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





CERTIFICATIONS
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 report of Ridgewood Energy L Fund, LLC (the “Fund”) on Form
10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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 results of operations of the Fund.





Dated:
              November
      7, 2008
              
              
              
              RIDGEWOOD
      ENERGY L FUND, LLCBy:
              /s/
              
              ROBERT
      E. SWANSONName:
              
              Robert
      E. SwansonTitle:
              
              President
      and Chief Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)Dated:
              November
      7, 2008By:
              /s/
              
              KATHLEEN
      P. MCSHERRYName:
              
              Kathleen
      P. McSherryTitle:
              
              Executive
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)





A signed
original of this written statement or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to
Ridgewood Energy L Fund, LLC and will be retained by Ridgewood Energy L Fund,
LLC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 11, 2022

No. 04-22-00455-CV

William FISHBACK,

Appellant

v.

James Patrick WALKER, Sr.

Appellee

From the 406th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022CVK000319D4

Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On July 18, 2022, the trial court found that Appellant William Fishback had violated 

thirty-three provisions of a protective order, and it held him in contempt for each count. The trial 

court ordered Appellant confined in the Webb County Jail for a period of 180 days. 

On July 26, 2022, Appellant filed a second amended notice of appeal which identifies 

five points Appellant seeks to appeal, numbered as 2.a through 2.e. In paragraph 2.b, Appellant 

seeks to appeal from “[t]he Order holding him in contempt and sentencing him to six months 

confinement.” 

“[T]he validity of a [criminal] contempt judgment can be attacked ‘only by way of habeas 

corpus.’” Collins v. Kegans, 802 S.W.2d 702, 705 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); accord Gonzalez v. 

State, 187 S.W.3d 166, 170 (Tex. App.—Waco 2006, no pet.).

We ORDER Appellant to show cause in writing within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of 

this order why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Collins, 802 

S.W.2d at 705. Appellant must show how this court has appellate jurisdiction for the matters 

listed in each of the notice of appeal paragraphs numbered 2.a through 2.e. 

We also note that the clerk’s record filed on August 8, 2022, does not contain some of the 

documents and orders referred to in paragraphs 2.a through 2.e. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5(a)

(noting that in a civil case, “the record must include copies of . . . all pleadings on which the trial 

was held [and] the court’s judgment or other order that is being appealed” (emphasis added)). 
_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 11th day of August, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
USDA 

~ 

Agricultural 

Marketing 

- Service 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW 

Room 2055-S, STOP 0201 

Washington, O.C. 20250-0201 

April 28, 2023 

Mike Brown 

ChiefEconomist 

International Dairy Foods Association

1250 H Street NW, Suite 900 

Washington, DC 20005 

Dear Mr. Brown: 

Thank you for submitting the March 30, 2023, proposal on behalfofthe International Dairy 

Foods Association (IDF A), which requests that the U.S. Department ofAgriculture (USDA) 

hold a hearing to amend the 11 Federal milk marketing orders (FMMO). The IDFA proposal 

would amend the manufacturing (make) allowances contained in the Class III and IV price 

formulas, using the most recently available industry cost data. 

Your petition cites cost study numbers calculated by the Dairy Institute ofCalifornia, as well as 

a cost study currently being updated, but not yet completed, by Dr. Mark Stephenson. As 

precedent for requesting a hearing without specific, proposed make allowances, your letter cites 

two FMMO hearings held in the mid-2000's without specific make allowance values noticed for 

consideration. 

While the referenced hearings were requested without noticing specific make allowance values, 

rulemaking procedures have changed as a result ofthe 2008 Farm Bill, which amended Section 

8c ofthe Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 608c). The amendment directed the Secretary 

ofAgriculture (Secretary) to issue supplementary rules ofpractice defining the guidelines and 

timeframes for the rulemaking process relating to amendments oforders. Specifically, the 

Secretary must evaluate a proposal and determine how to proceed within 30 days ofits receipt. 

As part ofthe evaluation, USDA assesses potential impacts ofadopting the proposed regulatory 

change. Without specific make allowance values to analyze, USDA cannot conduct such an 

analysis for use in evaluating potential impacts ofthe proposal. 

Therefore, USDA requests additional information regarding the specific make allowance values 

to be considered to assist the Secretary in deciding whether to initiate an FMMO rulemaking 

proceeding on this issue. 

Thank you in advance for providing this information. 

Sincerely, 

IS-£__ 

Bruce Summers 

Administrator 

An Equal Opportunity Employer
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 45 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 45

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 2157, the Clerk of the House of 
Representatives shall make the following correction: In section 1207, 
strike ``May 31, 2019'' each place such term appears and insert ``June 
14, 2019''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 3, 2019.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
116th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            H. CON. RES. 45

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Directing the Clerk of the House to make a correction in the enrollment 
                             of H.R. 2157.
```
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15** 
**- 1322** 

MCELROY COAL COMPANY ,
Petitioner ,

v.

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; ROGER D. KENNEDY , Respondents

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board

. ( 13

- 0592 BLA )

Submitted : November 30, 2015 Decided: December 11, 2015

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Jeffrey R. Soukup, Kevin M. McGuire, Williams S. Matt ingly, JACKSON KELLY PLLC, Lexington, Kentucky , for Petitioner. M. Patricia Smith, Solicitor of Labor, Rae Ellen James, Associate Solicitor, Gary K. Stearman , UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washingt on, D.C. ; Anne Megan Davis, Thomas E. Johnson, JOHNSON, JONES, SNELLING, GILBERT & DAVIS, P.C., Chicago, Illinois, for Respondents.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
McElroy Coal Company seeks review of the Bene fits Review
Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law
judge’s award of living miner benefits to former miner Roger D.

Kennedy, pursuant to 30 U.S.C. §§ 901

- 945 (2012) and its
subsequent order denying reconsideration . Our review of the

re cord discloses that the ALJ’s decision is based upon

substantial evidence and that the Board’s decision is without
reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

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

PETITION DENIED
No. 01-14-01015-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT 

HOUSTON, TEXAS 

SANDRA NZE

Appellant 

V.

UCHENNA NWABUEZE 

Appellee 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

APPELLEE’S SECOND RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO APPELLANT’S SECOND 

REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION 

Comes Now the Appellee, Uchenna Nwabueze, by and through his attorney of record, 

and presents this Second Response in Opposition to Appellant’s Second Request for an 

Extension and in support of said Motion, Appellee would show the court the following: 

1. This is an appeal from an eviction case wherein Appellant was ordered by the Justice 

Court to vacate the premises in question. The County Court, on appeal, affirmed the 

Justice Court’s ruling and ordered Appellant to vacate the premises on or before 

December 31, 2014. 

2. This is Appellant’s second request for an extension. She filed a request, on her own, 

for an extension, in March 2015, and now in April 2015 has retained the services of 

an attorney who is also filing a request for an extension. The attorney’s reasons for 

the extension is that council has “previously scheduled depositions through April 28, 

2015.” 

3. Appellant’s constant request for extensions appear to be a clever way to continue to 

manipulate the judicial system, and is an overt strategy to continue to reside in a 

residence that she is not lawfully entitled to be in. She has successfully managed to 

reside in the residence without paying any rent for close to a year. 

ACCEPTED

01-14-01015-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

4/8/2015 3:31:14 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 4/8/2015 3:31:14 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
2

Appellant has now retained the services of an attorney who is requesting an extension 

because she is too busy to prepare a brief for this appeal.

Appellee continues to suffer enormous financial hardship at the expense of the 

Appellant’s continued manipulation and abuse of the appeal process. While this appeal is 

pending Appellant continues to occupy the residence and not pay any rent or costs to Appellee. 

Any additional delays or extensions in this appeal will compound the enormous financial 

hardship that Appellee is experiencing. Appellant’s request for an extension appears to be for no 

other reason other than to delay, and to continue residing in the residence free of cost, not paying 

any rent for as long as possible. 

Therefore, Appellee requests that Appellant’s Second Request for an Extension be 

denied.

Respectfully submitted,

WHITE LAW OFFICE

BY: ___ s/ Carlettte White

Carlette White, 

P.O. Box

Sugar Land, Texas 77487

TBN: 21516430

281-203-0800

713-391-8724 fax

Whitelawoffice1@aol.com

 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been furnished by VIA email to 

Appellant’s Attorney of Record on this 8

th day of April, 2015.

BY: ___/s/ Carlettte White____________

Carlette White, Attorney for Plaintiff
I

.,...,**'.h~"U,Jit:I'I:"voF· .~rwl** 
February 17,2011 GOBIERNO DE PUERTO RIco MUNCIPIO Aur6NOMO DE PONCE 

## LegisCatura :Municipa{ APARTADO 331709 PONCE, PUERTO RICO00733-1709

US Department ofTransportation Office ofthe Secretary 1200NewJersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 %fiJono (787)841-1515

By email to: Kevin.adams@dot.gov DearMr. Adams: We hereby petition the Department of Transportation for review of their order under the Department's Aviation Economic Regulations, In4 CFR 385.50, to terminate the present Cape Air EAS service to the Mercedita Airport in Ponce, Puerto Rico. Without the continuance of the ESA subsidy Cape Air would unable to continue the Ponce service, leaving residents and businesses inPonce without any scheduled air service to San Juan. We are residents ofPonce, Puerto Rico and utilize the Cape Air Flights from Ponce to San Juan on a regular basis. There are many reasons for us choosing this means oftravel: 1. Puerto Rico is unique in qualifying for Essential Air Service inclusion. Unlike the continental United States, the only form of travel from Puerto Rico to other points within the country is by airplane. It is impossible to leave Puerto Rico by car, train, passengerboat orbus. 2. There is NO public transportationbetween Ponce and SanJuan. 3. The drive during morning or evening rush hours is more than 3 hours for the 75 mile trip. 4. There are 2 Jet Blue flights from Ponce, but restrict direct travel to either Orlando or NYC, requiring additional transfers, ticketing and waittime. 5. The Jet Blue flights require us to travel hours to a hub, when one is but 20 minutes away. As an example; to fly to neighboring St. Thomas we have to fly to Orlando

- then SanJuan

- then St Thomas orworse yet viaPhiladelphia???Cape AirESA subsidy
6. Driving to the airport at this darkened hour restricts those senior citizens who suffer from nightblindness, making ourtravel prohibited by a physical disability. 7. Flying from Ponce restricts our airline selection to traveling Jet Blue, while in SanJuan we can choose from American, Continental, Delta and United, among others. 8. CapeAir is acting as commuterairline, connecting with othermajorairlines. By eliminating the Cape Air flights the DOT is, in effect, terminating EAS service to Ponce as the substitution ofJet Blue service does not meet the requirements of Public Law 100-223 including (e) "flights at reasonable times taking into account the needs ofpassengers with connecting flights". Cape Air PSE-SJU-PSE transported over 9 thousands passengers in 2010 maintaining ready access to theNational airtransportation system. The company has invested initially overa halfmillion dollars intheir operations including a complete refurbishing oftheir terminal space in Ponce and hiring eight local Ponceresidents to servethe community. The Ponce communityneeds and is statutorily entitledto reliable uninterrupted air service. Thank youfor your attention tothis matter.

# ~~3~ c

# Th6res~ent and Members of the Municipal Legislature ofthe Autonomous Municipality of

Ponce, Puerto Rico.
Served: September 17, 2014 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

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

CHARTER AIR TRANSPORT, INC.

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

NOTICE OF REGISTRATION OF TRADE NAME

On September 11, 2014, Charter Air Transport, Inc. (“CAT”), a U.S. commuter air carrier,

1 requested

that the Department register the trade name “Via Airlines” for use in certain of its air transportation 

operations. 

Part 215 of the Department’s regulations (14 CFR Part 215) provides that any air carrier wishing to use 

an alternative trade name must first register that name with the Department. The rule further states that 

the Department may register such name after the air carrier gives notification to similarly named air 

carriers of the proposed use of the name. Our review has revealed no similarly named air carriers.

Since CAT has complied with the requirements of Part 215, we acknowledge the registration of the trade 

name “Via Airlines” for immediate use in their operations. 

Dated at Washington, D.C., September 17, 2014 

TODD M. HOMAN

Director

Office of Aviation Analysis

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at

http://www.regulations.gov

 

1 See Order 2011- 4-11, issued on April 8, 2011.
Attachment 

SERVICE LIST FOR CHARTER AIR TRANSPORT, INC.

AMOS VIZER

PRESIDENT

CHARTER AIR TRANSPORT INC

218 JACKSON STREET

MAITLAND FL 32751

JASON E MADDUX

GAROFALO GOERLICH HAINBACH PC

COUNSEL FOR CHARTER AIR TRANSPORT

1200 NEW HAMPSHIRE AVE NW

SUITE 590

WASHINGTON DC 20036

OFFICE OF AIRLINE INFORMATION

DOT/RSPA/BTS 

1200 NEW JERSEY AVE SE

WASHINGTON DC 20590

PETER LYNCH 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

ASST CHIEF COUNSEL 

FOR ENFORCEMENT AGC-300

800 INDEPENDENCE AVE SW

WASHINGTON DC 20591

MARK MAZOR

CERTIFICATION SECTION MANAGER

FAA AFS-900

45005 AVIATION DRIVE SUITE 131

DULLES VA 20166

JAMES A STENHOUSE

POI FOR CHARTER AIR TRANSPORT

FAA ORLANDO FISDO

5950 HAZELTINE NATIONAL DRIVE

SUITE 500

ORLANDO AFL 32822
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Matthew Mannelly,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Prestige Brands
Holdings, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2009, fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as applicable, and that information contained in such
Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Prestige Brands Holdings,
Inc.




/s/Matthew
      MannellyName:
            Matthew
      MannellyTitle:
            Chief
      Executive OfficerDate:
            February
      9, 2010
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of J.L.R. and * From the 446 th District Court

T.P.R., children, of Ector County,

Trial Court No. E

- 20

- 010

- PC

.

No. 11

- 2 1

- 00 195

- C V * February 24 , 20 2 2

* Memorandum Opinion by Trotter , J.

(P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Trotter , J. , and W illiams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that th ere is no

error in the order below. Therefore, in accordanc e with this court’s opinion, the

order of the tr ia l court is in all things affirmed.
# C_2004094EN.01001601.xml

| 17.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/16

---

ORDER OF THE COURT

ORDER OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 24 July 2003

in Case C-44/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Dornbirn): Helmut Horn v Karl Schelling (1)

1

(Principles of Community law - Political sanctions imposed on a Member State)

(2004/C 94/32)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-44/03: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Bezirksgericht Dornbirn (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Helmut Horn and Karl Schelling — on the interpretation of Article 7 EU, and Articles 12 EC, 49 EC to 55 EC and 87 EC — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, P. Jann and A. Rosas, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 24 July 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:

The questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Bezirksgericht Dornbirn by order of 16 December 2002 are manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 47 of 21.2.2004.

1

---
Fruit & Specialty Crops 1400 Independence Avenue, SW.

Vegetable Inspection Room 1536-S, STOP 0240

Program Division Washington, DC 20250-0240

February 14, 2013

AMENDMENT NO. 1

COMMODITY SPECIFICATION

FRESH FRUIT AUGUST 2012

The purpose of this amendment is to remove the requirement for inspection of fresh sliced 

apples at destination from Section III. Inspection, B. Requirements. This requirement was added 

to the commodity specification in error. 

B. Requirements (Cantaloupes and Pears) 

Inspection of fresh cantaloupes, and pears must be performed at destination in 

accordance with the same requirements stated in paragraph “A” of this section with the 

exception of Positive Lot Identification. USDA, AMS, Fruit and Vegetable Program, 

Specialty Crops Inspection Division (USDA Grader) must perform the inspection 

required see section X of the Master Solicitation. The count (number) of packages shall 

be certified by Federal or Federal-State Inspection Service (see section X of the Master 

Solicitation). The acceptability of the quality and packaging of the product must be 

evidenced by certificates issued by the USDA Grader. Representative sample units will 

be graded according to the Regulations Governing Inspection and Certification of Fresh 

Fruit and Related Products (7 C.F.R. part 51), and United States Standards for Condition 

of Food Containers (7 C.F.R. part 42.140), effective on the date of the Solicitation/IFB.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 32

                                CERTIFICATION OF

               CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
           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 Valley 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 quarterly report of Form 10-Q for the period
ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission of 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/ Barry L. Hulin                                           /s/ Dick Holtzclaw
------------------                                           ------------------
Barry L. Hulin                                                    Dick Holtzclaw
Chief Executive Officer      Date: August 10, 2005       Chief Financial Officer
Valley Bancorp                                                    Valley Bancorp