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





Certifications
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350





The
undersigned, who are the chief executive officer and the chief financial officer
of Synalloy Corporation, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his
knowledge, the accompanying Form 10-Q of the issuer fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and that information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
issuer.











Date:May 12,
      2009
            s/Ronald H.
      BraamRonald
      H. Braam
              Chief
      Executive Officers/Gregory M.
      BowieGregory
      M. Bowie
              Vice
      President, Finance and Chief Financial
Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Veterans Affairs

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Veterans Affairs National Research Advisory Council will meet at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, Continental Room, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004, on November 13, 2000, from 10 to 11:30 a.m. and 1:30 to 3 p.m. The agenda for the first session of the inaugural meeting will include the history and overview of the policies of VA research, followed by a background session on the challenges for the direction of the research and development program as related to policy, research centers, staffing, and operations. Established by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the purpose of the Council is to provide external advice and review for VA's research mission. Those planning to attend the open meeting should contact Ms. Sandra Young, Office of Research and Development at (202) 273-8284.

Dated: October 24, 2000.

Marvin R. Eason,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-27960  Filed 10-30-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SANTOS M ELVIN M ENDOZAM EJANO, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 10-73441 Age n c y No. A098-434-275 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d M arc h 10, 2015 ** B e fore : FARRIS, WARDLAW , a nd PAEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Santos M e lvin M e ndoz a -M e ja no, a native and c itiz e n of El Sa lva dor, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a

ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c ision de ny ing his a pplic ation for a s y lum , withholding of rem ova l, a nd prote c tion unde r the 

# F IL ED MAR 18 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 e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C .

§ 1252. W e de ny in pa

rt a nd gra nt in pa rt the pe tition for re vie w, a nd we re m and. M e ndoz a -M e

ja no doe s not c ha lle nge the B IA’ s finding tha t he a ba ndone d his C AT c la i m . Se e Martine z-Se rrano v . IN

S , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th C ir. 1996) (issue s not supporte d by

argum e nt a

re de e m e d wa ive d). Thus, wede ny the pe tition for re vie w a s to his C AT c la im . In de ny ing M e ndoz a -M e

ja no’ s a sy l um

and withholding of re

m ova l c la im s, the a ge nc y found he fa i le d to e sta blish pa st pe rse c ution or a fe a r of future pe rse c ution on a c c ount of a prote c te d ground. W

he n the IJ a

nd B IA issue d the ir de c isions in this c a se , the y did not ha

ve the be ne fit of this c ourt’ s de c isions in He nrique z-Riv as v . Holde r , 707 F.3d 1081 (9th C ir. 2013) (e n ba nc ), C ordoba v
. Holde r , 726 F.3d 1106 (9th C ir. 2013), a n d Pirir-Boc v . Holde r , 750 F.3d 1077 (9th C ir. 2014), or theB IA’ s de c isions in Matte r of M-E-V-G- , 26 I. & N. De c . 227 (B IA 2014), a

nd Matte r of W

-G-R- , 26 I. & N. De c . 208 (B IA 2014). Thus, we re m and M e ndoz a -M e

ja no’ s a sy lum

and withholding of re

m ova l c l a im s to de te rm i ne the im

pa c t, if a ny , of the se de c isions. Se e IN S v . Ve ntura , 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (pe r c uriam ). In light of this re m and, we do not re a c h M e ndoz a M e j ano’ s re m a ining c ha lle nge s to thea ge nc y ’ s de nia l of a sy lum and withholding of re m ova l.
1 0 - 7 3 4 4 1 2Ea c h pa rty sha ll be a r its own c osts for this petition for re vie w . PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; G RANT E D in par t; RE M A NDE D.

1 0 - 7 3 4 4 1 3
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed February 6, 2019. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearin g.

________________ No. 3D18-1897 Lower Tribunal No. 17-8390

________________ 

### Andres Sultan Osechas, Petitioner,

vs. 

### Sarah Correa Arcila, Respondent.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose M. Rodriguez, Judge. Wicker Smith O'Hara McCoy & Ford, P.A. and Alyssa M. Reiter an d Brandon J. Hechtman (Fort Lauderdale), for petitioner. Michael T. Flanagan; James C. Blecke, for respondent.

Before SALTER, FERNANDEZ and SCALES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Petition denied.2 Andres Sultan Osechas v. Sarah Correa Arcila Case No. 3D18-1897 SCALES, J. specially concurring.

I concur in the denial of the petition because the limitations of our review – i.e., the exacting certiorari standard – require this result. At the risk, though, of sounding like a broken record, 1 I again encourage the Florida Bar’s Appellate Rules Committee to consider adding to the schedule of non-final appea lable orders found in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3) those orders granting leave to amend a complaint to add punitive damages. Given how such inter locutory orders materially alter the course of civil litigation, I fail to see how the certiorari standard is more appropriate than an appellate standard. TRG Desert Inn Venture, Ltd. v. Berezovsky, 194 So.3d 516, 520 n.5 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016); Levin v Pritchard, No. 3D17-2711 *2 n.4 (Fla. 3d DCA Oct. 31, 2018).

1 Primitive people used to listen to music on things called “rec ords” made of vinyl. The record revolved on a platter called a “turntable,” and a “s tylus” would magically convert into music the hidden indentations in the grooves of su ch records. Upon encountering a dust particle embedded in such a groove, the sty lus would become temporarily unseated from the groove. Because of the turntable’ s revolution, when the stylus reconnected with the groove, the listener would hear the same portion of the music heard immediately prior to the stylus encountering th e dust particle. Hence, the same music repeated over and over until th e dust particle became dislodged or the listener manually adjusted the stylus. The agg ravated listener often referred to the record containing dusty grooves as a “broken re cord.”
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           3,572
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          20,300
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 9,134
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          46,809
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            47,535
<LOANS>                                        181,969
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,034
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 269,795
<DEPOSITS>                                     220,805
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,588
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        61,166
<OTHER-SE>                                      46,037
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  46,098
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 13,463
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,691
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 1,657
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                18,810
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               9,857
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,867
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            8,943
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      119
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  7,013
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,721
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,721
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,648
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.42
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,112
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   978
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      278
<RECOVERIES>                                       215
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,034
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,034
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Energy East Exhibit 10-4 2005 10-K



Exhibit 10-4



AMENDMENT NO. 2

TO

THE ENERGY EAST CORPORATION

DIRECTOR SHARE PLAN 



 

         The Energy East Corporation Director Share Plan (the "Plan") is hereby amended effective, June 8, 2006, pursuant to Article IX thereof, as follows:

         1.  Section VI. Plan Grants is revised to read in its entirety as follows:
"Commencing July 1, 2006 and on each January 1, April 1, July 1, and October 1 thereafter, 625 Phantom Shares will be granted to each Director who is a Plan Participant as of that date."




         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Energy East Corporation hereby executes this Amendment as of the 23rd day of February, 2006.


















	 	
ENERGY EAST CORPORATION





	
  /s/Michelle Taylor                           

      Witness
	
By:   /s/Richard R. Benson                    

            Richard R. Benson

            Vice President and

            Chief Administrative Officer
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23.  Consent of Independent Accountants

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-45249 and 333-45251) and on Form S-3 (No.
333-63060) of Getty Realty Corp. of our report dated February 3, 2003 relating
to the financial statements, which appears in the Annual Report to Shareholders,
which is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also consent to the
incorporation by reference of our report dated February 3, 2003 relating to the
financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers

New York, New York
March 27, 2003
#### STILES v. STATE.

No. 22957.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 15, 1944.

Percy Foreman, of Houston, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for possessing marihuana, punishment assessed being two years in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without bills of exception or statement of facts.

Appellant filed a very lengthy motion to quash the jury panel, alleging that they had not been properly summoned in that they were summoned by ordinary one cent postal cards; that the sheriff had not used due diligence in serving all prospective jurors drawn from the jury wheel, and that the judge had arbitrarily and illegally excused some 25 men from those summoned. The State controverted appellant’s motion. There appears in the record and agreed stipulation between the State and appellant that after recognizing all legal excuses of those who did actually appear there yet remained a sufficient number to constitute a jury panel of 32 jurors for each of the two criminal district courts with a surplusage of 16. Said stipulation further contains the statement that “No juror was excused by the court except for legal cause satisfactory to the court.”

We observe that the record wholly fails to show if any of the jurors who were present served on the jury that tried appellant. McDonald v. State, 97 Tex.Cr. R. 200, 260 S.W. 850; Lenox v. State, 144 Tex.Cr.R. 226, 161 S.W.2d 1085.

Neither does appellant show that any objectionable juror was forced upon him if the jury was selected from the panel complained of. Parish v. State, 145 Tex. Cr.R. 117, 165 S.W.2d 748. See also Walker v. State, 104 Tex.Cr.R. 207, 283 S.W. 787.

The judgment is affirmed.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-30462

Summary Calendar

 

MOSE A. REED, JR.,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

HARRY CONNICK, District Attorney,

Parish of Orleans;

TERRY TERRELL, Warden;

RICHARD IEYOUB, Attorney General,

State of Louisiana, 

Respondents-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 97-CV-3160-F

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

August 9, 2000 

Before JOLLY, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mose A. Reed, Louisiana prisoner #82880, appeals from the

dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely. He

contends that his third application for state post-conviction

relief served to toll the one-year limitations period imposed by

the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA).

State prisoners attacking convictions or sentences that

became final prior to the AEDPA’s April 24, 1996, effective date
No. 98-30462

-2-

have a one-year grace period, commencing on that date, within

which to file for federal habeas relief. See Flanagan v.

Johnson, 154 F.3d 196, 200 n.2 (5th Cir. 1998). Reed’s

conviction became final in 1989. See R. 140. He was therefore

required to file his § 2254 petition no later than April 24,

1997. See Flanagan, 154 F.3d at 200 & n.2.

Pursuant to § 2244(d)(2), however, the time during which a

“properly filed” application for state habeas relief with respect

to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending does not count

toward the AEDPA’s one-year limitations period. See

§ 2244(d)(2); Fields v. Johnson, 159 F.3d 914, 916 (5th Cir.

1998). Under our recent decision in Smith v. Ward, which the

district court did not have the benefit of, Reed’s third

application for state post-conviction relief was “properly filed”

for the purposes of § 2244(d)(2) even though it was dismissed as

untimely under La. Code Crim. Proc. art. 930.8. See 209 F.3d

383, 384-85 (5th Cir. 2000). Consequently, this third

application for state post-conviction relief tolled the

limitations period with 163 days remaining and extended the

deadline for filing Reed’s § 2254 petition until May 25, 1998. 

Reed’s petition, filed on September 14, 1997, is therefore

timely. Accordingly, we VACATE the district court’s dismissal of

his petition and REMAND.

VACATED AND REMANDED.
Exhibit 23  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-121325, 333-115970, 333-115972, 333-113322, 333-106365, 333-110672, 333-81670, 333-73764, 333-65520, 333-53142, 333-42680, 333-78239, 333-74781, 333-55761 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 333-91381 on Form S-3, and Registration Statement No. 333-75069 on Form S-1 of The ServiceMaster Company and subsidiaries of our reports dated February 26, 2007, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule of The ServiceMaster Company and subsidiaries, and managements report on the effectiveness of the internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of The ServiceMaster Company and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2006.  /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP Chicago, Illinois February 26, 2007
#### HILMAR EHRMANN & COMPANY, Inc., appellant, v. WILLETT DISTILLING COMPANY, a corporation, appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 28, 1954.

Louis Lusky, Louisville, for appellant.

Millard Cox, Louisville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This case comes within the purview of KRS 21.080. It involves the use of “Cream *947of Nelson”, a tradename for whisky, a contract for the use thereof for a period of time, an injunction against the continued use thereof, and a cash judgment for $419.-60 and the refusal of an accounting.

Finding no error, the motion for an appeal is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 17

- 00382

- CV

CCPA E NTERPRISES

, I NC

. AND R ICKEY

C ONRADT

, Appellants

V

.

B EDFORD H OSPITALITY I NVESTMENTS

, LLC D / B / A H OLIDAY I NN

- B EDFORD

, Appellee §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 348th District Court

of Tarrant Coun ty ( 348

- 237051

- 09)

October 31, 2019

Opinion by Justice Kerr

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is a ffirmed.

It is further ordered that Appellant s CCPA Enterprises, Inc. and Rickey

Conradt shall join tly and separately pay all of the costs of this appeal, for which let

execution issue.SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _ /s/ Elizabeth Kerr

_______________ ___ Justic e Elizabeth Kerr
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3376 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3376

 To provide a 12-month exemption from the health insurance mandate for 
individuals whose employer-sponsored health plan coverage or individual 
   health insurance coverage is terminated for a plan year beginning 
                  during 2014, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 29, 2013

    Mr. Long (for himself, Mr. Meehan, Mr. Calvert, and Mr. Bachus) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide a 12-month exemption from the health insurance mandate for 
individuals whose employer-sponsored health plan coverage or individual 
   health insurance coverage is terminated for a plan year beginning 
                  during 2014, 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 ``Fairness for Lost Coverage Act of 
2013''.

SEC. 2. 12-MONTH EXEMPTION FROM ACA MANDATE FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO LOSE 
              HEALTH PLAN OR INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR THE PLAN YEAR 
              BEGINNING DURING 2014.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in the 
case of an applicable individual (as defined in subsection (b)), none 
of the 12 months beginning with the first month of the loss of coverage 
described in subsection (b)(2) shall be taken into account in applying 
section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
    (b) Applicable Individual Defined.--In subsection (a), the term 
``applicable individual'' means an individual who--
            (1) has coverage (whether as a principal or dependent of 
        another individual) under an employer-sponsored health plan or 
        individual health insurance coverage for the last month of a 
        plan year beginning during 2013; and
            (2) loses such coverage beginning with the first month of 
        the subsequent plan year because of the termination of such 
        plan or insurance coverage and not because of the termination 
        or change of employment of the individual or the individual's 
        failure to pay premiums or other reasons within the control of 
        the individual.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7256 

DUANE H. MANNING,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLES MOLONY

CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South

Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.

(CA-02-4062-9-25)

Submitted: December 18, 2003 Decided: January 15, 2004

Before LUTTIG, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Duane H. Manning, Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Duane H. Manning seeks to appeal the district court’s

order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An

appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and

that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are

also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Manning has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED