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

OFFICERS SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

Each of the undersigned officers of Income Opportunity Realty Investors,
Inc., a Nevada corporation (the Company) hereby certifies that:



| | (i) | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | The information contained in the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the six months ended June 30, 2007 fairly presents in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company, at and for the period indicated.
| | ---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |     |  |                                                     
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 14, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ Daniel J. Moos                                  
|                      |  |     |  | Daniel J. Moos                                      
|                      |  |     |  | President and Chief Operating Officer               
|                      |  |     |  | (Principal Executive Officer)                       
|                      |  |    
|                      |  |     |  | /s/ Steven A. Abney                                 
|                      |  |     |  | Steven A. Abney                                     
|                      |  |     |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|                      |  |     |  | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-5397

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JULIO KEITH, a/k/a Poppy,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Fayetteville. Malcolm J. Howard,

District Judge. (CR-94-57-3-H)

Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 5, 1996

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William L. Davis, III, Lumberton, North Carolina, for Appellant.

Janice McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Jane H. Jolly,

Assistant United States Attorney, Ted F. Mitchell, Third Year Law

Student, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Julio Keith seeks to appeal the 132-month sentence he received

after his guilty plea to one count of distributing crack cocaine,

21 U.S.C.A. § 841 (West 1981 & Supp. 1995). Because Keith waived

his right to appeal a sentence within the guideline range established at the sentencing hearing, we dismiss the appeal.

Keith's plea agreement contained a provision by which he

agreed:

To waive knowingly and expressly all rights, conferred by

18 U.S.C. § 3742, to appeal whatever sentence is imposed,

including any issues that relate to the establishment of

the Guideline range, reserving only the right to appeal

from an upward departure from the Guideline range that is

established at sentencing.

This provision was brought to Keith's attention during the

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy before he entered his guilty plea.

Keith does not address the waiver in his brief; however, the record

discloses that the waiver was knowing and voluntary. We have

previously held that a knowing and voluntary waiver of appellate

rights is valid and enforceable. United States v. Marin, 961 F.2d

493, 496 (4th Cir. 1992); United States v. Wessells, 936 F.2d 165,

167 (4th Cir. 1991).

We therefore 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           4,725
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,995
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          54,165
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,899
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  59,522
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         34,472
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                      22,497
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    59,522
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,149
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,198
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   792
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,803
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (587)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (587)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (587)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.38)
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

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

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 27, 2010 

0920 

Order 

 

September 27, 2010 

141338 & (50) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141338 

 COA: 288552 

Genesee CC: 07-021158-FC 

ROSALIND LAURICE BROWN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 6, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to 

remand is DENIED.
1Subject:RE: question re: EHP Strak et al. 2012 paperFrom:Strak, M.M. (Maciek) [mailto:M.M.Strak@uu.nl]Sent:Sunday, August 04, 2013 2:37 PMTo:Patel, MoliniCc:Brunekreef, B. (Bert); Hoek, G.; Nicole JanssenSubject:RE: question re: EHP Strak et al. 2012 paperDear Dr. Molini,Hereby the data you have asked for. Good luck with the review!Kind regards,On behalf of Prof. Brunekreef,Dr. Maciek StrakVan:"Patel, Molini" <Patel.Molini@epa.gov>Datum:12 juli 2013 09:36:27 GMT-06:00Aan:"b.brunekreef@uu.nl" <b.brunekreef@uu.nl>Onderwerp:question re: EHP Strak et al. 2012 paperDear Dr. Brunekreef,We are approaching the release of the first external review draft of the Integrated Science Assessment for Nitrogen Oxides and reviewing yourStrak et al. 2012 paper in EHP, “Respiratory Health Effects of Airborne Particulate Matter: The Role of Particle Size, Composition, and OxidativePotential.” Would you please provide us with the 95% CIs for the FeNO and FVC associations with NO2, NOx, and some of the PM species aslisted below. Thank you!2FeNOSingle pollutantPNC adjustedAbs adjustedEC(F) adjustedNO2 adjustedNOx adjustedNO26.88(-1.91;15.66)-7.40(-18.73; 3.94)4.42(-5.90; 14.73)4.12(-6.01; 14.25)NOx4.65(-1.77; 11.06)-5.77(-13.93; 2.39)2.00(-7.32; 11.31)1.52(-7.49; 10.52)PNC11.24(5.46; 17.03)14.66(6.88; 22.45)14.85(7.16; 22.54)Abs2.41(-0.61; 5.43)1.62(-1.93; 5.16)1.73(-2.67; 6.12)EC (F)2.92(-0.45; 6.28)2.12(-1.77; 6.02)2.35(-2.40; 7.10)FVCSingle pollutantPNC adjustedNO2 adjustedNOx adjustedNO2-1.82(-3.19;-0.44)-1.26(-3.09; 0.58)NOx-0.89(-1.94; 0.16)-0.06(-1.49; 1.37)PNC-1.19(-2.16;-0.22)-0.60(-1.89; 0.69)-1.15(-2.48; 0.19)Best regards,Molini M. Patel, PhD, MPHEpidemiologistU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyNational Center for Environmental AssessmentMailcode: B243-01Research Triangle Park, NC 27711Phone: 919.541.1492, Fax: 919.541.1818, Email:patel.molini@epa.gov
#### John D. RANKIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 67-296.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

April 17, 1968.

*268Joseph G. Spicola, Jr., Public Defender, and Ray Tamargo, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert R. Crittenden, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant-defendant was convicted on an Information charging him with armed robbery. An attorney was appointed by the Judge of the Criminal Court of Record to represent the defendant. The defendant was sentenced to 20 years at hard labor in the State Penitentiary.

On September 23, 1964, the defendant filed a motion to vacate and set aside judgment and sentence, which motion was denied by the trial court.

On February 21, 1966, the defendant filed his second motion to vacate and set aside judgment and sentence. The defendant was represented by the office of the Public Defender of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit.

On July 22, 1966, the trial court entered an order denying defendant’s second motion to vacate, which was affirmed by this court.

On June 18, 1967, the defendant filed another motion to vacate and set aside judgment and sentence. The Public Defender represented the defendant at the hearing.

On June 26, 1967, the trial court entered an order denying defendant’s motion to vacate and set aside judgment and sentence.

On July 10, 1967, the defendant filed his notice of appeal which is now the appeal under review by this court.

An examination of the third motion that was filed by the defendant, and the subject of this appeal, reveals appellant’s only complaint is that the court appointed counsel did not appeal his conviction. He alleges he requested counsel to file a notice of appeal but was advised by counsel that the court did not provide funds with which to enter an appeal, and that while he felt that the case merited an appeal, he would need money to do so.

The appellant argues that he should have been afforded a hearing by the trial court on this allegation.

There was no indication in the motion filed of any error in the proceedings below, nor was it shown that movant was not able financially to prosecute his own appeal.

In Murray v. State, Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d 292, 293, the Third District Court of Appeal, in a very similar situation, said:

> “We reject the contention that one who has been frustrated in taking an appeal is entitled to a new trial without any consideration being given to whether or not there was an error in his trial. We also reject the contention that one who has been frustrated in taking an appeal from his conviction is entitled to an appeal as a consequence of a Rule I peti*269tion which does not allege any error or irregularity in the trial.”

Finding no error, we affirm the lower court.

Affirmed.

ALLEN, Acting C. J., and PIERCE and HOBSON, JJ.
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 23 - REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS ON
FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES

TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF CULBRO CORPORATION

         Our audits of the consolidated financial statements referred to in our
report dated February 2, 1996 appearing in the 1995 Annual Report to
Shareholders of Culbro Corporation (which report and consolidated financial
statements are incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K)
also included an audit of the Financial Statement Schedules listed in Item 14(a)
of this Form 10-K. In our opinion, these Financial Statement Schedules present
fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein when read in
conjunction with the related consolidated financial statements.

/s/ Price Waterhouse LLP

PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP

New York, New York
February 2, 1996

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

         We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 2 - 94202) of Culbro Corporation of our report dated
February 2, 1996 appearing in the 1995 Annual Report to Shareholders which is
incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also consent to the
incorporation by reference of our report on the Financial Statement Schedules
which appears above.

/s/ Price Waterhouse LLP

PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP

New York, New York
February 28, 1996


                                      E - 3
# C_2013345EN.01001701.xml

| 26.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 345/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 345/17

---

Special Report No 12/2013 ‘Can the Commission and Member States show that the EU budget allocated to the rural development policy is well spent?’

2013/C 345/05

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 12/2013 ‘Can the Commission and Member States show that the EU budget allocated to the rural development policy is well spent?’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors' website: http://eca.europa.eu

A hard copy version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:

| European Court of Auditors |
| --- |
| Unit ‘Audit: Production of Reports’ |
| 12, rue Alcide de Gasperi |
| 1615 Luxembourg |
| LUXEMBOURG |
| Tel. +352 4398-1 |
| E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu |

European Court of Auditors

Unit ‘Audit: Production of Reports’

12, rue Alcide de Gasperi

1615 Luxembourg

LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1

E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu

or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.

---
<PAGE>

                                   FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
                                   FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:

                                   Glenn Hart, Michael Petroleum Corporation
                                   713-895-0909, Ext. 17
                                   glennh@michaelpetroleum.com

                                   Robert Swanson, Michael Petroleum Corporation
                                   713-895-0909, Ext. 18
                                   roberts@michaelpetroleum.com


MICHAEL PETROLEUM CORPORATION COMPLETES RESTRUCTURING EFFORT

HOUSTON (August 14, 2000) - Houston-based Michael Petroleum Corporation
announced today that its Chapter 11 plan of reorganization has become
effective and the company has emerged from bankruptcy. Michael Petroleum
filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy code on
December 10, 1999, and obtained confirmation of its plan on July 27, 2000.
Under the plan, Michael Petroleum has been recapitalized with a combination
of bank debt and private equity totaling $107,000,000.

As a result of the recapitalization, Michael Petroleum has a new ownership
group led by MPAC Energy LLC and the Wayland Investment Fund. MPAC, an entity
owned by affiliates of EnCap Investments LLC and El Paso Energy, and Wayland,
an affiliate of Cargill, will own in excess of 95 percent of the reorganized
company. Additionally, Michael Petroleum has entered into a new $75,000,000
credit facility provided by Bank One, Banque Paribas, Union Bank of
California and Bank of Scotland.

"I am pleased to announce, that as a result of the recapitalization, Michael
Petroleum Corporation is on the best financial footing in its 17 - year
history," said Glenn Hart, chief executive officer of Michael Petroleum. "The
company will now accelerate its drilling program and actively pursue
additional acquisition opportunities in the Lobo Wilcox Trend in Webb and
Zapata Counties."

                                    - MORE -


<PAGE>




MICHAEL PETROLEUM                                                      PAGE TWO

F. Fox Benton, Jr., chairman of the Board of MPAC, will also serve as
chairman of the reorganized company. The remaining board will consist of Gary
R. Petersen and Robert L. Zorich of EnCap Investments, Blake M. Carlson of
Wayland, and Charles M. Strain, a Houston-based industry consultant.

Michael Petroleum Corporation is a privately held natural gas exploration and
production company with offices in Houston and Laredo. The company presently
operates principally in the Lobo Wilcox Trend in South Texas. For more
information about Michael Petroleum, call (713) 895-0909 or visit
www.michaelpetroleum.com.


                                      # # #
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             826
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,480
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,415
<PP&E>                                           1,809
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,498
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,125
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              673
<BONDS>                                             23
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,282
<OTHER-SE>                                    (10,853)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,125
<SALES>                                            437
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   437
<CGS>                                              297
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,351
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (53)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (861)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (861)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (861)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER OF CONTINUING ABATEMENT

Appellate case name: Rolando Acevedo, et al., v. The O’Quinn Law Firm, et al.

Appellate case number: 01-14-00138-CV

Trial court case number: 392,247-416

Trial court: Probate Court Number 2 of Harris County

On December 23, 2014, this Court’s Order of Abatement granted the intervenorsappellants’ “Unopposed Second Motion to Abate Appeal Pending Settlement Approval”

until March 20, 2015, and stated that this appeal would be reinstated on March 23, 2015, 

absent another motion. On March 17, 2015, appellants filed an “Unopposed Third 

Motion to Abate Appeal Pending Settlement Approval” for another 90 days until June 20, 

2015. Appellants explain that, since the last update, finalizing the release has been 

delayed by the large number of lawyer-defendants and their counsel. However, 

appellants contend that a third 90-day abatement is necessary because “the Parties are 

confident that a final formal release will be forthcoming relatively soon,” and then “the 

releases will be sent to Appellants as well as all other clients connected to this suit 

(approximately 1075 clients),” which will take about 60-90 days to complete, and then 

appellants expect to dismiss this appeal. Because appellants state that there are now 

about 1,075 total clients involved, their unopposed third motion to abate is granted.

Accordingly, this appeal’s abatement is continued. However, counsel is instructed 

to update this Court regarding the status of settlement every thirty days from the date 

of this order. Unless otherwise advised via motion to extend the abatement, which will 

not be granted absent extraordinary circumstances, or a motion to dismiss the appeal, 

the Court will reinstate this appeal on June 22, 2015. Upon reinstatement, appellants’ 

brief will be due July 22, 2015.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

  

Date: March 26, 2015
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           8,386
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,167
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                67,370
<PP&E>                                          90,961
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (3,327)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 163,448
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,656
<BONDS>                                         89,324
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        60,682
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   163,448
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,820
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   23,196
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,497
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    624
<INCOME-TAX>                                       233
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                391
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       255
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03
        

</TABLE>
#### George CASPER, Jr., a minor, by and through his father and next friend, George Casper, Sr., and George Casper, Sr., Individually, Appellants, v. Samuel STONE and Travelers Insurance Company, Appellees.

No. 73-578.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 6, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 11, 1973.

Lawrence F. Kaine, Miami, for appellants.

High, Stack, Davis & Lazenby, Miami, for appellees.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See: Jacksonville, Tampa & Key West Railway Company v. Peninsular Land, Transportation and Manufacturing Company, 27 Fla. 1, 157, 9 So. 661; Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. Sandlin, 75 Fla. 539, 78 So. 667; City of Miami v. Smith, Fla. 1964, 165 So.2d 748.