alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲ ▲

★ ▲

▲

▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

07/18

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 18 Jul 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.90 N 76.65 W Meters AGL

★

■

■

■

■

★ ■

■ ■

■

●★

●

●

●

★

● ●

●

●
<PAGE>
                                                                    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/A for the period ending September
30, 2005 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. 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) 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: July 14, 2006
                                       --------------

                                 By:   EBL&S, Inc., its managing general partner
                                       -----------------------------------------

                                 By:   /s/ Edward B. Lipkin
                                       --------------------
                                       Name:  Edward B. Lipkin
                                       Title: President
Engine and Propeller Directorate 12 New England Executive Park

Burlington, MA 01803

(781) 238-7110, Fax: (781) 238-7199

December 21, 2012

Charles A. Barth, Director

Office of the Federal Register (NF)

National Archives and Records Administration

700 Pennsylvania Ave. NW

Washington, D.C. 20408-0001

Dear Mr. Barth:

Under 1 CFR part 51, we request that you approve the incorporation by reference of the material 

listed below into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). An original copy of the material is 

enclosed. We will reference the following material in 14 CFR 39.13:

Pratt & Whitney Canada Alert Service Bulletin ASB No. PW100-72-A21798, Revision 5, dated 

March 20, 2012. 

We have also included a draft of the final rule that incorporates the material into the CFR.

Please contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Alan Rowe

Technical Writer-Editor

Engine & Propeller Directorate

Aircraft Certification Service

(781) 238-7121
#### JESSE B. GRANT v. EDWARDS *&*DELOATCH.

*Injunction.*

An injunction granted before the issuing of a summons in the action is premature.

*(Kincaid*v. *Conly,*Phil. Eq., 270, and 04 N. 0., 387 ; *Trader*v. *Newsom,*88 JNT. C., 13, and cases cited, approved).

Appeal from an order made at Chambers, on the 27th of November, 1882, by *McKoy, J.*

The plaintiff appealed.

*Mr. JR. B. Peebles,*for plaintiff.'

No counsel for defendant.

Smith, C. J.

Upon the rendition of final judgment in this cause, at February term, 1882 (86 N. C., 513), defendant, James J. Deloateh, without instituting a new action by the issuing of a summons to impeach the judgment for fraud practiced by the plaintiff, applied to the judge holding the superior court at Northampton, and obtained from him a restraining order, to operate until his motion for an injunction could be heard, of the time and place for which due notice was given. This order was made upon an affidavit offered and acted upon at chambers, wherein there are numerous allegations intended to show unfairness and fraud in the plaintiff, whereby the defendant was misled and deceived, and making no resistance himself to the action, committed the defense to the principal defendant, Edwards.

■ The notice of the application for an injunction having been served, the motion was allowed and the order granted to continue until the hearing of the cause, then supposed to be depending in an impeaching suit at-the instance of the complaining defendant.

Such a suit for such alleged cause could have been brought in the superior court of Northampton, under the authority of the *32case of *Kincaid*v. *Conly,*Phil. Eq., 270, and 64 N. C., 387, and it is manifest from the form of the interlocutory judgment, and in the absence of any direct opposition to its being made, that the judge acted under the impression that a new and original action for relief had been begun, to which the restraining order was merely auxiliary. The plaintiff appealed, and this unusual proceeding is before us, which is in substance an intervention in a cause, finally disposed of in this court, to prevent the plaintiff from reaping the fruits of his judgment.

The interlocutory judgment, as preliminary to a suit contemplated, but not begun, is wholly unwarranted, and directly repugnant to previous rulings. *Patrick*v. Joyner, 63 N. C., 573*; McArthur*v. *McEachin,*64 N. C., 72; *Hirsh*v. *Whitehead,*65 N. C., 516 ; *Trexler*v. *Newsom,*88 N. C., 13. There is error, and the judgment must be reversed.

Error. ' Reversed.
#### Mortgage Discount Company, Plaintiff and Appellant, vs. Continental Discount Corporation, Defendant: Praefke and wife, Defendants and Respondents.

*October 12*—

November *7, 1933.*

For the appellant there was a brief signed by /. *L. Schlal-terer*of Milwaukee.

For the respondents Praefke there was a brief by *Wolfe & Hart*and *Z. F. O’Leary,*all of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Mr. O’Leary.*

Fowler, J.

This case was argued and submitted with the case of *Welfare Building & Loan Association v. Breuer,*decided herewith *(ante,*p. 97, 250 N. W. 846), and is ruled by the decision therein.

*By the Court.*— The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<PAGE>

<ARTICLE>           5

<LEGEND>
                    The Schedule contains summary financial 
                    information extracted from the financial
                    statements for Diversified Futures Trust I
                    and is qualified in its entirety by reference
                    to such financial statements
</LEGEND>

<RESTATED>          
<CIK>               0000926805
<NAME>              Diversified Futures Trust I
<MULTIPLIER>        1

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1996

<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-1-1996

<PERIOD-END>                    Sep-30-1996

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-Mos

<CASH>                          60,989,889

<SECURITIES>                    7,605,922

<RECEIVABLES>                   22,245

<ALLOWANCES>                    0

<INVENTORY>                     0

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                68,618,056

<PP&E>                          0

<DEPRECIATION>                  0

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  68,618,056

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           2,464,206

<BONDS>                         0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0

<PREFERRED>                     0

<COMMON>                        0

<OTHER-SE>                      66,153,850

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    68,618,056

<SALES>                         0

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                7,658,765

<CGS>                           0

<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                5,110,093

<LOSS-PROVISION>                0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0

<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0

<INCOME-TAX>                    0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0

<DISCONTINUED>                  0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0

<CHANGES>                       0

<NET-INCOME>                    2,548,672

<EPS-PRIMARY>                   6.34

<EPS-DILUTED>                   0

</TABLE>
# **Exhibit32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVEOFFICER**

**PURSUANTTO SECITON 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The undersigned, beingthe Chief Executive Officer of AmeriVest Properties Inc., a Maryland realestate investment trust (the “Issuer”), hereby certifies that the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q (the “Quarterly Report”) of the Issuer for the three monthsended September 30, 2006, which accompanies this certification, fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(15 U.S.C. §78 m(a)) and that the information contained in the Quarterly Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Issuer.

November 7, 2006
|        | By:    | /s/ Charles K.  Knight   |
|--------|--------|--------------------------|
|   |   | Charles K.  Knight       |
|   |   | Chief Executive  Officer |

 

----
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service                               ( print page 90333)                            Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.                    

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         November 15, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 8, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 686 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-353, K2025-351.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-26629 Filed 11-14-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
One American Center 600 Congress

Suite 1900 Austin, TX 78701

P.O. Box 1149 Austin, TX 78767

p: 512.744.9300 f: 512.744.9399 www.dwmrlaw.com 

### July 23, 2015

Christopher A. Prine, Clerk First Court of Appeals 301 Fannin Street, Suite 208 Houston, Texas 77002

RE: No. 01-12-00470; Entergy Corporation et al. v. David Jenkins et al.

, in the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas

Dear Mr. Prine:

Appellants' letter-brief of April 30, 2015, mentioned a recent opinion of the federal district court in Mississippi finding federal question jurisdiction in a case involving the same System Agreement and similar allegations as in this case. This is to advise the Court that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has denied the plaintiff's requests for a discretionary appeal of that jurisdictio nal order. The a ppellate orders are enclosed.

Sincerely,

/s/ David C. Duggins

David C. Duggins

alm

Enclosure

cc: Joseph D. Jamail – w/enc. ACCEPTED 01-12-00470-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 7/23/2015 2:36:00 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

### IN THE UNITED STATES C O URT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

___________________

No. 15

- 90011

___________________
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, ex rel, Jim Hood, Attorney General for the State of Mississippi,

Plaintiff

- Petitioner

v.

ENTERGY MISSISSIPPI, INCORPORATED; ENTERGY CORPORATION; ENTERGY SERVICES, INCORPORATED; ENTERGY POWER, INCORPORATED; FICTITIOUS DEFENDANTS A

- Z, those individuals, corporations or otherwise who acted as officer, director, agent, representative or employee of any of the other defendants, and have acted within the course and scope of that official capacity, agency, representation or employment,

Defendants

- Respondents

________________________
Motion for Leave to Appeal Pursuant to 2 8 U.S.C. § 1453

________________________

Before DENNIS, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

IT IS ORDERED that the motion for leave to appeal under 28 U.S.C. §

1453 is DENIED. Case: 15-90011 Document: 00513070621 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/08/2015

2 of 2C ert i f i e d a s a tr u e c opy and issu e d

as t h e m anda te on

Atte s t:

C l er k, U .S. C ou rt o f A pp e als, F i ft h C i rc ui t J ul 15, 2015
Argued and submitted May 8, 1992,

affirmed June 16, 1993

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*SALVADOR NMI CONTRERAS, *Appellant.*

(10-91-06189; CA A72356)

854 P2d 942

James C. Jagger, Eugene, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Jagger & Holland, P.C., Eugene.

Ann Kelley, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Charles S. Crookham, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.

Before Richardson, Chief Judge, and Deits and Durham, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*202PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted on three counts of sexual abuse in the first degree. ORS 163.427.1 He appeals from the consecutive sentences imposed and the sentencing court’s determination that a departure sentence was justified. We conclude that we may not review the claim of error and affirm.

Defendant was indicted on 9 counts of endangering the welfare of a minor, 1 count of public indecency, 5 counts of sexual abuse in the first degree, 5 counts of sodomy in the first degree, and 1 count of perjury. Through negotiations with the state, defendant agreed to a stipulated facts trial on 3 counts of sexual abuse in the first degree and the state agreed to dismiss the remaining 18 counts of the indictment. The parties also agreed that defendant’s criminal history placed him in grid block 8-1, that the state would seek consecutive sentences, and that the state would otherwise remain silent as to sentencing. Because defendant’s sentence resulted from a negotiated agreement with the state, it is not reviewable by this court. ORS 138.222(2)(d); *State v. Tanner,*121 Or App 104, 854 P2d 941 (1993).

Affirmed.

1

 At the time of defendant’s conviction, sexual abuse in the first degree was a violation of ORS 163.425. In 1991, that statute was renumbered ORS 163.427. Or Laws 1991, ch 830, § 3.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

363 KA 11-01324 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RONALD B. SCOTT, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

LORI PETTIT RIEMAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LITTLE VALLEY, FOR APPELLANT.
MARK S. WILLIAMS, PUBLIC DEFENDER, OLEAN, FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an amended decision of the Cattaraugus County Court (Larry M. Himelein, J.), dated December 29, 2010. The amended decision dismissed the indictment against defendant. It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed. Memorandum: The People appeal from an amended decision granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 30.30. The appeal must be dismissed because no judgment or order is included in the record on appeal, and “[n]o appeal lies from a decision” ( People v McCarter , 97 AD2d 852).

Entered: March 16, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Paritosh K. Choksi, certify that:

1.  I  have  reviewed  this  quarterly  report  on  Form  10-QSB  of  ATEL  Cash
Distribution Fund VI, LP;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial  condition,  results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officer  and  I  are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure  controls and procedures,  or caused such disclosure
controls and  procedures to be designed  under our  supervision,  to ensure that
material  information  relating to the  registrant is made known to us by others
within the entity,  particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

b) evaluated  the  effectiveness  of the  registrant's  disclosure  controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions  about the effectiveness
of the disclosure  controls and procedures,  as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial  reporting that occurred  during the  registrant's  most recent fiscal
quarter  that has  materially  affected or is  reasonably  likely to  materially
affect the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,  based on our
most recent  evaluation of internal  control over  financial  reporting,  to the
registrant's  auditors  and the audit  committee  of the  registrant's  board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all  significant  deficiencies  and  material  weaknesses  in the  design  or
operation of internal  control over  financial  reporting  which are  reasonably
likely  to  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability  to  record,  process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) any  fraud,  whether  or not  material,  that  involves  management  or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over
financial reporting.



Date:         November 11, 2004


/s/ Paritosh K. Choksi
------------------------------------------
Paritosh K. Choksi
Principal Financial Officer of Registrant, Executive
Vice President of General Partner
<Page>

                                  EXHIBIT 12.1
                       AMERICAN EXPRESS CREDIT CORPORATION
          COMPUTATION IN SUPPORT OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Years Ended December 31, (Millions)          2002     2001     2000     1999     1998
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                        <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>
Earnings:
  Net income                               $  228   $  277   $  286   $  223   $  237
  Income tax provision                        118      140      150      120      128
  Interest expense                            916    1,458    1,459    1,130    1,190
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total earnings (a)                         $1,262   $1,875   $1,895   $1,473   $1,555
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixed charges - interest expense (b)       $  916   $1,458   $1,459   $1,130   $1,190
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges (a/b)     1.38     1.29     1.30     1.30     1.31
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>

Note: Gross rentals on long-term leases were minimal in amount in each of the
periods shown.
# ***Exhibit32***

 

# ***1.***       The undersigned are the Chief ExecutiveOfficer and the Chief Financial Officer of AmeriVest Properties Inc.  This Certification is made pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350 (§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002).  This Certification accompanies the Form 10-Qof AmeriVest Properties Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2004.

 

# ***2.***       We certify that such Form 10-Q fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Form 10-Qfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of AmeriVest Properties Inc.

 

November 5, 2004
|   |   |   | By:    | /s/  William T. Atkins   |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------------------------|
|   |   |   |   | William T. Atkins        |
|   |   |   |   | Chief  Executive Officer |
|   |   |   |   |                     |
|   |   |   | By:    | /s/  Kathryn L. Hale     |
|   |   |   |   | Kathryn L. Hale          |
|   |   |   |   | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

 

----

 

----
#### J. A. WORTHY v. JAMES BRADY et al.

*Petition to Rehear.*

*Mr. J. W. Hinsdale,*for plaintiff.

No counsel for defendants.

Merrimon, C. J.:

This is an application to rehear the case of *Worthy*v. *Brady,*91 N. C., 265. We have re-examined the grounds of the decision in that case, particularly in the respect complained of, with care and scrutiny, and are satisfied that the instructions in question given to the jury were substantially correct, and for the reasons clearly stated by the late Chief Justice Smith. The petition must, therefore, be dismissed.

Dismissed.
# Official Journal C 29A/2013

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2013.029.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 29A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5631 January 2013 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2013.029.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 29A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5631 January 2013

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) |
| 2013/C 029A/01 | Notice of open competition — EPSO/AD/248/13 — Administrators (AD 6), buildings sector | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

2013/C 029A/01

Notice of open competition — EPSO/AD/248/13 — Administrators (AD 6), buildings sector

1

---

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OJs

Please find below the list of C A published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, OJs are published in all language versions.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 27 | RO |
| 29 | |

5

27

RO

29

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

EN