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


CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

In connection with the Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Nexen Inc., a Canadian Corporation ("the Company"), for the year ended December
31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20,
2004 (as amended, the "Report"), I, Charles W. Fischer, President and 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:

(1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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: March 1, 2005                                      /s/ Charles W. Fischer
                                                         ----------------------
                                                             Charles W. Fischer
                                         President, and Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Nexen Inc. and shall be retained by Nexen Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2016202EN.01007201.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/72

---

Article 65

(ex Article 58 TEC)

(ex Article 58 TEC)

1.   The provisions of Article 63 shall be without prejudice to the right of Member States:

| (a) | to apply the relevant provisions of their tax law which distinguish between taxpayers who are not in the same situation with regard to their place of residence or with regard to the place where their capital is invested; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

to apply the relevant provisions of their tax law which distinguish between taxpayers who are not in the same situation with regard to their place of residence or with regard to the place where their capital is invested;

| (b) | to take all requisite measures to prevent infringements of national law and regulations, in particular in the field of taxation and the prudential supervision of financial institutions, or to lay down procedures for the declaration of capital movements for purposes of administrative or statistical information, or to take measures which are justified on grounds of public policy or public security. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

to take all requisite measures to prevent infringements of national law and regulations, in particular in the field of taxation and the prudential supervision of financial institutions, or to lay down procedures for the declaration of capital movements for purposes of administrative or statistical information, or to take measures which are justified on grounds of public policy or public security.

2.   The provisions of this Chapter shall be without prejudice to the applicability of restrictions on the right of establishment which are compatible with the Treaties.

3.   The measures and procedures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on the free movement of capital and payments as defined in Article 63.

4.   In the absence of measures pursuant to Article 64(3), the Commission or, in the absence of a Commission decision within three months from the request of the Member State concerned, the Council, may adopt a decision stating that restrictive tax measures adopted by a Member State concerning one or more third countries are to be considered compatible with the Treaties in so far as they are justified by one of the objectives of the Union and compatible with the proper functioning of the internal market. The Council shall act unanimously on application by a Member State.

---
Order entered April 16, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01329-CV

ALBERT LUTTERODT, Appellant

V.

EMILY LANE OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-12648-G

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this appeal was filed November 24, 2014. However, the record 

did not include the trial exhibits. On February 13, 2015 on the parties’ agreed joint motion, we 

ordered court reporter Vielica Dobbins to file, within fifteen days, a supplemental record 

containing the exhibits. Additionally, we extended the deadline for filing appellant’s brief to 

thirty days from the date the supplemental record was filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a). After 

Ms. Dobbins informed us on March 16, 2015 that appellant had not paid the fee for the 

production of the exhibits, we ordered appellant to file written verification no later than April 15, 

2015 that he had paid or made arrangements to pay the fee. See id. 35.3(b). In accordance with 

that order, appellant has informed us that he has made arrangements with Ms. Dobbins to pay the 

$2000 fee and has already paid $500 toward that fee. He also informs us that, although Ms. 
Dobbins has agreed to a payment plan, she has stated she will not file the supplemental record 

until the fee is paid in full. In his verification informing us of the payment arrangements, 

appellant “seeks guidance” as to when the supplemental record should be filed as he “does not 

want to delay the appeal pending final payment of the fee.” 

An appeal cannot proceed without the appellate record. Because the record is incomplete, 

the briefs cannot be filed. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 35.3(b) provides in relevant part 

that the reporter is responsible for preparing, certifying and filing the record if the party has paid 

the reporter’s fee or has made satisfactory payment arrangements. See id. We note the fee for 

the reporter’s record filed in November was $3840, was apparently paid in installments, and has 

apparently been paid in full. Because Ms. Dobbins has agreed to a payment plan and in light of 

appellant’s payment history and the impact the lack of a complete record has on the appeal, we 

ORDER Ms. Dobbins to file the supplemental record containing all trial exhibits no later than 

May 1, 2015. 

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
Jf ourtlj Court of

§&m Antonio,

October 20. 2014

No. 04-14-00391-CV

In the Estate of Luisa R. Montemayor. Deceased

Trial Court Case No. 2010PC3012

ORDER

The Court has reviewed the record and briefs in this appeal and has determined that oral

argument will not significantly aid it in determining the legal and factual issues presented in the

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 39.8. Therefore, all requests for oral argument are denied, and the

cause is advanced for ON BRIEFS submission on December 10, 2014. to the following panel:

Justice Martinez, Justice Alvarez, and Justice Chapa. All parlies will be notified of the Court's

decision in this appeal in accordance with TEX. R. APP. P. 48.

Either party may file motion requesting the Court to reconsider its determination that

oral argument will not significantly aid the Court in determining the legal and factual issues

presented in the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 39.8. Such motion should be filed within ten (10)

davs from the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED on October 20. 2014.

Rebeca C. MarUjji^TJusticc

IN WITNESS WHEREOF. have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal

court on this October 20. 2014.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned, Alan Vituli, Chief Executive Officer of Carrols Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Annual
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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|                                                 
|/s/    ALAN VITULI                               
|Alan Vituli                                      
|Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
|July 28, 2005
*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 circumstancesset forth in LocalRule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-60375

(Summary Calendar)

MAURICE H. SOCHIA

and

BEATRICE M. SOCHIA,

Petitioners-Appellants,

versus

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the Decision of

the United States Tax Court

(26675-93)

April 18, 1997

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Maurice H. Sochia and Beatrice M. Sochia (the “Sochias”) appeal the decision of the Tax

Court dismissing their action and affirming the Commissioner’s determination of a tax deficiency and

additions thereto for the taxable years 1990 and 1991. The Sochias also seek review of the Tax

Court’s imposition of a $4,000 penalty as sanctions under Internal Revenue Code section 6673.

We have reviewed the record and briefs and we affirm the Tax Court.
2

By separate motion, the Commissioner seeks sanctions against the Sochias pursuant to

FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 38(a) for their having filed a frivolous appeal. The

Commissioner points out that the Sochias instituted this case after we recently rejected identical tax

protester claims in another case involving them and imposed sanctions for frivolous appeal. See

Sochia v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 23 F.3d 941 (5th Cir. 1994). The Sochias respond to

the Commissioner’s motion for sanctions by reiterating their frivolous contentions regarding the

merits. Because of the frivolous arguments advanced by the Sochias in this appeal and their failure

to heed our previous caution, we find that sanctions are warranted. Accordingly, we impose

sanctions upon Maurice H. Sochia and Beatrice M. Sochia in the amount of $2,000 payable to the

Treasury of the United States..

The judgment appealed is AFFIRMED, SANCTIONS IMPOSED.
[Letterhead of Singer, Lewak, Greenbaum & Goldstein, L.L.P.]





           Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants
           ---------------------------------------------------

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 (File No. 33-27930) of our report dated December 17, 1996 on our
audits of the consolidated financial statements and financial statement
schedule of Certron Corporation and Subsidiary as of October 31, 1996 and
1995, and for each of the three years in the period ended October 31, 1996,
which is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.




SINGER LEWAK GREENBAUM & GOLDSTEIN LLP

Los Angeles, California
January 23, 1997





















                                EXHIBIT 23
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Vinod Gupta, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of *info*USA Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;
b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and
c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and
b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
Date: August 9, 2004    */s/ Vinod Gupta*  Vinod Gupta Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit23.3**

** **
|                                                                                                                                         |   |        |   |                       | FAX (713) 651-0849 |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------|--------|----------------------------|--------------------|
|                     1100  LOUISIANA |   | SUITE  3800 |   | HOUSTON,  TEXAS 77002-5218 |               | TELEPHONE  (713) 651-9191 |
|                                                                                                                                         |        |             |        |                            |                    |  |  |  |  |  |

 

**CONSENT OFRYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.**

 

We hereby consent toreferences to our firm relating to the evaluation and or audit of certain oil andgas properties of Nexen Inc. (the “Company”) contained in the section entitled “Oiland Gas Accounting – Reserves Determination” within “Critical AccountingEstimates” as set out in Part II, Item 7 of the Company’s Annual Report on Form10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006.

 

 
|              | /s/ RYDER SCOTT COMPANY,  L.P. |   |
|-------------------|--------------------------------|--------|
|              | **RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.**  |
|              |                           |
| Houston, Texas    |                           |
| February 15, 2007 |                           |

 

 
| 1200, 530 8TH AVENUE, S.W.   |   | CALGARY, ALBERTA T2P 3S8     |   | TEL (403) 262-2799 |   | FAX (403) 262-2790 |
|------------------------------|--------|------------------------------|--------|--------------------|--------|--------------------|
| 621 17TH STREET, SUITE  1550 |   | DENVER, COLORADO  80293-1501 |   | TEL (303) 623-9147 |   | FAX (303) 623-4258 |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET STATEMENT OF INCOME, STATEMENT OF RETAINED EARNINGS AND STATEMENT OF CASH
FLOWS CONTAINED IN FORM 10-K OF CAMBRIDGE ELECTRIC LIGHT COMPANY FOR FISCAL YEAR
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                       97,019
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      9,864
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          38,257
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        66,036
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                  80,601
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 291,777
<COMMON>                                         8,665
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       92,395
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                                880
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 101,940
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                            27,201
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                      100
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 162,536
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  291,777
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      111,769
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             (795)
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     108,121
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     107,326
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                          4,443
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               1,207
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                   5,650
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         6,095
<NET-INCOME>                                     (445)
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    (445)
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         9,532
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                          912
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                           (100)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Carr, Appellant.

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Frank Torres, J.), rendered August 27, 1989, convicting defendant after a jury trial of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree for which he was sentenced as a second felony offender to three and one-half to seven years, unanimously affirmed.

During an early morning patrol, undercover officers observed defendant and two male companions walking the streets. An undercover officer approached defendant and from a distance of approximately fifteen feet, observed him remove an object from his abdominal area, which was then discarded into a metal trash can. While defendant was momentarily detained, this officer removed an operable gun from the can. Although, another uniformed patrol officer responded, these officers were not called as witnesses.

Under the standards set forth in *People v Bleakley*(69 NY2d 490, 495) the evidence was legally sufficient, and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. The prosecutor’s opening statement did not warrant dismissal under the standards set forth in *People v Kurtz*(51 NY2d 380, *cert denied*451 US 911). Defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in precluding impeachment of the police officer by unrelated testimony provided in an unrelated prosecution, is meritless. Such testimony had no relevance to the present prosecution. Defendant failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that responding uniformed officers had made relevant observations *(see, People v Paez,*159 AD2d 259), or that any such testimony would have been non-cumulative. Finally, the record does not support defendant’s appellate contention that a deliberating juror broke sequestration, or that any other violation of CPL 310.10 occurred. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Ross and Rubin, JJ.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Rene Olvera Lopez, Appellant

No. 06-13-00259-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 71st District Court of 

Harrison County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 06-

0155X). Opinion delivered by Chief 

Justice Morriss, Justice Carter and Justice 

Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the 

judgment of the court below. Therefore, we modify the trial court’s judgment to delete the fees 

for appellant’s court-appointed attorney. As modified, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

We note that the appellant, Rene Olvera Lopez, has adequately indicated his inability to 

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

RENDERED APRIL 30, 2014

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk