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

 

Certification ofPrincipal Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350,

As AdoptedPursuant to

Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Reef Global Energy VI, L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael J. Mauceli,principal executive officer of Reef Global Energy VI, L.P., certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, 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 Partnership. |

 
| Date: November 14,  2008 | Reef Oil & Gas  Partners, L.P.        |
|-------------------------------|------------------------------------------------|
|                          | Managing General  Partner                      |
|                          |                                           |
|                          | By: Reef Oil &  Gas Partners, GP, LLC |
|                          |                                           |
|                          | /s/ Michael J. Mauceli                         |
|                          | Michael J. Mauceli                             |
|                          | Manager and Member                             |
|                          | *(principal executive officer)*                |

 

 

Thiscertification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of § 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by § 906 has been providedto the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
# L_2006275EN.01006501.xml

| 6.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 275/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 275/65

---

COUNCIL DECISION 2006/670/CFSP

of 5 October 2006

appointing a new European Union Special Representative for Central Asia

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 18(5) in conjunction with Article 23(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 28 July 2005, the Council adopted Joint Action 2005/588/CFSP (1) appointing Mr Ján KUBIŠ as Special Representative of the European Union (EUSR) for Central Asia, whose mandate was extended until 28 February 2007. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 28 July 2005, the Council adopted Joint Action 2005/588/CFSP (1) appointing Mr Ján KUBIŠ as Special Representative of the European Union (EUSR) for Central Asia, whose mandate was extended until 28 February 2007.

| (2) | By letter dated 4 July 2006, Mr. KUBIŠ submitted his resignation as EUSR, effective as of 5 July 2006. A new EUSR should therefore be appointed for the remaining period of the mandate. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

By letter dated 4 July 2006, Mr. KUBIŠ submitted his resignation as EUSR, effective as of 5 July 2006. A new EUSR should therefore be appointed for the remaining period of the mandate.

| (3) | The Secretary General/High Representative (SG/HR) has recommended that Mr Pierre MOREL be appointed as the new EUSR for Central Asia, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Secretary General/High Representative (SG/HR) has recommended that Mr Pierre MOREL be appointed as the new EUSR for Central Asia,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

Mr. Pierre MOREL is hereby appointed as the new European Union Special Representative for Central Asia. He shall exercise his functions in accordance with the mandate set out in Joint Action 2005/588/CFSP and the detailed arrangements therein.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

It shall apply until 28 February 2007.

Article 3

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Luxembourg, 5 October 2006.

For the Council

The President

K. RAJAMÄKI

---

(1)  
  OJ L 199, 29.7.2005, p. 100. Joint Action as amended by Joint Action 2006/118/CFSP, 20.2.2006 (OJ L 49, 21.2.2006, p. 7).

1

---
#### Susan Denicker, as Administratrix of the Estate of Todd L. Denicker, Deceased, Respondent, v Leonard Denicker et al., Defendants, and Ellen Denicker, Appellant.

In an action to recover damages for wrongful death, the defendant *517Ellen Denicker appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), dated October 13, 1989, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

Ordered that the order is reversed on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as it is asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for the drowning death of her seven-year-old son which occurred when the boat on which he was a passenger capsized beneath the Throgs Neck Bridge. The plaintiff contends that the appellant Ellen Denicker was negligent in holding onto the decedent while in the water and pushing him under the water thereby causing his death. The decedent was wearing a life preserver at the time of the accident while the appellant was not.

Under the facts of this case, the appellant was not negligent as a matter of law and the court should have granted summary judgment in her favor. When the boat capsized and the passengers were thrown into the water, the appellant was confronted with an emergency not of her own making and without an opportunity for deliberation *(see, Tenenbaum v Martin,*131 AD2d 660). Under the emergency circumstances presented, the appellant was not obligated to exercise her best judgment and any error in her judgment was not sufficient to constitute negligence *(see, Rowlands v Parks, 2*NY2d 64; *Moller v Lieber,*156 AD2d 434). Accordingly, summary judgment should have been granted in favor of the appellant. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Eiber and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-10214 Conference Calendar

__________________ REGINALD JEROME HALL, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus DALLAS COUNTY POLICE, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:95-CV-168-R

- - - - - - - - - - June 30, 1995 Before JONES, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appellant Reginald Jerome Hall, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis , filed this civil rights suit against the Dallas County Police on January 25, 1995. He alleges that he was injured by a Dallas County police officer during his arrest on October 20, 1992. He argues that the applicable statute of limitations period was tolled as a result of his incarceration. A district court may dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint as frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Denton v. Hernandez , 112 S. Ct. 1728, 1733-34 (1992);No. 95-10214 -2-

Eason v. Thaler , 14 F.3d 8, 9 (5th Cir. 1994). If it appears "that insufficient factual allegations might be remedied by more specific pleading," this court considers whether the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the complaint without affording any effort to amend. Eason , 14 F.3d at 9. Federal courts apply state personal-injury limitations periods to actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Owens v. Okure , 488 U.S. 235, 251 (1989). The applicable Texas limitations period is two years. Burrell v. Newsome , 883 F.2d 416, 418 (5th Cir. 1989). Hall's claim accrued on October 25, 1992, the date that he was allegedly injured by police. As of September 1, 1987, imprisonment no longer tolls the limitations period in Texas. Rodriguez v. Holmes , 963 F.2d 799, 803 (5th Cir. 1992). The limitations period therefore expired on October 25, 1994, two years after Hall's injury and some three months before Hall filed suit on January 25, 1995. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion, and Hall's appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2079 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2079

To reduce temporarily the duty on acai, uncooked or cooked by steaming 
 or boiling in water, frozen, whether or not containing added sugar or 
                        other sweetening matter.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

  Mrs. Boxer introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To reduce temporarily the duty on acai, uncooked or cooked by steaming 
 or boiling in water, frozen, whether or not containing added sugar or 
                        other sweetening matter.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ACAI, OTHERWISE PREPARED OR PRESERVED, WHETHER OR NOT 
              CONTAINING ADDED SUGAR OR OTHER SWEETENING MATTER OR 
              SPIRIT, NOT ELSEWHERE SPECIFIED OR INCLUDED.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Other: Acai,        Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        otherwise                                                          31/2011.......
                        prepared or
                        preserved,
                        whether or not
                        containing added
                        sugar or other
                        sweetening matter
                        or spirit, not
                        elsewhere
                        specified or
                        included
                        (provided for in
                        subheading
                        2008.99.8000)....

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>




                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                        INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Central Parking Corporation

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 33-98118, 33-98120, 33-98122, 333-37909 and 333-74837) on Form S-8 and the
registration statement (No. 333-52497) on Form S-3 of Central Parking
Corporation of our report dated October 28, 2002, except for Note 17, which is
as of November 1, 2002 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of
Central Parking Corporation and Subsidiaries as of September 30, 2002 and 2001,
and the related consolidated statements of earnings, shareholders' equity and
comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended September 30, 2002, and all related financial statement schedules,
which report appears in the September 30, 2002 annual report on Form 10-K of
Central Parking Corporation.

Our report dated October 28, 2002, except for Note 17, which is as of November
1, 2002, refers to a change in Central Parking Corporation's method of
accounting for goodwill in 2002.

KPMG LLP
Nashville, Tennessee
December 20, 2002




                                    76 of 76
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Martin Carter, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldberg, J.), rendered April 7, 1988, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (three counts), and criminal possession of a hypodermic instrument, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish defendant’s guilt of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Three police officers testified at trial that they saw the defendant with a gun and observed him toss it away. *484Furthermore, the defendant’s contention that his guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt because of inconsistencies in the testimony of the People’s witnesses is unconvincing. Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presénted, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Kooper, J. P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Ritter, JJ., concur.
#### Leonard LEBSACK, Appellant (Employee-Claimant), v. TOWN OF TORRINGTON, Appellee (Employer-Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, ex rel., WYOMING WORKER’S COMPENSATION DIVISION, Appellee (Objector-Defendant).

No. 84-109.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

July 29, 1985.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING AND GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND THE CASE FOR RECALCULATION OF THE AWARD

Appellant having petitioned this Court for rehearing on this matter, 698 P.2d 1141, and having filed a motion for remand for recalculation of award; and it appearing that Appellant’s argument on the original hearing of this matter was directed at the *calculation*of the amount of award as of the date of August 6,1981 and was not directed at the determination of such date as the time at which the calculation would depend; and the trial court having found that such date was the date at which the compensable injury occurred; and such finding having been proper (see *Shapiro v. State ex rel. Worker’s Compensation Division, Wyo.,*(No. 84-276, decided July 24,1985); and the calculation being inaccurate; it is

ORDERED that Appellant’s motion for remand for recalculation of the award in this matter be, and it hereby is, granted, and the case is remanded for such purpose, and it is ■

FURTHER ORDERED that Appellant’s petition for rehearing be, and it hereby is, denied.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed March 22, 2023.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-1132

Lower Tribunal No. 12-30236

________________

Hector Rivas,

Appellant,

vs.

Professional Protection & Investigations Agency, Inc.,

Appellee.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose M. 

Rodriguez, Judge.

Hector Rivas, in proper person.

Reiner & Reiner, P.A., and David P. Reiner, II, for appellee.

Before SCALES, LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Dismissed. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(g)(1) (defining “appellant” as “[a] 

party who seeks to invoke the appeal jurisdiction of a court”); Credit Indus. 

Co. v. Remark Chem. Co., 67 So. 2d 540, 541 (Fla. 1953) (quoting 16 Am. 

Jur., Declaratory Judgments) (“In accordance with the fundamental rule that 

to be entitled to appeal a person must be aggrieved by the judgment, an 

appeal from a . . . judgment will be dismissed where there is nothing in it 

prejudicial to the claimed rights of the appellant.”); Portfolio Invs. Corp. v. 

Deutsche Bank Nat. Tr. Co., 81 So. 3d 534, 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (quoting 

Barnett v. Barnett, 705 So. 2d 63, 64 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)) (“[A] non-party in 

the lower tribunal is a ‘stranger to the record’ and, therefore, lacks standing 

to appeal an order entered by the lower tribunal.”).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ARTHUR MCDORN WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JENNINGS MCABEE; HERBERT B.

No. 95-8526

LONG; JULIUS H. BAGGETT; FRANK

HARRISON; MCABEE BUILDING

SUPPLY, INCORPORATED,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill.

Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.

(CA-95-3555-19-BD)

Submitted: April 15, 1996

Decided: May 6, 1996

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN,

Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Arthur McDorn Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Arthur Williams appeals from the district court's order granting

summary judgment to Defendants on his 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 (1988)

civil complaint. The district court awarded summary judgment upon

the recommendation of the magistrate judge. Although we vacate the

district court's order and remand for further proceedings, we express

no opinion regarding the merits of this action.

The district court denied Williams's request for an extension to file

objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, but

Williams managed to file timely objections nevertheless. Unfortunately, the district court did not consider Williams's objections

because the court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation

before the time for filing objections had expired and there is no mention of Williams's timely objections in the district court's opinion.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) (1988), the district court is obligated

to review de novo those portions of the magistrate judge's report to

which objections are filed.1 The district court's order, however, does

not state that it conducted a review of the record as to those objections

or made a decision on the disputed issues de novo. Because Williams

made timely objections to the magistrate judge's factual findings, the

district court's error was not harmless.2 

Accordingly, we vacate the district court's order and remand the

matter for the district court to conduct the required de novo review

and issue a decision, or state that it conducted such review before rendering its previous decision. We dispense with oral argument because

_________________________________________________________________

1 See United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 93 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,

467 U.S. 1208 (1984).

2 Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982).

 2
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

 3
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel; “BRAD”.                    

*Date:*                         March 30, 2012.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 6 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Sherry L. Dupere, Ph.D., Director, Division of Scientific Review, Division of Scientific Review, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-3415,                         *duperes@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS) 

Dated: March 2, 2012.

Jennifer S. Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2012-5932 Filed 3-9-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P