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





               CERTIFICATION 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 Annual Report of Integrated Data Corp (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2006, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Abe Carmel, 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; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of
          operations of Integrated Data Corp.


Date:  December 28, 2007        By:  /s/ Abe Carmel
                                     --------------
                                     Abe Carmel
                                     Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Integrated Data Corp. and
will be retained by Integrated Data Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 9 , 2024.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 24

- 00411

- CV

IN RE TELGE ROOFING , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS 165th District Court Harris County, Texas Tri a l Court Cause No. 2020

- 46142



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

On Friday, June 7, 2024 , relator Telge Roofing , Inc. filed a petition for writ

of m andamus in this c ourt. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this c ourt to compel th e Honorable Ursula

Hall
, presiding judge of the 165th District Court of Harris County
, to rule on

relator ’ s motion for summary judgment.2 Relator has filed a motion to withdraw its petition for writ of mandamus because the parties ha ve se t tled. We grant the motion and dismiss the petition.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Poissant.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § CASE NO.: 3:22-CR-305-X

§

MARCUS EVANS (01) §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

MARCUS EVANS, by consent, under authority of United States v. Dees, 125 F.3d 261 (5th Cir. 1997), has 

appeared before me pursuant to Fed. R. Crim.P. 11, and has entered a plea of guilty to Count(s) One of the Information0. 

After cautioning and examining MARCUS EVANS under oath concerning each of the subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I 

determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable and voluntary and that the offense(s) charged is supported by an 

independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of such offense. I therefore recommend that the plea of 

guilty be accepted, and that MARCUS EVANS be adjudged guilty of False Statements Relating to Health Care Matters and 

Aiding and Abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1035 and 2 and have sentence imposed accordingly. After being found 

guilty of the offense(s) by the district judge, 

☐ The defendant is currently in custody and should be ordered to remain in custody. 

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1) unless the Court finds by clear and 

convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community 

if released.

☐ The Government does not oppose release.

☐ The defendant has been compliant with the current conditions of release. 

☐ I find by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other 

person or the community if released and should therefore be released under § 3142(b) or (c). 

☐ The Government opposes release.

☐ The defendant has not been compliant with the conditions of release. 

☐ If the Court accepts this recommendation, this matter should be set for hearing upon motion of the 

Government.

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) unless (1)(a) the Court finds there is a 

substantial likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial will be granted, or (b) the Government has 

recommended that no sentence of imprisonment be imposed, or (c) exceptional circumstances are clearly shown 

under § 3145(c) why the defendant should not be detained, and (2) the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence 

that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released. 

Date: 4th day of October, 2022. 

 ______________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE

Failure to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days from the date of its service 

shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking such Report and Recommendation before the assigned United States District 

Judge. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B). 

Case 3:22-cr-00305-X Document 11 Filed 10/04/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 25
EXHIBIT 34.1





ATTESTATION REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH


SERVICING CRITERIA FOR ASSET-BACKED SECURITIES





REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





To the Board of Directors and Shareholders


Entergy New Orleans, Inc.


New Orleans, Louisiana





We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Servicing Criteria For Asset-Backed Securities, that Entergy New Orleans, Inc. (the "Company") complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB applicable for Entergy New Orleans Storm Recovery Funding I, L.L.C.’s Senior Secured Storm Recovery Bonds (the “Securities”) as of December 31, 2015 and for the period July 22, 2015 through December 31, 2015, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(ii), (1)(iii), (1)(iv), (2)(iii), (2)(vi), (4)(iii), (4)(v), (4)(ix), (4)(x), (4)(xi), (4)(xii), (4)(xiii), and (4)(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the Securities.  Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination.





Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria, including tests on a sample basis of the servicing activities related to the Securities, determining whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria during the specified period, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were limited to selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Further, an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report.  We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.





In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of December 31, 2015 and for the period July 22, 2015 through December 31, 2015 for Entergy New Orleans Storm Recovery Funding I, L.L.C.’s Senior Secured Storm Recovery Bonds is fairly stated, in all material respects.





/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP


New Orleans, Louisiana


March 29, 2016
Case 4:22-cr-00038-O Document 69 Filed 04/20/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 149
Case 4:22-cr-00038-O Document 69 Filed 04/20/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 150
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-10240

Summary Calendar

BETHY JANETTE BURTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

REAGAN COUNTY; TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND

PROTECTIVE SERVICES - Adult Protective Services; MHMR SERVICES

FOR THE CONCHO VALLEY; BIG SPRING STATE HOSPITAL,

Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:10-CV-64

Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Bethy Burton appeals the district court’s order denying her three motions

and dismissing her case with prejudice because her claims were frivolous. 

Burton’s complaint, premised upon 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleged that during and

before 2004, the defendants violated her constitutional rights, as well as state

and federal law. The violations alleged by Burton include that she was subject

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 14, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 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.

Case: 11-10240 Document: 00511601925 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/14/2011
No. 11-10240

to “a plurality of United States Bill of Rights Violations,” church/state violations,

bias crime, forced exile, animal cruelty, and cruel and unusual punishment.

The district court found that Burton’s allegations were “wholly frivolous

in both law and fact[,]” as they were “either not actionable under any set of facts

or not actionable in a federal court of limited jurisdiction.” Burton’s claims, the

district court added, were also time-barred by Texas state law. The district court

accordingly denied Burton’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), for

appointment of counsel, and for service of process by U.S. Marshal, and

dismissed her case with prejudice.

We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal of a complaint

as frivolous. Macias v. Raul A. (Unknown), Badge No. 153, 23 F.3d 94, 97 (5th

Cir. 1994). An IFP proceeding may be dismissed if the complaint “lacks an

arguable basis in law or fact.” Id.; see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The district

court has broad discretion in making its determination that a complaint is

frivolous. Macias, 23 F.3d at 97.

Burton argues “[t]he Complaint pleadings were not malicious or frivolous[,

n]either were any delusions presented to the Court.” Burton further argues that

“[t]he facts are not ‘fantastic’ . . . and the ‘legal theory’ is relevant.” Burton fails,

however, to explain why her complaint is not deficient. Instead, her appellate

briefs are conclusory, confirming that her claims are frivolous. See Pedraza v.

Meyer, 919 F.2d 317, 318 n.1 (5th Cir.1990).

Largely for the reasons articulated by the district court, it was not an

abuse of discretion to deny Burton’s motions and dismiss her case with prejudice.

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 11-10240 Document: 00511601925 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/14/2011
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

FIRST AMENDMENT 
 TO THE

 AMENDED AND RESTATED 

DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN #2 

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT (the “Amendment”) is adopted this 29th day of August, 2015, by Peoples Security Bank and Trust Company (the
“Employer”). 
 WHEREAS, the Bank adopted the Amended and Restated Deferred Compensation Plan #2 on April 22, 2014 (the
“Plan”) to provide deferred compensation benefits to one of the Employer’s executives, Craig Best (the “Executive”); and 

WHEREAS, the Bank now wishes to amend the Plan to make additional Contributions on behalf of the Executive and make other changes as well;

 NOW, THEREFORE, the Bank adopts the following amendments to the Plan: 

Section 2.1 of the Plan shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced by the following: 

2.1 Contributions Generally. The Employer shall contribute the following amounts, at the following times, to the Contribution
Account described in Article 3. 
  

					
	 Date
	  	Contribution	 
	 January 1, 2011
	  	$	61,375	  
	 August 1, 2011
	  	$	60,000	  
	 August 1, 2012
	  	$	60,000	  
	 August 1, 2013
	  	$	60,000	  
	 August 1, 2014
	  	$	60,000	  
	 September 1, 2015
	  	$	80,258	  
	 August 1, 2016
	  	$	80,000	  
	 August 1, 2017
	  	$	80,000	  
	 August 1, 2018
	  	$	80,000	  
	 August 1, 2019
	  	$	80,000	  

 Section 4.5 of the Plan shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced by the following:

 4.5 Termination for Cause. If the Employer terminates the Executive’s employment for Cause, then the Executive shall
forfeit any right to future Contributions under Section 2.1 or interest under Section 3.1. 
 Section 8.1 of the Plan shall be
deleted in its entirety and replaced by the following: 
 8.1 Amendment. Except as provided below, this Agreement may be
amended only by a written agreement signed by both the Employer and the Executive. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Agreement may be amended by the Employer at any time, if found necessary in the opinion of the Employer, i) to ensure that the
Agreement is characterized as plan of deferred compensation maintained for a select group of management or highly compensated employees as described under ERISA, ii) to conform the Agreement to the requirements of any applicable law or iii) to
comply with the written instructions of the Employer’s auditors or banking regulators. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, a duly authorized representative of the Employer has signed this Amendment.

  

			
	EMPLOYER
	Peoples Security Bank and Trust Company
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Michael L. Jake

	Title:	 	 Executive Vice President



  

	
	Acknowledged:
	
	 /s/ Craig Best

	Craig Best
United States District Court

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 3:22-CR-00308-S

§

DEMONTRE BRADLEY (1) §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

DEMONTRE BRADLEY (1), by consent, under authority of United States v. Dees, 125 F.3d 261 (5th Cir. 1997), 

has appeared before me pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 11, and has entered a plea of guilty to Count One of the Indictment. 

After cautioning and examining DEMONTRE BRADLEY (1) under oath concerning each of the subjects mentioned in 

Rule 11, I determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable and voluntary and that the offense charged is supported by an 

independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of such offense. I therefore recommend that the plea of 

guilty be accepted, and that DEMONTRE BRADLEY (1) be adjudged guilty of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2), 

Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon and have sentence imposed accordingly. After being found guilty of the 

offense by the District Judge: 

☐ The Defendant is currently in custody and should be ordered to remain in custody. 

☐ The Defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1) unless the Court finds by clear and 

convincing evidence that the Defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community 

if released.

☐ The Government does not oppose release.

☐ The Defendant has been compliant with the current conditions of release. 

☐ I find by clear and convincing evidence that the Defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other 

person or the community if released and should therefore be released under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(b) or (c). 

☐ The Government opposes release.

☐ The Defendant has not been compliant with the conditions of release. 

☐ If the Court accepts this recommendation, this matter should be set for hearing upon motion of the 

Government.

☐ The Defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) unless: (1)(a) the Court finds there is 

a substantial likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial will be granted, or (b) the Government has 

recommended that no sentence of imprisonment be imposed, or (c) exceptional circumstances are clearly shown 

under § 3145(c) why the Defendant should not be detained; and (2) the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence 

that the Defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released. 

SIGNED December 8, 2022. 

 

 _____________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE

Failure to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days from the date of its 

service shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking such Report and Recommendation before the assigned United States 

District Judge. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B). 

Case 3:22-cr-00308-S Document 22 Filed 12/08/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 35
Case 3:22-cv-01220-S-BK Document 41 Filed 09/08/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 229
EX-10.31.2



 Exhibit 10.31.2 
  

			
	[LOGO HELLER]	  	 205 Mill Road

Edison, NJ 08837
 (732)
287-4880
 FAX (732) 287-5033

	I. Heller	  

 February 2, 2001 
 Joshen
Paper and Packaging Company 
 5808 Grant Avenue 
 Cuyahoga
Heights, Ohio 44105 
  

							
		  	RE: 	 	 Lease dated June 3, 1999
 97,194 Square
Foot Building
 49 Distribution Boulevard, Edison, NJ
	  	

 Gentlemen: 
 Enclosed herewith
please find two (2) executed copies of a Landlord Waiver and Subordination Agreement in favor of Bank One, N.A. for the above referenced location. 

In consideration of our granting the Landlord Waiver, you have agreed to increase the security deposit being held under the above Lease from $123,436.00 to
$154,370.00. 
 Accordingly, Section 27.01(a) of the Lease is hereby amended by deleting “$123,436.00” stated therein and replacing same with
“$154,370.00”. 
 By their signatures below, Landlord and Tenant hereby acknowledge that this letter shall be deemed to represent a First
Amendment to Lease; and all of the applicable terms and conditions of the Lease dated June 3, 1999 shall remain in full force and effect throughout the Term of the Lease, and any extensions thereof. 

This letter shall also serve to acknowledge Landlord’s receipt of Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit No. STR17262 dated January 11, 2001 in the
amount of $154.370.00 and Amendment to Letter of Credit dated January 26, 2001 issued by Bank One, N.A. 
 Please signify your agreement with the above
by signing all four (4) copies of this letter where indicated below, and return same to us. Two (2) fully signed copies of this agreement will then be returned to you for your files. 

 

									
	ATTEST:	 		  	 HELLER, ALPER, ROBERTS, VOLK – EDISON, 

    LANDLORD

    by: HELLER INDUSTRIAL PARKS, INC., 

          Manager

					
	/s/ Steven I. Kaufman	 		  		  	by:	  	/s/ Jeffrey J. Milanaik
	Steven I. Kaufman                                 Secretary	 		  		  		  	Jeffrey J. Milanaik                             President
			
	ATTEST:	 		  	 JOSHEN PAPER AND PACKAGING COMPANY, 

TENANT

					
	/s/ Joseph Munro	 		  		  	by:	  	/s/ Bob Reiner
	Joseph Munro, CFO	 		  		  		  	 Bob Reiner, President
  

Ingenuity in distribution center site location and construction.
Case 3:22-cr-00145-M Document 657 Filed 10/15/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID 2213
- 1 -

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

SONDREA MILLER §

§

 Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 4:22-CV-00457-O

§

TARRANT COUNTY §

§

 Defendant. §

ORDER REQUIRING SETTLEMENT PAPERS

Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Status Report and Motion to Stay (ECF No. 65), filed 

May 9, 2023. The parties indicate they have reached a settlement agreement in principal. As such, 

the Court ORDERS the parties to file the appropriate settlement papers—a stipulation of dismissal 

under FED.R.CIV. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) or an agreed motion with corresponding proposed order under 

FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(2)—no later than July 10, 2023. The parties’ trial setting shall remain on 

the Court’s four-week docket until appropriate settlement papers are filed. All other case deadlines 

are stayed. If the parties are unable to file the appropriate settlement papers by the assigned date, 

or if further proceedings become necessary, the parties shall immediately file a Joint Status Report 

with the Court, but not later than July 10, 2023. 

SO ORDERED this 9th day of May, 2023. 

Case 4:22-cv-00457-O Document 66 Filed 05/09/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 578
103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 315

JOINT RESOLUTION

Designating May 30, 1994, through June 6, 1994, as a

‘‘Time for the National Observance of the Fiftieth Anniversary of World War II’’.

Whereas the brave men and women of the United States of

America made tremendous sacrifices during World War

II to save the world from tyranny and aggression;

Whereas the winds of freedom and democracy sweeping the

globe today spring from the principles for which over four

hundred thousand Americans gave their lives in World

War II;
2

HJ 315 EH

Whereas World War II and the events that led up to that war

must be understood in order that we may better understand our own times, and more fully appreciate the reasons why eternal vigilance against any form of tyranny

is so important;

Whereas the World War II era, as reflected in its family life,

industry, and entertainment, was a unique period in

American history and epitomized our Nation’s philosophy

of hard work, courage, and tenacity in the face of adversity;

Whereas, between 1991 and 1995, over nine million American veterans of World War II will be holding reunions

and conferences and otherwise commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of various events relating to World War

II; and

Whereas June 4, 1994, marks the anniversary of the Battle

of Midway, and June 6, 1994, marks the anniversary of

D-Day: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That May 30, 1994, through June 6, 1994, is designated

4 as a ‘‘Time for the National Observance of the Fiftieth

5 Anniversary of World War II’’, and the President is au6 thorized and requested to issue a proclamation calling on
3

HJ 315 EH

1 the people of the United States to observe that period with

2 appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Passed the House of Representatives May 24, 1994.

Attest:

Clerk.
103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 315

JOINT RESOLUTION

Designating May 30, 1994, through June 6, 1994,

Fiftieth Anniversary of World War II’’.as a ‘‘Time for the National Observance of the