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

 

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

The undersigned, the ChiefExecutive Officer of Gladstone Capital Corporation (the “Company”), herebycertifies on the date hereof, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350(a), as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2003 (“Form 10-Q”),filed concurrently herewith by the Company, fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 
| Dated:  February 17, 2004 |
|--------------------------------|
|                           |
|                           |
| /s/ David Gladstone            |   |
| David Gladstone                |
| Chief Executive Officer        |

 

----
#### Pete BARRERA, Sr., Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 30867.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 7, 1959.

Clay Coggins, Roby, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

BELCHER, Commissioner.

The conviction is for the sale of whisky in a dry area with a prior conviction alleged for enhancement; the punishment, $1,000 fine.

It was stipulated that Taylor County was a dry area; and proof was offered of the prior conviction as alleged.

Jimmy Martin, the alleged purchaser, is a Negro. He did not testify.

A police officer testified that he and a fellow officer saw the appellant and a Negro, about 4:30 p. m., walk around the corner of a hotel, notorious as a bootlegging place operated by and for Negroes. The Negro and appellant continued a short distance toward the officer and stopped. The officer testified that he saw appellant take a half-pint bottle of whisky from his pocket and hand it to the Negro. The Negro cracked the seal on the bottle and handed it back to the appellant and took some money from his pocket, gave it to the appellant, and appellant again handed the whisky to the Negro. The officers did not *769hear any words spoken by or between either the appellant or the Negro. They found $2.25 in appellant’s hand, and found one half-pint of whisky on the Negro.

The officer testified that he assumed from what he saw that there was a sale, but agreed that appellant could have bought the whisky at the hotel, or furnished the Negro money for that purpose.

Appellant did not testify, however he called witnesses who testified that he appeared to be intoxicated about 3:00 p. m. on the day he borrowed $10 at a grocery store to buy whisky. After borrowing the $10, Pete Sanchez drove appellant to a hotel where appellant had bought whisky the night before. Within a short time appellant came out of the hotel with a Negro holding his arm. The Negro had a bottle of whisky and handed it' to appellant and appellant handed him some money.

Appellant requested and then excepted to the refusal of the court to charge on circumstantial evidence.

There was no direct evidence showing a sale of whisky as alleged. Where a sale of whisky is at issue and the evidence in support of the sale shows a transaction occurring in such a manner and under circumstances from which the main fact, that is, a sale, could only be inferred, then the case rests on circumstantial evidence. 18 Tex.Jur., § 317, p. 439; McCormick & Ray, Texas Law of Evidence § 14, p. 328 (2d ed. 1956). Here, the inference may have been deducible from the evidence that a sale was made by the appellant to the Negro but the nature of the evidence is such that it did not warrant the court in refusing to instruct the jury upon the law of circumstantial evidence. Grumbles v. State, 143 Tex.Cr.R. 162, 158 S.W.2d 71.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Opinion approved by the Court.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

M EMORANDUM O RDER

Appellate case name: In re Nicole Maxim

Appellate case number: 01

- 13

- 00316

- CV

Trial court case number: 2012

- 04106

Trial court: 310th District Court of Harris County

Relat ors’ motion to stay all trial court proceedings regarding intervenors’ claims only is

DENIED

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge ’ s signature: /s/ Michael Massengale

Acting individually

Date: April 29, 2013
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 Certification of the Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (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.
 Dated: January 9, 2006
    
    /s/ William D. GreenWilliam D. GreenChief Executive Officer of Accenture Ltd,General Partner of Accenture SCA(principal executive officer)
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided
to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2150

To prohibit extension or establishment of any national monument on public

land without full compliance with the National Environmental Policy

Act and the Endangered Species Act, and an express Act of Congress,

and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 27, 1996

Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. HATCH, Mr. BENNETT, Mr.

CAMPBELL, Mr. BURNS, Mr. NICKLES, and Mr. STEVENS) introduced the

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

A BILL

To prohibit extension or establishment of any national monument on public land without full compliance with the

National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered

Species Act, and an express Act of Congress, and for

other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Public Lands Protec5 tion Act of 1996’’.
2

S 2150 IS

1 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON EXTENSION OR ESTABLISHMENT

2 OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS.

3 The Act entitled ‘‘An Act for the preservation of

4 American antiquities’’, approved June 8, 1906 (16 U.S.C.

5 431 et seq.), is amended by adding at the end the follow6 ing:

7 ‘‘SEC. 5. LIMITATION ON EXTENSION OR ESTABLISHMENT

8 OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS.

9 ‘‘Notwithstanding section 2, no extension or estab10 lishment of a national monument may be undertaken on

11 public land after the date of enactment of this section

12 without full compliance with the National Environmental

13 Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act, and an ex14 press Act of Congress.’’.

Æ
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1772

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify that the Secretary

of the Treasury shall make certain determinations relating to what gas

will be treated as a qualified fuel for purposes of the credit for fuels

from nonconventional sources.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 17, 1996

Mr. SHELBY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify

that the Secretary of the Treasury shall make certain

determinations relating to what gas will be treated as

a qualified fuel for purposes of the credit for fuels from

nonconventional sources.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY TO MAKE CER4 TAIN DETERMINATIONS UNDER NONCON5 VENTIONAL FUELS CREDITS.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (A) of section

7 29(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating
2

•S 1772 IS

1 to gas from geopressured brine, etc.) is amended by add2 ing at the end the following new sentence: ‘‘If the Federal

3 Energy Regulatory Commission ceases to make the deter4 minations described in the preceding sentence, the Sec5 retary shall make such determinations in accordance with

6 section 503 of such Act.’’

7 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section

8 29(c)(2)(A) of such Code is amended by inserting ‘‘(as in

9 effect before its repeal by the Natural Gas Wellhead De10 control Act of 1989)’’ after ‘‘Natural Gas Policy Act of

11 1978’’.

12 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

13 this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment

14 of this Act but shall apply with respect to determinations

15 involving gas produced on and after January 1, 1993.

Æ
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

GRAVITY IMAGING, LLC, formerly known as

HORIZON IMAGING, LLC,

Plaintiff/Counterdefendant-Appellant,

UNPUBLISHED

August 18, 2022

v No. 357548

Oakland Circuit Court

814 BERKLEY, LLC, LC No. 2020-182922-CB

Defendant/Counterplaintiff-Appellee.

Before: SAWYER, P.J., and SHAPIRO and REDFORD, JJ.

SHAPIRO, J. (concurring).

I concur in the result only.

/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro
# EPA REG FILE No. 61282-55 Vol 312 *Inert ingredient information may be entitled to confidential treatment*3*Inert ingredient information may be entitled to confidential treatment*456EPA REGISTRTION FILE #61282-55 VOL 3 Page is not included in this copy. Pages 7 through 14 are not included in this copy. The material not included contains the following type of information:

_ __ Identity of product inert ingredients . _____ Identity of product impurities. Description of the product manufacturing process. _____ Description of quality control procedures. Identity of the source of product ingredients. _____ Sales or other commercial/financial information. _____ A draft product label. X__ The product confidential statement of formula. _____ Information about a pending registration action. FIFRA registration data . _____ The document is a duplicate of page(s) _______. _____ The document is not responsive to the request. Internal deliberative information. _____ Attorney-Client work product. Claimed Confidential by submitter upon submission to the Agency.

_____ Personal Privacy Information The information not included is generally considered confidential by product r egistrants. If you have any questions, please contact the individual who prepared the response to your request.

_________________________________________________________________
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 03369

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

03369\03369_Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement

x 03369\03369_Checklist_102810_version34.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

03369\03369_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

03369\03369_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 03369\03369_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03369\03369_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03369\03369_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03369\Supporting Documentation\03369_Arail Map.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 03369\Supporting Documentation\03369_Water Balance Diagram 2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 03369\Supporting Documentation\03369_Water Balance Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
#### Ex parte C. J. COLLINS.

No. 28185.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 25, 1956.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM. '

This is an appeal from an order of the Criminal District Court No. 2 of Bexar County, Texas, ordering that appellant be delivered to the agent of the demanding state.

No statement of facts accompanies the record, and no bills of exception are found therein.

The proceedings being,in all things regular and no error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2059

To amend title 11, United States Code, with respect to executory contracts

and unexpired leases, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 9, 1996

Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. HATCH, and Mr. HEFLIN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the

Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 11, United States Code, with respect to

executory contracts and unexpired leases, and for other

purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Non-Monetary Default

5 and Unexpired Lease in Bankruptcy Reform Act of

6 1996’’.

7 SEC. 2. EXECUTORY CONTRACTS AND UNEXPIRED LEASES.

8 Section 365(b)(2)(D) of title 11, United States Code,

9 is amended—
2

•S 2059 IS

1 (1) by inserting ‘‘with respect to an executory

2 contract or an unexpired lease of personal property,’’

3 before ‘‘the satisfaction’’; and

4 (2) by inserting ‘‘penalty’’ before ‘‘provision’’.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THERMO OPTEK
CORPORATION'S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 28, 1996
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1996
<CASH>                                          66,293
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   93,556
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,997
<INVENTORY>                                     74,292
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               250,769
<PP&E>                                          83,296
<DEPRECIATION>                                  23,271
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 555,474
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          193,809
<BONDS>                                         96,778
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           485
<OTHER-SE>                                     247,124
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   555,474
<SALES>                                        400,168
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               400,168
<CGS>                                          223,887
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  223,887
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                24,478
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,074
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,911
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 45,097
<INCOME-TAX>                                    18,684
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             26,413
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    26,413
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .55
        


</TABLE>
# ~'!!MiU"" 810-100316-013 CONTROL NO. March 8,2010 The Honorable Ray 

### La Hood United States Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 DOT-OST-2010-0018

Dear Secretary 

### La Hood: Please award four Haneda slots/routes to Delta Air Lines. 

### I am a previous Northwest Airlines pilot and 

### I remember Northwest Orient operating out ofHaneda before all intemational-fl¥ing-was moved1o.-tbe new Nanta airport. N0rthwest bad no -choice in 

### the move and the international flying at Haneda was lost. Experienced Northwest employees are now a part ofDelta. These employees can make this a very good route for the United States. As a child I remember flying to Hanedato see my Father while he was in the US Army at Yokohamajust south ofTokyo center. I was on a Northwest Orientjet. There is much history and experience with this airline, and to choose Delta (Northwest) would be a very good decision. The alliance situation of the other applicantairlines unfairly disadvantage Delta Airlines. Delta would use US employees on these routes. (With the exception ofJapanese interpereters.) I am a Captain flying many ofthe historical routes'ofNorthwest and I see many experienced employees that do a very goodjob. Delta at Haneda would be the bestchoice for all customers and employees ofthe United States ofAmerica. 

## SinCeidy 

# rJ.l; !/I Captain Jeffrey Banks Delta (Northwest) Airlines 20407 New England Dr Eagle River AK 99577-7118 9076944572
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 99.1

                     PRESS RELEASE, DATED FEBRUARY 13, 1997

A. H. BELO CORPORATION                                         News Release



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                  Contact:  Harold Gaar
Thursday, February 13, 1997                                     214/977-7650
2:00 P.M. CST



                        BELO, PROVIDENCE JOURNAL COMPANY
                        SET VALUATION PERIOD STOCK PRICE

         DALLAS -- A. H. Belo Corporation and The Providence Journal Company
announced today that the valuation period stock price for purposes of the
consideration to be paid in the merger of The Providence Journal Company into
A. H. Belo Corporation is $37.15 per share, based on the average closing price
of Belo Series A Common Stock from January 29 to February 11.

         Based on this price, Providence Journal shareholders making an
all-stock election will receive .8652 per share of A. H. Belo Series A Common
Stock, and those making an all-cash election will receive $32.14 per share.
Because the total number of shares of Belo Stock to be issued in the merger and
the total amount of cash to be paid in the  merger are fixed, an all stock or
all-cash election may be subject to proration.  Providence Journal shareholders
must make their elections by February 18, 1997, at 4 p.m. Central Standard Time
at the offices of The First National Bank of Boston (Corporate Agency and
Reorganization), P.O. Box 1889 - Mail Stop 45-02-53, Boston, Massachusetts
02105.

         The companies will hold their shareholder meetings to vote on the
proposed merger on February 19, 1997.  The transaction is expected to close as
soon as possible thereafter, when all conditions to the merger have been
satisfied.





                                       6
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. JOSE VAZQUEZ-R

AM IREZ, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-10036

D.C . 4:13-c r-00877-JGZ-B GM M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Je nnife r G. Zipps, District Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 17, 2015 * * B e fore : O’ SC ANNLAIN, LEAVY, a n d FER N ANDEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Jose Va z que z -R am ire za

ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a n d c ha lle nge s his jury -tria l c onvic t ion a nd 63-m onth se nte nc e for re e ntry a fte r de porta tion, in viola

tion of 8 U.S.C . § 1326. Pursua nt to Ande rs v . C

alifornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Va

z que z -R a m ire z ’ s c ounse l ha s file d a brie f sta ting tha t the re are 

# FIL ED FEB 24 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).no grounds for re lie f, a long with a m otion to withdra

w a s c ounse l of re c ord. Va z que z -R am ire z ha s file d a pro se supple m e nta l brie f. No a nswe ring brie f ha s be e n file d . Our indepe nde nt re v i e w of there c ord pursua nt to Pe nson v . Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), disc lose s no a rgua ble grounds for re lie f on dire c t a ppe a l. W e de c lineto re vie wVa z que z -R am ire z ’ s pro seine ffe c t ive a s sista nc e of c ounse l c la im

on dire c t a

ppe a l be c a

use this is not one

of the “unusua l c a s e s whe re (1) the re c ord on a

ppe a l is suffic ie ntly

de v e lope d to pe rm it de te rm ination of the issue , or (2) thele g a l re pre se ntation is so ina de quate tha

t it obviously

de n ie s a de fe nda nt his Sixth Ame ndm e nt right to c ounse l.” Unite d State s v . Rahman , 642 F.3d 1257, 1260 (9th C ir. 2011). C ounse l’ s m otion to withdra w is G RANT E D . AFFIRM E D.

1 4 - 1 0 0 3 6 2
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 18 (Friday, January 26, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 5227]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-01591]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL OP-OFA-107]


Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information 202-564-5632 or https://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Filed January 12, 2024 10 a.m. EST Through January 22, 2024 10 a.m. EST
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

    Notice: Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make 
public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's 
comment letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxapps.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-II/public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20240007, Revised Draft, USAF, CA, KC-46A Main Operating Base 5 
Beddown, Comment Period Ends: 03/11/2024, Contact: Austin Naranjo 478-
222-9225.
EIS No. 20240008, Final, USACE, FL, North of Lake Okeechobee Storage 
Reservoir Section 203 Study, Review Period Ends: 02/26/2024, Contact: 
Dr. Gretchen Ehlinger 904-232-1665.
EIS No. 20240009, Draft, NMFS, AK, Issuance of an Incidental Take 
Statement under the Endangered Species Act for Salmon Fisheries in 
Southeast Alaska Subject to the 2019 Pacific Salmon Treaty Agreement 
and Funding to the State of Alaska to Implement the 2019 Pacific Salmon 
Treaty Agreement, Comment Period Ends: 03/11/2024, Contact: Kelly Cates 
907-586-7221.
EIS No. 20240010, Final, USFS, UT, Ashley National Forest Land 
Management Plan Revision, Review Period Ends: 02/26/2024, Contact: 
Anastasia Allen 406-270-9241.
EIS No. 20240011, Draft, USACE, CA, San Francisco Waterfront Coastal 
Flood Study, CA, Comment Period Ends: 03/29/2024, Contact: Melinda 
Fisher 918-669-7423.
EIS No. 20240012, Draft, NOAA, WA, Expenditure of Funds to Increase 
Prey Availability for Southern Resident Killer Whales, Comment Period 
Ends: 03/11/2024, Contact: Lance Kruzic 541-802-3728.

    Amended Notice:

EIS No. 20230179, Third Draft Supplemental, USACE, CA, American River 
Common Features, 2016 Flood Risk Management Project, Sacramento, 
California Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Subsequent 
Environmental Impact Report XIV, Comment Period Ends: 02/23/2024, 
Contact: Guy Romine 916-496-4646.

    Revision to FR Notice Published 12/22/2023; Extending the Comment 
Period from 02/05/2024 to 02/23/2024.

    Dated: January 23, 2024.
Julie Smith,
Acting Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal 
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2024-01591 Filed 1-25-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P