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

Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18
of the United States Code

I,
Ralph Izzo, Chief Executive Officer of Public Service Electric and Gas Company,
to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Annual Report of Public
Service Electric and Gas Company on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Public Service Electric and Gas Company.

| |  |  |                                        
| |  |  | ---------------------------------------
| |  |  | /s/ Ralph Izzo                         
| |  |  |                                        
| |  |  | Ralph Izzo                             
| |  |  | Public Service Electric and Gas Company
| |  |  | Chief Executive Officer                
| |  |  | February 27, 2008                      

---
**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 The Houston Exploration Company (the “Company”) on Form10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, William G. Hargett, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 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 allmaterial respects, the financial condition and result of operations of theCompany.     /s/     William G. Hargett     Name: William G. Hargett  Title: Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer    The Houston Exploration Company  February 28, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3062 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3062

To prohibit the use of eminent domain in carrying out certain projects.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 14, 2015

  Mr. Womack (for himself, Mr. Hill, Mr. Crawford, and Mr. Westerman) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the use of eminent domain in carrying out certain projects.

    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 ``Assuring Private Property Rights 
Over Vast Access to Land Act'' or the ``APPROVAL Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON EMINENT DOMAIN FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS.

    Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16421) is 
amended--
            (1) by redesignating subsections (d) through (g) as 
        subsections (f) through (i), respectively; and
            (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
    ``(d) Prohibition on Eminent Domain.--Notwithstanding any other 
provision of law (including regulations), the Secretary, SWPA, and WAPA 
may not carry out any Project under this section through the use of 
eminent domain, unless the use of eminent domain is explicitly 
authorized by--
            ``(1) the Governor and the head of each applicable public 
        utility commission or public service commission of the affected 
        State; and
            ``(2) the head of the governing body of each Indian tribe 
        the land of which would be affected.
    ``(e) Siting Requirement.--To the maximum extent practicable, a 
Project carried out under this section shall be sited on--
            ``(1) an existing Federal right-of-way; or
            ``(2) Federal land managed by--
                    ``(A) the Bureau of Land Management;
                    ``(B) the Forest Service;
                    ``(C) the Bureau of Reclamation; or
                    ``(D) the Corps of Engineers.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas, Appellant, v. V. G. MILLER, Appellee.

No. 8506.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Dec. 24, 1930.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 4, 1931.

J. M. Taylor, Russell Savage, and Gordon Boone, all of Corpus Christi, for appellant.

E. B. Simmons, of San Antonio, and Sam J. Dotson, of Vernon, for appellee.

PLY, C. J.

This is a companion case to the case of City of Corpus Christi v. Zenna H. Coffin, et al., 35 S.W.(2d) 202, this day decided by this court, and, the facts and law being the same, the opinion in that case is made the opinion in this case also.

In accordance with the rulings of this court, the judgment of the trial court denying the change of venue is reversed, the plea of privilege of the appellant is sustained, and the clerk of the district court is commanded-to prepare the record in this ease, as required by law, and to transmit the same to the district clerk of Nueces county for filing in that court.

Reversed and rendered.
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 Quarterly Report of GT Solar International, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 27, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Thomas M. Zarrella, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

Date:
November 7, 2008

/s/ THOMAS M. ZARRELLA Thomas M. Zarrella
President and Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)


A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to GT Solar International, Inc. and will be retained by GT Solar International, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
**Exhibit 23b**

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent tothe incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-115100 on FormS-3 of our report dated February 27, 2008, relating to  the consolidated financial    statements and consolidated financial statement schedule of Public Service    Electric and Gas Company, which report expresses an unqualified opinion    and includes an explanatory paragraph for the adoption of Financial Accounting    Standards Board Interpretation No. 48, *Accounting    for Uncertainty in Income Taxes – an Interpretation of FASB Statement    109*,and Statement of Financial AccountingStandards No. 158,*Employers Accounting forDefined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans,*appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Public Service Electric and GasCompany for the year ended December 31, 2007. 

/s/ Deloitte& Touche LLP

February 27,2008

----
#### BRAGGS v. STATE.

No. 14620.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 14, 1931.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 18, 1931.

Wm. A. Cline, of Wharton, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, J.

Conviction is for the transportation of intoxicating liquor, punishment being assessed at two years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

The record is before this court without bills of exception or statement of facts, and in such condition nothing is presented for review save as to some irregularities which appear.

The' judgment condemns appellant to be guilty of a “violation of the liquor laws.” There is no such offense known to the statutes, and the judgment will be corrected and appellant adjudged to be guilty of transporting intoxicating liquor.

The sentence imposed upon appellant is subject to the same vice wherein it recites that appellant had been adjudged to be “guilty *98of a violation of tlie liquor laws,” and the sentence is likewise corrected to conform to the corrected' judgment.

As reformed, the judgment is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

MORROW, P. J.

In the motion for rehearing the authority of this court to reform and affirm the judgment of conviction is attacked upon the contention that, there being no statement of facts, this court could not he Informed as to which count in the indictment was supported by the evidence. There are two counts: One charging unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor; the other charging the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale. An examination of the charge of the court reveals that but one count was submitted to the jury, namely, that of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor. From the state of the record, the presumption that the evidence supported that phase of the indictment is conclusive upon this court.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.
114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3192 

AN ACT 

To provide for a temporary safe harbor from the enforcement 

of integrated disclosure requirements for mortgage loan 

transactions under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 and the Truth in Lending Act, 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, 
2 

•HR 3192 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Homebuyers Assist3 ance Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. ENFORCEMENT SAFE HARBOR. 

5 The integrated disclosure requirements for mortgage 

6 loan transactions under section 4(a) of the Real Estate 

7 Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (12 U.S.C. 2603(a)), 

8 section 105(b) of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 

9 1604(b)), and regulations issued under such sections may 

10 not be enforced against any person until February 1, 

11 2016, and no suit may be filed against any person for a 

12 violation of such requirements occurring before such date, 

13 so long as such person has made a good faith effort to 

14 comply with such requirements. 

Passed the House of Representatives October 7, 

2015. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3192 

AN ACT 

To provide for a temporary safe harbor from the 

poses. and the Truth in Lending Act, and for other purReal Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 ments for mortgage loan transactions under the enforcement of integrated disclosure require-
#### LAFON v. STATE.

No. 19586.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 30, 1938.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s At-ty., of Austin, for the State.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for unlawfully driving an automobile upon the public highway while intoxicated; penalty assessed at a fine of $50 and confinement in the county-jail for five days.

*409The indictment appears regular, and properly presented. Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offense charged and waived a jury upon the trial. The record is before this court without statement of facts or bills of exception.

No error having been perceived, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
#### JONES v. STATE.

No. 19060.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 2, 1937.

John B. McNamara, of Waco, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for assault with intent to murder; punishment assessed being ten years in the penitentiary.

The indictment in two counts alleged that appellant made an assault upon Mrs. John Earl Jones with intent to murder her. There is no averment in either count that the assault was made with malice aforethought.

It is urged here that in the absence of such ■ averment the jury was unauthorized to assess a greater punishment than three years; in other words, that the averments of the indictment do not support the judgment carrying the penalty assessed.

Article 1160, P.C., as amended in 1931 by the 42d Legislature, c. 61 (Vernon’s Ann.P.C. art. 1160), reads: “If any person shall assault another with intent to murder, he shall be confined in the penitentiary not less than two nor more than fifteen years; provided that if the jury find that the assault was committed without malice, the penalty assessed shall be not less than one nor more than three years confinement in the penitentiary.” It has been held that under the statute in question an indictment for assault with intent to murder which omits the averment that it was. committed with malice aforethought will support a judgment carrying a penalty of three years or less, but if the increased penalty is desired the averment that the offense was committed with malice aforethought is indispensable. Jessie v. State, 126 Tex.Cr.R. 250, 70 S.W.(2d) 743; Dunn v. State, 128 Tex.Cr.R. 229, 81 S. W.(2d) 87; Weathersby v. State, 129 Tex. Cr.R. 420, 87 S.W.(2d) 1102; Moore v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 99 S.W.(2d) 932. For a- discussion of the same question as it relates to murder, see Swilley v. State, 114 Tex.Cr.R. 228, 25 S.W.(2d) 1098; Myatt v. State, 114 Tex.Cr.R. 516, 26 S. W.(2d) 915; Spicer v. State, 115 Tex.Cr. R. 110, 111, 28 S.W.(2d) 810.

Appellant’s contention must be sustained.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50095

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

VICTOR MANUEL CASTILLO-OLIVAS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CR-275-2

Before HAYNES, DUNCAN, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Victor Manuel Castillo-Olivas has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Castillo-Olivas has filed a response and moves for the appointment 

of new appellate counsel. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us 

to make a fair evaluation of Castillo-Olivas’s claims of ineffective assistance of 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 12, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-50095 Document: 00515233932 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/12/2019
No. 19-50095

2

counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to 

collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein, as well as Castillo-Olivas’s response. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

appellate review. The motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is 

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Castillo-Olivas’s motion to appoint new counsel is 

DENIED. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).

 Case: 19-50095 Document: 00515233932 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/12/2019
#### SCHRIEVER et ux. v. KLATTENHOFF et al.

No. 4868.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo..

June 6, 1938.

*950Wm. E. Davenport, of San Angelo, and McWhorter & Howard, of Lubbock, for appellants.

R. A. Baldwin, of Slaton, for appellees.

JACKSON, Chief Justice.

On June 28, 1937, this court overruled the motion of appellants to be permitted to file the record in this case and on the same day sustained the motion of appellees to strike the transcript and statement of facts, which had theretofore been erroneously filed, .and entered an order dismissing the appeal.

On the same day, we entered an order refusing appellees’ motion to affirm on certificate, from which action they prosecuted a writ of error to the Supreme Court, and the Commission of Appeals held in an opinion, to which we refer, reported in 113 S.W.2d page 515, that we were in error in dismissing the appeal and refusing to affirm on certificate.

In conformity to this holding of the Supreme Court, the appeal is reinstated on the docket of this court and the motion to affirm on certificate is granted.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ALFREDO MENDOZA-ALVAREZ,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-30207

D.C. No. 2:10-cr-02140-FVS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Fred L. Van Sickle, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 22, 2015** 

Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Alfredo Mendoza-Alvarez appeals from the revocation of supervised release

and six-month sentence imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Mendoza-Alvarez’s counsel has filed a brief

FILED

APR 24 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
stating that the appeal is moot, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of

record. 

We agree that the appeal is moot because Mendoza-Alvarez has fully served

his custodial sentence and is not subject to an additional term of supervised release. 

See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 14 (1998); United States v. Palomba, 182 F.3d

1121, 1123 (9th Cir. 1999). We, therefore, dismiss the appeal.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.

2 14-30207
H. R. 3116 

One Hundred Fourteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the sixth day of January, two thousand and fifteen 

An Act 

To extend by 15 years the authority of the Secretary of Commerce to conduct 

the quarterly financial report program. 

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 ‘‘Quarterly Financial Report 

Reauthorization Act’’. 

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY FOR SECRETARY OF COMMERCE 

TO CONDUCT QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT PROGRAM. 

Section 4(b) of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to amend title 13, 

United States Code, to transfer responsibility for the quarterly 

financial report from the Federal Trade Commission to the Secretary of Commerce, and for other purposes’’, approved January 

12, 1983 (Public Law 97–454; 13 U.S.C. 91 note), is amended 

by striking ‘‘2015’’ and inserting ‘‘2030’’. 

SEC. 3. REPORT ON DATA SECURITY PROCEDURES OF THE BUREAU 

OF THE CENSUS. 

(a) REVIEW.—The Secretary of Commerce shall conduct a review 

of the data security procedures of the Bureau of the Census, 

including such procedures that have been implemented since the 

data breaches of systems of the Office of Personnel Management 

were announced in 2015. 

(b) REPORT.— (1) REQUIREMENT.—Not later than 90 days after the date 

of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce shall 

submit to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Oversight 

and Government Reform of the House of Representatives a 

report on the review required by subsection (a). 

(2) CONTENTS.—The report required by paragraph (1) 

shall— 

(A) identify all information systems of the Bureau of 

the Census that contain sensitive information; 

(B) described any actions carried out by the Secretary 

of Commerce or the Director of the Bureau of the Census 

to secure sensitive information that have been implemented 

since the data breaches of systems of the Office of Personnel 

Management were announced in 2015; 

(C) identify any known data breaches of information 

systems of the Bureau of the Census that contain sensitive 

information; and 
H. R. 3116—2 

(D) identify whether the Bureau of the Census stores 

any information that, if combined with other such information, would comprise classified information. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1646
DALLICE M. ALLEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee, and KATHLEEN A. MIKA; DENISE RIDDLE; BLAKE GORDAN; SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY AND APPEALS, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (CA-04-280) Submitted: December 22, 2005 Decided: January 4, 2006 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dallice M. Allen, Appellant Pro Se. Marvin Jennings Caughman, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.- 2 - Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: Dallice Allen appeals from the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing her complaint in which she asserted that the Social Security Administration unlawfully suspended her benefits. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Allen v. Social Security Admin. , No. CA-04-280 (D.S.C. filed Feb. 18, 2005; entered Feb. 22, 2005). 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.

AFFIRMED
#### LILLARD v. STATE.

No. 20335.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 5, 1939.

Rehearing Denied May 17, 1939.

Carney & Carney, of Atlanta, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for murder, punishment assessed being five years in the penitentiary.

The indictment properly charges the offense. The record contains neither bills of exception nor statement of facts. In such condition nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.

KRUEGER, Judge.

Appellant, on his motion for a rehearing, urges as his sole contention the fact that *900the conviction is contrary to the law and the evidence.

This question cannot he determined by us in the absence of a statement of facts or bills of exceptions.

The motion for a rehearing will-be overruled.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
##### 



CERTIFICATION 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, as amended; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Thomas P. RichardsThomas P. RichardsChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer/s/ David W. WehlmannDavid W. WehlmannExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerDate: August 6, 2007