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

 

**Certification of Principal Executive Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**

 

I, Thomas F. August, President and Chief Executive Officer, of Prentiss Properties Trust (the “Registrant”), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S. C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”): 

 

(1) The Report fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. Section 78m(a) or Section78o(d)); and 

 

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

 

/s/ Thomas F. August 

Thomas F. August 

President & Chief Executive Officer 

August 14, 2003 

 

STATE OF TEXAS§ 

COUNTY OF DALLAS§ 

 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 14th day of August, 2003. 

 

/s/Lana Mann

Lana Mann 

August 14, 2003 

 

Notary Public 

My Commission Expires: 5/26/2005 

Official Seal 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, **or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906,** has been provided to the Issuer and will be retained by the Issuer and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711

December 1, 2014

Dear Tribal Leader:

On November 25, 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA) p roposed to strengthen the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ground

- level ozone, based on extensive scientific evidence about ozone’s effects on public health and welfare. The EPA’s proposal finds that the current

level of the primary and secondary standard s

– 75 ppb

– is not adequate to protect either public health or public welfare. The purpose of this letter is to invite you to consult on this proposal.

The EPA is proposing to update the 8

- hour primary ozone standard, to protect public health, within a range from 65 to 70 ppb. The proposed update will improve public health protection, particularly for children, the elderly, and people of all ages who have lung diseases such as asthma.

The EPA is also proposing to establish a secondary standard to provide protection against cumulative

ozone exposure that can damage plants and trees and cause other harmful effects in e cosystems. To achieve this level of protection, the EPA is proposing to set an 8

- hour secon dary standard within the

ranges of 65 to 70 ppb.

The proposal will also expand the ozone monitoring season for many states, and will update the Air Quality Index to ensure people are notified when air quality is unhealthy.

F or more information on the rule, including the proposal, th e Regulatory Impact Analysis, and a variety of fact sheets, please visit: http://www.epa.gov/glo

.

The EPA will accept comment for 9 0 days after the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register

. Publication is expected to be in mid

- December. The EPA will also hold three public hearing s in late January or early February 2015. We will announce the locations of these hearings in a separate forthcoming Federal Register notice. In addition, w e will be available to d iscuss the proposed rev isions in other settings

, including during the N ational Tribal Air Association call on December 18, 2014 and we will schedule an informational meeting during January 2015.

The EPA expects the proposed rule to improve environmental protection within Indian country and nationwide and does not believe the proposed rule will have adverse implications for tribes. However, to ensure that your lands and interests are protected, we are offering to consult with you or your designee should yo u desire . We welcome any additional information about the standards or potential impacts you

would like to share. If you desire government

- to

- government consultation with the EPA, we kindly request that you notify us by January 30 , 2015, by contacting Toni Colón at (919) 541

- 0069; e

- mail: colon.toni@epa.gov

. OFFICE OF
AIR QUALITY PLANNING

AND STANDARDSWe endeavor to conduct our efforts with s ensitivity to the needs and culture of your tribe and with

attention to the potential effect of our actions

. We look forward to receiving your input.

Sincerely,

/s/

Erika N. Sasser

Director Health and Environmental Impacts Division

cc: Tribal Environmental Director

Tribal Environmental Staff
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 3 , 2014 

# Order

Clerk March 3 , 2014

146478 ( 10 9 )

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 146478

v COA: 307758

St. Clair CC: 06

- 001700

- FC

RAYMOND CURTIS CARP,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 146819

v COA: 314080

Wayne CC: 94

- 002089

- 01

- FC

CORTEZ ROLAND DAVIS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the Ad Hoc Committee Comprised of

Former Officials of the Michigan Department of Corrections, Correctio nal, Penological,

Public Safety and Mental Health Organizations Together with Individual Experts for

leave to file an amicus curiae brief is GRANTED. The amicus brief submitted on

February 20, 2014, is accepted for filing.
#### MILLS v. STATE.

No. 19637.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 19, 1938.

W. D. Hollars, of Vernon, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Conviction is for possession of whisky on premises where the appellant was authorized by license to sell beer only; punishment, a fine of $100.

The record shows that on the 14th day of October, 1937, F. -J. Haynes, an agent of the Texas Liquor Control Board, accompanied by the sheriff of Wilbarger County, went to appellant’s place of business to make a search for whisky. It is further shown that adjoining his place of business' and attached to it, appellant had a room which was used by himself and his family as a residence. In this room was a bed, table, chairs, a cooking stove and groceries; the general and usual things to be found in a home. A wall separated this room from the business establishment. There was, however, a door leading from the living quarters into the place of business. On the day in question appellant was standing at a front door, the entrance to his place of business, when he saw the officers coming. He immediately latched the screen and retired hurriedly through the business establishment into.his living quarters. The officers, in order to gain admittance into the place of business, broke down the screen door which.appellant had latched. They walked through the place of business and the sheriff, through an open door, saw appellant in his private quarters destroying whisky. He stated that appellant was wet with The whisky. The sheriff and Haynes then entered and searched this room and recovered a number of broken bottles which had contained whisky. Appellant testified that he had destroyed only one pint of whisky, which he kept in the living quarters for medicinal purposes.

The only question that presents itself in this case is whether appellant — who admits that he had a pint of whisky in his .living quarters, in the same building but separated by a wall from his beer selling place of business, and connected by a door — was on the same premises as such beer tavern.

Vernon’s Ann.P.C., § 666 — 3a, defines the word “premises” as follows: “Premise shall mean the grounds as well as all buildings, vehicles and appurtenances pertaining thereto, and shall also include any adjacent premises, if directly or indirectly under the control of the same person.”

Under such definition it seems to us that according to appellant’s own testimony he had in his possession at and near his said beer tavern premises whisky, which is an offense denounced by the liquor statutes.

The question of an illegal search and seizure of appellant’s residence or living quarters does not enter into a determination of the case, and could have had no effect thereon in view of the appellant’s admission that he possessed a bottle of whisky at such living quarters. See Moore v. State, 133 Tex.Cr.R. 330, 112 S.W.2d 194.

The judgment is affirmed.
# ORIGINAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 24-0271
BRAD RAE RICHARDSON,

Petitioner and Appellant,

v. STATE OF MONTANA,

Respondent and Appellee. ORDER

# FILED MAY 2 3 2024 Bowen Greenwood ClerK of Supreme Court st ate of Montana This Court reviews briefs to ensure compliance with the Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure. After reviewing the Appellant's opening brief filed on May 22, 2024, this Court has determined that the briefdoes not comply with the Rules and must be resubmitted. The Appellant's openingbriefis premature, because under M. R. App. P. 13(1), an appellant shall file the opening briefwithin 30 days after the date on which the record is filed. Under M. R.App. P. 9, the record is deemed transmitted once the District Courtrecord and any necessary transcripts are filed with the Clerk ofthis Court. Because the record has not been transmitted from the District Court, the time for briefing has not yetbegun. Therefore, ITIS ORDERED that the Appellant's openingbriefisrejected; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the postage costs for returning the referenced copies ofAppellant's briefwill be billed to Appellant by the Clerk ofthis Court and shall be due and payable upon receipt; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Appellant's opening brief is due within 30 days after the date on which the record is filed and the times for any subsequent briefing contained in M. R. App. P. 13 shall run from the date of filing of the revised opening brief. The Clerk ofthis Court is directed to mail a true copy ofthis Order to Appellant and to mail a true copy ofthis Orderto all counsel upon whom the briefwas served. 05/23/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0271,-,

DATED this LS'

day ofMay, 2024. For the Court,

By Lo0 4 , '4" d

3 Justice
#### WILLIAMS v. STATE.

No. 20289.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 22, 1939.

M. W. Burch, of Decatur, and John L. Poulter, of Fort Worth, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

This is the second appeal of this case, the former appeal being found in 133 Tex. Cr.R. 536, 112 S.W.2d 475. In this case appellant was found guilty of an aggravated assault, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $35.

In his brief he complains because of the fact that he having been heretofore convicted of an assault to murder without malice, that upon this, his second appeal, he could only be tried for some kind of an assault without malice. That because of the peculiar wording of the indictment, he being therein charged with unlawfully, with his malice aforethought, making an assault upon O. Z. Thorrel with intent to kill the said O. Z. Thorrel, — that upon his former jury finding him guilty of such assault without malice, that that portion of the indictment was thereby eliminated from this case. That because of its thus being obliterated from the criminal charge, there is left naught but a charge of an assault to kill, which is an offense not known to the law, and therefore his motion to quash the indictment should have been granted.

His reasoning is rather involved, .but suffice it to say that he further admits, however, that it is necessary to eliminate the phrase “with malice aforethought” before his reasoning applies, but does contend' that the former verdict of an assault without malice operates to *494thus eliminate such phrase. In this we can not agree. The degrees of murder have been eliminated by our legislature when they enacted the present voluntary killing statute, and since said time we have consistently held that a conviction for murder without malice, in the event of the granting of a new trial, did not operate as an acquittal of murder with malice. See Herrera v. State, 117 Tex.Cr.R. 389, 36 S.W.2d 515; Ex parte Conway, 118 Tex. Cr.R. 148, 37 S.W.2d 1017; Chappell v. State, 124 Tex.Cr.R. 187, 61 S.W.2d 842; Hill v. State, 126 Tex.Cr.R. 79, 69 S.W.2d 409.

Appellant’s attorney also admits that an allegation that an assault to kill with malice charges an offense known to the law. Our statutes and decisions hold that a charge for an assault to murder carries with it a charge of. all inferior degrees of an assault. See Art. 69S, C.C.P.

We therefore think that the appellant was properly charged with the offense for which he was convicted, and that appellant’s motion should have been 'overruled.

Appellant filed a motion for a continuance of this cause on account of the absence of certain witnesses, which was by the court overruled. We find no bill of exceptions in the record relative to the ruling of the trial court thereon, and same can not be considered.

In a misdemeanor 'case no sentence is necessary, and therefore the attempt to sentence appellant, found in the transcript, it a nullity.

• Perceiving no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.
# Euroopa Liidu C 491/2016

| | ISSN 1977-0898 |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopa Liidu
  Teataja | C 491 |
| | |
| Eestikeelne väljaanne | Teave ja teatised | 59. köide31. detsember 2016 |

ISSN 1977-0898

Euroopa Liidu

Teataja

C 491

Eestikeelne väljaanne

Teave ja teatised

59. köide31. detsember 2016

---

| Teatis nr | Sisukord | Lehekülg |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Teave |
| | TEAVE EUROOPA LIIDU INSTITUTSIOONIDELT, ORGANITELT JA ASUTUSTELT |
| | Euroopa Komisjon |
| 2016/C 491/01 | Euro vahetuskurss | 1 |

Teatis nr

Sisukord

Lehekülg

IV   Teave

TEAVE EUROOPA LIIDU INSTITUTSIOONIDELT, ORGANITELT JA ASUTUSTELT

Euroopa Komisjon

2016/C 491/01

Euro vahetuskurss

1

---

| ET | Käesolev on viimane 2016. aasta C-seeria väljaanne. |
| --- | --- |

ET

Käesolev on viimane 2016. aasta C-seeria väljaanne.

---

IV Teave

TEAVE EUROOPA LIIDU INSTITUTSIOONIDELT, ORGANITELT JA ASUTUSTELT

Euroopa Komisjon

| 31.12.2016 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 491/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.12.2016

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 491/1

---

Euro vahetuskurss (1)

30. detsember 2016

(2016/C 491/01)

1 euro =

| | Valuuta | Kurss |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | USA dollar | 1,0541 |
| JPY | Jaapani jeen | 123,40 |
| DKK | Taani kroon | 7,4344 |
| GBP | Inglise nael | 0,85618 |
| SEK | Rootsi kroon | 9,5525 |
| CHF | Šveitsi frank | 1,0739 |
| ISK | Islandi kroon | |
| NOK | Norra kroon | 9,0863 |
| BGN | Bulgaaria leev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Tšehhi kroon | 27,021 |
| HUF | Ungari forint | 309,83 |
| PLN | Poola zlott | 4,4103 |
| RON | Rumeenia leu | 4,5390 |
| TRY | Türgi liir | 3,7072 |
| AUD | Austraalia dollar | 1,4596 |
| CAD | Kanada dollar | 1,4188 |
| HKD | Hongkongi dollar | 8,1751 |
| NZD | Uus-Meremaa dollar | 1,5158 |
| SGD | Singapuri dollar | 1,5234 |
| KRW | Korea vonn | 1 269,36 |
| ZAR | Lõuna-Aafrika rand | 14,4570 |
| CNY | Hiina jüaan | 7,3202 |
| HRK | Horvaatia kuna | 7,5597 |
| IDR | Indoneesia ruupia | 14 173,43 |
| MYR | Malaisia ringit | 4,7287 |
| PHP | Filipiini peeso | 52,268 |
| RUB | Vene rubla | 64,3000 |
| THB | Tai baat | 37,726 |
| BRL | Brasiilia reaal | 3,4305 |
| MXN | Mehhiko peeso | 21,7719 |
| INR | India ruupia | 71,5935 |

Valuuta

Kurss

USD

USA dollar

1,0541

JPY

Jaapani jeen

123,40

DKK

Taani kroon

7,4344

GBP

Inglise nael

0,85618

SEK

Rootsi kroon

9,5525

CHF

Šveitsi frank

1,0739

ISK

Islandi kroon

NOK

Norra kroon

9,0863

BGN

Bulgaaria leev

1,9558

CZK

Tšehhi kroon

27,021

HUF

Ungari forint

309,83

PLN

Poola zlott

4,4103

RON

Rumeenia leu

4,5390

TRY

Türgi liir

3,7072

AUD

Austraalia dollar

1,4596

CAD

Kanada dollar

1,4188

HKD

Hongkongi dollar

8,1751

NZD

Uus-Meremaa dollar

1,5158

SGD

Singapuri dollar

1,5234

KRW

Korea vonn

1 269,36

ZAR

Lõuna-Aafrika rand

14,4570

CNY

Hiina jüaan

7,3202

HRK

Horvaatia kuna

7,5597

IDR

Indoneesia ruupia

14 173,43

MYR

Malaisia ringit

4,7287

PHP

Filipiini peeso

52,268

RUB

Vene rubla

64,3000

THB

Tai baat

37,726

BRL

Brasiilia reaal

3,4305

MXN

Mehhiko peeso

21,7719

INR

India ruupia

71,5935

---

(1)  Allikas: EKP avaldatud viitekurss.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2246 Referred in House (RFH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2246

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 16, 2018

             Referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To designate the health care center of the Department of Veterans 
 Affairs in Tallahassee, Florida, as the Sergeant Ernest I. ``Boots'' 
               Thomas VA Clinic, 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. REDESIGNATION OF A DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS CLINIC IN 
              FLORIDA.

    (a) Designation.--The Health Care Center of the Department of 
Veterans Affairs located at 2181 Orange Avenue in Tallahassee, Florida, 
shall after the date of the enactment of this Act be known and 
designated as the ``Sergeant Ernest I. `Boots' Thomas VA Clinic''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in any law, regulation, map, 
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the clinic 
referred to in paragraph (1) shall be considered to be a reference to 
the Sergeant Ernest I. ``Boots'' Thomas VA Clinic.

            Passed the Senate February 14, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                JULIE E. ADAMS,

                                                             Secretary.
```
BARCLAYS OFFICIAL CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS TITLE 13. MOTOR VEHICLES DIVISION 3. AIR RESOURCES BOARD CHAPTER 5. STANDARDS FOR MOTOR

VEHICLE FUELS ARTICLE 2. STANDARDS FOR DIESEL FUEL This database is current through 12/26/08, Register

2008, No. 52 § 2285. Exemption from Diesel Fuel Requirements forMilitary-Specification Fuels Used in Qualifying Military Vehicles. (a) Exemption for military-specification fuel used in qualifying military vehicles. The vehicular diesel fuel standards in sections 2281, 2282, and 2284 do not apply to military specification fuel that is sold, offered for sale, supplied, offered for supply, stored, dispensed, or transported for use in:(1) Vehicles for which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has granted a national security exemption under 40 CFR § 85.1708 from motor vehicle emissions standards under 40 CFR Part 86, or which are exempted from regulation under 40 CFR § 85.1703(a)(3) because of features ordinarily associated with military combat ortactical vehicles such as armor and/or weaponry, or military tactical vehicles that are exempt from the California motor vehicle emission standards pursuant to section 1905, title 13, California Code of Regulations ; or (2) Tactical military motor vehicles that are not subject to a national security exemption from motor vehicle emission standards but for national security purposes (for purposes of readiness for deployment overseas) need to be fueled with the same fuel as motor vehiclesfor which EPA has granted a national security exemption, provided that such fuel is: (A) Used only in vehicles identified in section (a)(1) or this section (a)(2); (B) Segregated from non-exempt vehicle diesel fuel at all points in the distribution system; and (C) Dispensed from a fuel pump stand or tank that is prominently labeled as containing fuel that is not lawful for use in diesel vehicles other than excluded military vehicles, or from a fueling truck. Any such fuel pump stand or tank may also be labeled with the appropriate designation of the fuel, such as "JP-8."

<General Materials (GM) - References, Annotations, or

Tables> Note: Authority cited: Sections 39600, 39601 , 43013 , 43018 and 43101, Health and Safety Code ; and WesternOil and Gas Ass'n. v. Orange County Air Pollution Control District, 14 Cal. 3d 411, 121 Cal. Rptr. 249 (1975)

. Reference: Sections 39000 , 39001 , 39002 , 39003 , 39500 , 39515 , 39516 , 41511 , 43000, 43016 , 43018 and 43101, Health and Safety Code ; and Western Oil andGas Ass'n. v. Orange County Air Pollution Control District, 14 Cal. 3d 411, 121 Cal. Rptr. 249 (1975)

.

HISTORY

1. New section filed 7-15-2004; operative 8-14-2004 (Register 2004, No. 29). 13 CCR § 2285, 13 CA ADC § 2285

13 CA ADC § 2285 END OF DOCUMENT 13 CA ADC § 2285 Page 1 13 CCR § 2285 Cal. Admin. Code tit. 13, § 2285

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Form of Letter Agreement



 Exhibit 10.3 
 

 
 November 4, 2008 
 [Name of Executive] 
 Equity Residential 
 2 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 400

 Chicago, IL 60606 
 Dear [Name of Executive]: 
 Effective as of January 1, 2009, the Company expanded the definition of retirement under its Share Incentive Plans and the agreements referenced below to
provide that retirement (currently age 62) also includes the employee’s termination of employment (other than for cause) after meeting the requirements of the Rule of 70. The Rule of 70 is met when an employee’s years of service with the
Company (must be at least 15 years) and age (must be age 55 or older) add up to at least 70. In addition, the employee must give the Company at least 6 months’ advance written notice before retirement and sign a release upon termination of
employment (with non-competition and employee non-solicitation provisions) releasing the Company from customary claims. 
 If you meet the age and
service requirements of the Rule of 70, you shall be deemed to meet the retirement definition (currently age 62) in the Executive Retirement Benefits Agreement entered into by you and the Company in February 2001, and the Company will release its
collateral assignment of the split dollar life insurance policies referenced in the Split Dollar Agreement entered into by you and the Company in December 1997, thereby releasing its right to receive any portion of the life insurance benefits and/or
the life insurance premiums previously paid by it. 
  

	
	Very truly yours,
	
	EQUITY RESIDENTIAL
	
	John Powers
	Executive Vice President, Human Resources