 9 7 9 ).

Becau s e M o rri s h as fai l ed t o fo l l o w t h e p ro p er p ro ced u re, wh i ch i ncl u d es o b t ai n i n g

a cert i fi c a t e o f i m

m ed i at e rev i ew fro m t he t ri al co urt an d fi l i ng an i n t erl o cu t o ry

ap p li cat io n wi th t h e cl erk o f t h i s Co u rt , we l ack ju ri sd i ct i o n o v er t h i s di rect ap p eal

, wh i ch i s h ereb y

DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e
, A t la n t a
,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. August 18, 2020

08/18/2020
Exhibit 32

Certification Required by 18 U.S.C. Section
1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

This
certification is given by the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of Cascade Bancorp (the registrant) pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.  Each
of the undersigned hereby certifies, with respect to the registrants annual
report of Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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 result of operations of the Company.

|/s/ Patricia
  L. Moss                                                       | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|                                                                             | 
|Patricia L.
  Moss
  President and Chief Executive Officer                   | 
|                                                                             | 
|                                                                             | 
|/s/ Gregory
  D. Newton                                                      | 
|                                                                             | 
|Gregory D.
  Newton
  Executive Vice President and
  Chief Executive Officer | 
|                                                                             | 
|                                                                             | 
|Dated: March
  3, 2004                                                       | 

---

---
No. 10591.

#### The Board of Trustees of Cranberry Township *v.*Reid.

Decided May 12, 1908.

Error to Circuit Coubt of Crawford county.

*Messrs. Finley & Gallinger,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. R. U. Miller*and *Air. G. W. Sheets,*for defendant in error.

Judgment reversed.

Grounds stated in journal entry.

*425It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said circuit court be, and the same hereby is, reversed, for error in affirming and in not reversing the judgment of the court of common pleas of Crawford county in said cause. And proceeding to render the judgment which said court of common pleas should have rendered, this court finds that the demurrer to the petition of the plaintiff in said court of common pleas and against the Trustees of Cranberry Township was and is well taken and should have been sustained, and therefore the overuling of said demurrer and the rendition of a money judgment by said court of common pleas in favor of said plaintiff below was and is erroneous. This court is of opinion that the action of the plaintiff below should have been an action in mandamus to require the said trustees to issue to the plaintiff, if the facts proven by said plaintiff should warrant it, a warrant or bond for the sum of one hundred dollars only, as provided by Section 3107-1, Revised Statutes, but there is no authority in law to ask or receive a money judgment against the township or the trustees thereof, nor is there shown any right of action against the said township or said trustees for any money judgment whatever, either principal or interest.

It is, therefore, considered ' and adjudged that this cause be remanded to the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford county with direction to said court to sustain the demurrer of the defendants below to the petition of the plaintiff, and for further proceedings according to law.

Price, C. J., Shauck, Crew, Summers, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur.