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 Quarterly Report of National Property Analysts Master Limited Partnership (“NPAMLP”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Edward B. Lipkin, President of EBL&S, Inc., the Managing General Partner of NPAMLP certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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) Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of NPAMLP.





National Property Analysts Master Limited Partnership(Registrant)Date:
May 16, 2011By:
EBL&S, Inc., its managing general partnerBy:
/s/ Edward B. LipkinName:
Edward B. LipkinTitle:
President
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 National Property Analysts Master
Limited Partnership (“NPAMLP”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Edward B. Lipkin, President of EBL&S, Inc., the Managing
General Partner of NPAMLP certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 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)
Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of NPAMLP.





National
      Property Analysts Master Limited Partnership(Registrant)Date:
                    August 6, 2009By:
                    EBL&S, Inc., its managing general
      partnerBy:
                    /s/ Edward B. LipkinName:
                    Edward
      B. LipkinTitle:
                    President
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 26, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00452-CR

ROBERT GALVAN LLANAS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 230th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1402859

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant entered a guilty plea to aggravated assault of a family member. In 

accordance with the terms of a plea agreement with the State, the trial court 

deferred adjudication of guilt, placed appellant on community supervision for a 

period of seven years, and assessed a fine of $300. Subsequently, the State moved 

to adjudicate guilt. Appellant pled true to the State’s allegations and executed a 

waiver of his right to appeal in exchange for the State’s recommendation that 

punishment be assessed at confinement for eight years in the Institutional Division 
2

of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and a fine of $300. The trial court 

revoked appellant’s community supervision, adjudicated appellant guilty, and, in 

accordance with the State’s recommendation, assessed punishment at confinement 

for eight years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal 

Justice and a fine of $300. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. We dismiss 

the appeal. 

The trial court entered a certification of the defendant’s right to appeal in 

which the court certified that the appellant waived the right of appeal. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 25.2(a)(2). A valid waiver of appeal prevents a defendant from appealing 

without the trial court’s consent. Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615, 622 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2003).

When a defendant waives his right of appeal in exchange for consideration 

from the State, his waiver is made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, and he 

may not appeal any matters unless the trial court first grants permission. See Ex 

parte Broadway, 301 S.W.3d 694, 697–99 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (holding that 

defendant may knowingly and intelligently waive appeal without sentencing 

agreement when consideration is given by State for waiver); Blanco v. State, 18 

S.W.3d 218, 219–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). The record shows that appellant

waived his right to appeal as partial consideration, along with his plea of true, for 

the State’s recommendations on punishment. The record also reflects that the trial 

court did not give its permission to appeal.

Because appellant has no right of appeal, the appeal must be dismissed. See

Menefee v. State, 287 S.W.3d 9, 12 n. 12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Dears v. State,

154 S.W.3d 610, 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Jamison, and Donovan.
#### State, Plaintiff, vs. Walters, Defendant.

*April 6*

April *30, 1929.*

*69For the plaintiff there was a brief by *W. B. Murat,*district attorney of Portage county, *George B. Nelson*of Stevens Point, special counsel, the *Attorney General,*and *J. E. Messerschmidt,*assistant attorney general; and the cause was argued orally by *Mr. Nelson.*

For the defendant there was a brief by *Fisher & Cashin*of Stevens Point, attorneys, and *C. B. Bird*of Wausau, of counsel, and oral argument by *W. E. Fisher.*

Crownhart, J.

The answer to the question is “Yes.” The language of the statute is not difficult of construction. If the death of the child or of the mother results from an illegal abortion, the offense is manslaughter in the second degree. In this case the question concerns the death of the mother.

It is contended by the defendant that “child” refers only to a “quick” child, as defined by the common law, and that *70unless the mother was pregnant with a quick child, the death of the mother resulting from an illegal abortion is punishable only under sec. 351.22, Stats.

Sec. 340.16, Stats., was construed by this court in *State v. Dickinson,*41 Wis. 299, and that case has not been overruled or modified. In *Foster v. State,*182 Wis. 298, 196 N. W. 233, we held that where the prosecution was for the death of the child, the child had to be quickened, on the ground that there could be no death of a child not yet alive. The reasoning in that opinion by Chief Justice Vinje we think sound and convincing. But no such reason applies in the case of the death of the mother, and the court did not further limit the statute. On the contrary, the opinion in the *Foster Case, supra,*affirmed the *Dickinson Case.*We there said:

> “In *State v. Dickinson,*41 Wis. 299, the court had before it a case where the death of the pregnant mother was produced, and the statement that ‘it is not material whether the pregnant woman be quick with child or not/ was correct under the facts there existing. . . . The legislature saw fit to enact sec. 4583, a law making it an offense to produce a criminal miscarriage. It also made it a graver offense by sec. 4352 to produce a criminal abortion resulting in the death of a quick child or of its mother. Both the quick child and the mother are human beings — hence to unlawfully kill either constitutes manslaughter.”

The law is settled in this state, and it is unnecessary to consider cases in other jurisdictions.

*By the Court.*— So ordered.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                      1,634,157
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                      1,158,183
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                    0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                    0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 1,643,189
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      3,335,343
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        3,335,343
<LOANS>                                    56,282,833
<ALLOWANCE>                                   195,182
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             67,986,964
<DEPOSITS>                                 56,430,250
<SHORT-TERM>                                2,000,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                           301,269
<LONG-TERM>                                         0
<COMMON>                                        4,702
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                  7,793,048
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             67,986,964
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             1,254,175
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              65,041
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               51,108
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            1,370,324
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                            622,600
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            656,104
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                         714,220
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  22,500
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                               141,179
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               318,967
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                    318,967  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  191,247
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .43
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   4.31
<LOANS-NON>                                   353,725
<LOANS-PAST>                                  197,379
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                     0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                              194,403
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  25,485
<RECOVERIES>                                    3,764
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                             195,182
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                          195,182
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             0
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement

, 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.

February 14, 2018

s0213 

# Order

Clerk February 14, 2018

157088

SC: 157088

In re CLEMONS, Minors. COA: 338177

Genesee CC Family Division:

16

- 133700

- NA

_______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 28, 2017

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 583 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 583

  Amending the Standing Rules of the Senate to ensure that the Senate 
             votes on whether to confirm judicial nominees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 28, 2016

Mr. Udall submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                 Committee on Rules and Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Amending the Standing Rules of the Senate to ensure that the Senate 
             votes on whether to confirm judicial nominees.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. VOTES ON JUDICIAL NOMINEES.

    Rule XXXI of the Standing Rules of the Senate is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``8. (a) Not later than 180 days after the date on which a judicial 
nomination made by the President is received, the Senate shall vote 
on--
            ``(1) whether the Senate will advise and consent to the 
        judicial nomination; or
            ``(2) a motion to invoke cloture on the judicial 
        nomination.
    ``(b) Except as provided in subparagraph (c), if the Senate does 
not vote on whether the Senate will advise and consent to a judicial 
nomination or a motion to invoke cloture on the judicial nomination 
during the period described in subparagraph (a), on the first day on 
which the Senate is in session after the end of the period described in 
subparagraph (a)--
            ``(1) if the judicial nomination was referred to a 
        committee and has not been reported, the committee shall be 
        discharged from further consideration of the judicial 
        nomination and the judicial nomination shall be placed on the 
        calendar without any intervening action or debate;
            ``(2) the Senate shall proceed to the judicial nomination 
        without any intervening action or debate;
            ``(3) the Senate shall proceed to the question `Is it the 
        sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a 
        close?' with respect to the judicial nomination, in the same 
        manner as if a motion to invoke cloture had been made under 
        rule XXII, except that there shall be not more than 4 hours of 
        debate on such question; and
            ``(4) it shall not be in order to move to proceed to the 
        consideration of any other matter until such question is 
        disposed of.
    ``(c) Subparagraph (b) shall not apply to a judicial nomination if, 
before the end of the period described in subparagraph (a), the 
committee to which the judicial nomination has been referred votes to 
report the judicial nomination unfavorably.
    ``(d) In this paragraph, the term `judicial nomination' means the 
nomination of an individual to serve as a judge or justice appointed to 
hold office during good behavior.''.
                                 <all>
```
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: In the Interest of B.M.D. aka B.D. and K.J .H. v. Department of Family Protective Services

Appellate case number: 01

- 14

- 00198

- CV

Trial court case number: 2012

- 042 04J

Trial court: 315th District Court of Harris County

On March 1 0, 2014, the court reporter file d a request for extension of time to file the

record. The motion is GRANTED, in part

. The reporter’s record is due within 1 5 days of the

date of this order

. Because this is a termination case, the Court is required to bring this appeal to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal was filed so far as reasonably possible. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2, reprinted in T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. , tit. 2, sub tit. F app. (West Supp. 2012). For this reason, no further exte nsions of time to file the record will be granted

.
It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Justice Rebeca Huddle

X Ac ting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: March 13, 2014
# Official Journal L 327/2014

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 327 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5712 November 2014 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 327

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5712 November 2014

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1208/2014 of 11 November 2014 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables | 1 |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | | 2014/779/EU |
| | * | Council Decision of 7 November 2014 appointing a Belgian member of the European Economic and Social Committee | 4 |
| | | 2014/780/EU |
| | * | Council Decision of 7 November 2014 appointing a Luxembourg member of the European Economic and Social Committee | 5 |
| | | 2014/781/EU |
| | * | Decision of the European Central Bank of 21 October 2014 on transitional provisions for the application of minimum reserves by the European Central Bank following the introduction of the euro in Lithuania (ECB/2014/42) | 6 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1208/2014 of 11 November 2014 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

DECISIONS

2014/779/EU

*

Council Decision of 7 November 2014 appointing a Belgian member of the European Economic and Social Committee

4

2014/780/EU

*

Council Decision of 7 November 2014 appointing a Luxembourg member of the European Economic and Social Committee

5

2014/781/EU

*

Decision of the European Central Bank of 21 October 2014 on transitional provisions for the application of minimum reserves by the European Central Bank following the introduction of the euro in Lithuania (ECB/2014/42)

(ECB/2014/42)

6

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ELI ROSA,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 422 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 29th day of April, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
# Official Journal C 37/2017

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 37 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 604 February 2017 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 37

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 604 February 2017

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2017/C 37/01 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2017/C 37/01

Euro exchange rates

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2017/C 37/02 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8369 — KKR/Hitachi Koki) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 2 |
| 2017/C 37/03 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8353 — CVC/Corialis) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 3 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2017/C 37/02

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8369 — KKR/Hitachi Koki) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

2

2017/C 37/03

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8353 — CVC/Corialis) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

3

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
##### 



Exhibit 21.1
  Subsidiaries
    of Mediacom LLC
  State of Incorporation


Names under whichSubsidiary

or Organization


subsidiary does businessMediacom Arizona LLC


Delaware



Mediacom Arizona Cable Net
    Mediacom Cable LLCMediacom California LLC


Delaware



Mediacom California LLCMediacom Capital Corporation


New York



Mediacom Capital CorporationMediacom Delaware LLC


New York



Mediacom Delaware LLC 
    Maryland Mediacom DelawareMediacom Illinois LLC


Delaware



Mediacom Illinois LLCMediacom Indiana LLC


Delaware



Mediacom Indiana LLCMediacom Indiana Partnerco LLC


Delaware



Mediacom Indiana PartnercoMediacom Indiana Holdings,
    L.P.


Delaware



Mediacom Indiana Holdings, L.P.Mediacom Iowa LLC


Delaware



Mediacom Iowa LLCMediacom Minnesota LLC


Delaware



Mediacom Minnesota LLCMediacom Southeast LLC


Delaware



Mediacom Southeast LLC 
    Mediacom New York LLCMediacom Wisconsin LLC


Delaware



Mediacom Wisconsin LLCZylstra Communications Corporation


Minnesota



Zylstra Communications CorporationIllini Cable Holding, Inc.


Illinois



Illini Cable Holding, Inc.Illini Cablevision of Illinois,
    Inc.


Illinois



Illini Cablevision of Illinois, Inc.
III 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 2 

Informing the House of Representatives that a quorum of the Senate is 

assembled. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 6, 2015 

Mr. MCCONNELL submitted the following resolution; which was considered 

and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Informing the House of Representatives that a quorum of 

the Senate is assembled. 

1 Resolved, That the Secretary inform the House of 

2 Representatives that a quorum of the Senate is assembled 

3 and that the Senate is ready to proceed to business. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NOS. A-2758-19

 A-3887-19

REGINA NAGLE,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES, 

STATE POLICE 

RETIREMENT SYSTEM,

Respondent-Respondent.

__________________________

ROSEMARY MCCOY,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES, 

STATE POLICE 

RETIREMENT SYSTEM,

Respondent-Respondent.

__________________________

Submitted November 29, 2021 – Decided February 11, 2022

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2

A-2758-19

Before Judges Fasciale and Sumners.

On appeal from the Board of Trustees of the State 

Police Retirement System, Department of the Treasury, 

SPRS Nos. xx-3425 and xx-3426.

Lauren Sandy, attorney for appellants.

Andrew J. Bruck, Acting Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney 

General, of counsel; Christopher Meyer, Deputy 

Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

In these consolidated appeals, the parties having filed a stipulation of

dismissal. We must point out appellants' counsel notified the court on January

21, 2022, that this matter was being dismissed because respondent issued a

final agency decision on July 29, 2021, which reconsidered and granted the

relief appellants requested due to newly enacted legislation. Unbeknownst to

the court, that decision was rendered four months before we considered the

appeal on November 29, 2021. While we appreciate counsel's representation

that there were administrative issues in implementing the decision, she had a

responsibility to alert the court of the probable resolution to avoid unnecessary

waste of judicial resources. See Sessner v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., 435

N.J. Super. 347 (App. Div. 2014). In fact, our decision in this appeal was
3

A-2758-19

scheduled to be released on January 24, 2022, but was pulled upon notification

of the dismissal.

Dismissed with prejudice and without costs.