alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 15



Gothic Energy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Letter Regarding Unaudited Interim Financial Information


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549

Re:  Gothic Energy Corporation and Subsidiaries
     Registration on Forms S-3 and S-4

We are aware that our report dated November 10, 1997 on our review of the
interim financial information of Gothic Energy Corporation for the period ended
September 30, 1997 and included in this Form 10-QSB is incorporated by reference
in the Company's registration statements on Form S-3 (File No. 0-19753) and on
Form S-4 (File No. 333-37839). Pursuant to Rule 436 (c) under the Securities Act
of 1933, this report should not be considered a part of the registration
statement prepared or certified by us within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of
that Act.



COOPERS & LYBRAND, L.L.P.

Tulsa, Oklahoma
November 10, 1997
National Organic Program Update for the 

National Organic Standards Board Meeting 

Spring 2020 – Part 2 

Presented by

Jennifer Tucker 

April 29, 2020 
Department Updates: USDA Response

https://www.usda.gov/coronavirus
NOP Update in Organic Integrity Learning Center

Strong Organic 

Control Systems

• Rulemaking 

• Training

• Certifier 

Oversight

Farm to Market 

Traceability 

• Equivalency 

Arrangements

• Organic Import 

Certificates 

• Inter-Agency 

Organic 

Working Group

Robust 

Enforcement

• Mid-Year 

Review

• High-Profile 

Enforcement

• Dairy 

Compliance 

Project 

• Imports: 

Quantitative 

Methods

Community 

Engagement

• Call for NOSB 

Nominations

• Conference 

Update

• Online 

Complaint 

Form

Organization 

Updates 

• ANSI Peer 

Review

• NOP 

Organization 

Updates

USDA Agricultural Marketing Service | National Organic Program 3

For a Learning Center Account: Write to: USDA-NOP@apvit.com

Include: First Name, Last Name, Organization, Email
Organic Control Systems Continue to Operate 

National 

Organic 

Program

Certifiers Community

USDA Agricultural Marketing Service | National Organic Program 4

The public-private partnership of organic 

certification is resilient and robust

The USDA organic regulations drive compliance!
Rulemaking Updates 

Strengthening 

Organic Enforcement

• NOP has responded to Office 

Management and Budget 

(OMB) questions. 

• We will publish the rule and 

open public comment once 

OMB clears the rule. 

• We need your input – please 

submit a comment! 

Origin of Livestock 

• Draft of final rule is complete.

• Final rule is moving through 

“clearance” process.

• Following USDA review, final 

rule will go to OMB for final 

review.

USDA Agricultural Marketing Service | National Organic Program 5
Electronic Organic Import Certificates

USDA Agricultural Marketing Service | National Organic Program 6

• Electronic version of NOP Import Certificate 

released in Customs and Border Protection’s 

import shipment filing system.

• Optional for now – proposed as required in 

Strengthening Organic Enforcement rule.

• Allows NOP to access data from Import 

Certificates and build analytical tools.

• U.S. importers who wish to request the NOP 

Import Certificate from exporters and include 

in their import filings may do so at any time.
NOSB Call for Nominations - OPEN

• Submission Deadline: June 1, 2020

• USDA seeks to fill five vacancies:

o Two (2) individuals who own or operate an organic farming 

operation, or employees of such individuals

o Two (2) individuals who represent public interest or consumer 

interest groups

o One (1) individual who is a USDA-accredited certifying agent

• How to Apply: https://www.ams.usda.gov/

rules-regulations/organic/nosb/nomination-process

USDA Agricultural Marketing Service | National Organic Program 7
National 

Organic Program

Standards Accreditation Compliance & 

Enforcement

International 

Activities 

Trade 

Systems

Expanded NOP Organization 

USDA Agricultural Marketing Service | National Organic Program 8
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2010 of ReachLocal, Inc.
(the Company) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Zorik Gordon, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

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/ Zorik GordonZorik GordonChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)Date: November 4, 2010
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7615

JONATHAN TORRES,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

V.B.C.C., Jail; KEN STOLEY, Sheriff,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District 

Judge. (1:14-cv-00897-GBL-JFA)

Submitted: March 20, 2015 Decided: April 8, 2015

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan Torres, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jonathan Torres appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Torres v. V.B.C.C., Jail, No. 

1:14-cv-00897-GBL-JFA (E.D. Va. Oct. 7, 2014). We deny Torres’ 

motion for appointment of counsel and 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.

AFFIRMED
#### Autex, Inc., Respondent, v Richard Rubio et al., Appellants.

—In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for breach of a restrictive noncompetition covenant of a contract of employment, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), entered November 14, 1989, which, *inter alia,*vacated the plaintiff’s default in appearance at trial.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The instant action was commenced by the plaintiff corporation in or about 1983 seeking damages stemming from the defendants’ alleged breach of a covenant not to compete with the plaintiff’s automotive repair business. It appears from the record that a settlement of the action was imminent, but that settlement negotiations fell through because of the acrimony between the two shareholders who control the plaintiff corporation. As a consequence, on August 10, 1987, the parties appeared before Justice McCarthy of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, and after reporting that settlement negotiations were at a standstill, agreed that the matter should be marked off the calendar but that it could be restored upon a letter requesting this relief. Formal motion practice was deemed unnecessary.

Through no fault of any of the parties, the matter was apparently inadvertently restored to the calendar by a clerk. The defendants were advised of this and appeared, ready for trial, on the calendar date. The plaintiff was never similarly notified and upon the plaintiff’s default, the Supreme Court dismissed the action with prejudice and denied both the plaintiff’s ensuing motion to vacate its default and its motion for renewal and/or reargument. However, upon reconsideration the court vacated the plaintiff’s default. The defendants now appeal.

We agree with the plaintiff’s contention that the action had not been abandoned nor had it been stricken from the trial calendar for failure to prosecute pursuant to CPLR 3404. Rather, as the record makes abundantly clear, the matter was *595removed from the calendar without objection, due to the stalemate in settlement negotiations caused by the inability of the plaintiffs controlling shareholders to reach an agreement to accept a settlement offer proposed by the defendants. While the plaintiff may have acted less than diligently thereafter, the record indicates that the matter was never intentionally abandoned and the defendants’ assertions to the contrary are unavailing. Accordingly, under the circumstances the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in restoring the action *(see, Sannella v Plainview Fire Dept.,*136 AD2d 617). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1331 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1331

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize certain 
    programs relating to nonpoint source management, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 25, 2019

 Mrs. Craig (for herself and Mr. Mast) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize certain 
    programs relating to nonpoint source management, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Local Water Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.

    Section 319(j) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
U.S.C. 1329(j)) is amended by striking ``subsections (h) and (i) not to 
exceed'' and all that follows through ``fiscal year 1991'' and 
inserting ``subsections (h) and (i) $200,000,000 for each of fiscal 
years 2020 through 2024''.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6701

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

VINCENT LOUIS HAYNES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CR-98-231; CA-00-141-AM)

Submitted: July 14, 2005 Decided: July 27, 2005

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vincent Louis Haynes, Appellant Pro Se. Sonya LeGene Sacks, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Vincent Louis Haynes appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion for reconsideration of its order denying Haynes’

motion for relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000). We have

reviewed the record and find no abuse of the district court’s

discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration. United

States v. Williams, 674 F.2d 310, 312 (4th Cir. 1982).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying Haynes’

motion for reconsideration. 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.

AFFIRMED
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 96-60053

Summary Calendar

__________________

THERAL DARNELL TERRY,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

STEVE PUCKETT; EDWARD HARGETT,

SUPERINTENDENT, MISSISSIPPI STATE

PENITENTIARY; JOAN ROSS,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:95-CV-303-D-A

- - - - - - - - - -

April 26, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Theral Darnell Terry appeals from the district court's

dismissal of his civil rights complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12(b)(6). He contends that he was denied a classification

hearing before an impartial classification committee, that he was

not provided with a written statement of the reasons for the

change in his classification, that he was denied his annual 
No. 96-60053

-2-

classification hearing, and that his placement in close

confinement prevents him from earning good-time credits. We have

reviewed the record and, construing the dismissal as pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), find no reversible error. See Holloway v.

Gunnell, 685 F.2d 150, 152 (5th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this

opinion sh o uld not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________ No. 97-31346

____________
CONTINENTAL INSURANCE CO., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus FERRELLGAS INC, ET AL, Defendant-Appellee,
FERRELLGAS INC; FERRELLGAS L P; EMPIREGAS INC OF EUNICE; EMPIREGAS INC LAKE CHARLES; EMPIREGAS IN C OF LOUISIANA; T I G INSURANCE COMPANY, A Reliance Group Holding Co; EMPIRE GAS CORP; AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO, Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

(96-CV-1860) December 9, 1998 Before JOLLY, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
AFFIRMED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 47.6.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> UT
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      526,226
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      2,547
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         219,909
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        39,799
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                  88,563
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 877,044
<COMMON>                                        51,418
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       43,233
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            133,980
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 228,631
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           29,293
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           208,972
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 112,594
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                      2,771
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                 1,029
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 293,754
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  877,044
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      705,462
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            20,017
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     156,105
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     242,774
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         48,434
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 564
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  48,998
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        17,932
<NET-INCOME>                                    31,066
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      1,926
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   29,140
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        14,706
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       16,769
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          55,497
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    56.67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    56.67
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1





Certification required by Rule 13a-14(b) or


Rule 15d-14(b) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code





In connection with the Quarterly Report of OHA Investment Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven T. Wayne, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as 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 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

Date:May 10, 2016/s/ Steven T. WayneSteven T. WaynePresident and Chief Executive Officer
From: Yanca, Catherine

To: Yanca, Catherine

Subject: FW: Follow-up to 3/7 Tier 3 call: Memo on Tier 3 refinery permitting analysis

Date: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:31:49 PM

From: Sargeant, Kathryn 

Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 1:21 PM

To: Whiteman, Chad; Amanda_I._Lee@omb.eop.gov

Cc: Machiele, Paul; Brunner, Christine; Nagelhout, Peter; Stewart, Lori; Ghanta, Venu; Wyborny, Lester;

Smith, Russ

Subject: Follow-up to 3/7 Tier 3 call: Memo on Tier 3 refinery permitting analysis

As we discussed on the call earlier today, here is the memo that accompanies the preamble’s

discussion of the permitting analysis.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132909 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132909 

 COA: 260020 

Wayne CC: 03-010863

JOHN GOLDEN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 16, 2006 

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. 

p1022 

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. 

October 29, 2007 

 Clerk
#### STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Leslie Clark ANDERSON, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 16473.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Sept. 22, 1980.

John T. Caine, Public Defenders Association, Ogden, for defendant and appellant.

Robert B. Hansen, Atty. Gen., Olga Ag-nello-Raspa, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.

WILKINS, Justice:

This is an appeal by Defendant Leslie Clark Anderson from his conviction in the District Court for Weber County for theft of an automobile.

Defendant was arrested in California on the Utah charge and was detained there pending extradition to stand trial in Utah. He resisted extradition in California by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Santa Barbara Superior Court. Prior to proceedings on that petition he was returned to Utah by Utah police officers pursuant to a Governor’s Extradition Warrant.

In attacking his conviction, defendant argues that because his petition for habeas corpus was pending in California, the Utah District Court lacked jurisdiction to try him. Thus, he contends, it was a denial of due process for the District Court to refuse to stay all proceedings pending the outcome of the habeas corpus action in California.

In *Frisbie v. Collins*
      *1*
      **the Supreme Court stated:

> This Court has never departed from the rule announced in *Ker v. Illinois,*119 U.S. 436, 444, 7 S.Ct. 225, 229, 30 L.Ed. 421, that the power of a court to try a person for crime is not impaired by the fact that he had been brought within the court’s jurisdiction by reason of a “forcible abduction.” No persuasive reasons are now presented to justify overruling this line of cases. They rest on the sound basis that due process of law is satisfied when one present in court is convicted of crime after having been fairly apprized of the charges against him and after a fair trial in accordance with constitutional procedural safeguards. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires a court to permit a guilty person rightfully convicted to escape justice because he was brought to trial against his will.2 (footnote omitted)

Here the record reflects that defendant was convicted “after a fair trial in accordance with constitutional procedural safeguards.” That he was brought before the Utah court in the face of a pending proceeding in California attacking his extradition does not impair his conviction.

Affirmed.

CROCKETT, C. J., and MAUGHAN, HALL and STEWART, JJ., concur.

. 342 U.S. 519, 72 S.Ct. 509, 96 L.Ed. 541 (1952).

. *Id.,*at 522, 72 S.Ct. at 511.
Exhibit 23.1





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm








We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Nos. 333-227117, 333-207296, 333-177433, 333-177432, 333-118681) on Form S-8 of Capital Southwest Corporation and Subsidiaries (collectively, the Company) of our reports dated June 4, 2019 relating to the consolidated financial statements, the financial statement schedule and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of the Company, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended March 31, 2019.








/s/ RSM US LLP





Chicago, Illinois


June 4, 2019
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 8, 2021

No. 04-20-00561-CV

Enrique LOPEZ, Individually, and as Representative of the Estate of Tristan Lopez, Deceased,

Appellant

v.

GUIDING LIGHT, LLC,

Appellee

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CI21729

Honorable Norma Gonzales, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant's motion for an extension of time to file a reply brief is granted. The reply brief 

is due July 29, 2021.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 8th day of July, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS FILE COPY
P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

4/15/2015 Ree J COA No. 06-13-00205-CR
Harper, Willie Lee, Jr. Tr.-Ctz: No. 2011F00168 PD-1250-14
On this day, the Appellant's petition. for discretionary review has been refused.
JUDGE JOHNSON AND JUDGE YEA L
Abel Acosta, Clerk

6TH COURT OF APPEALS CLERK
DEBBIE AUTREY

100 N. STATE LINE AVE.
TEXARKANA, TX 75501-5666

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *