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

I, David C. Bloom, Chief Executive Officer of Chelsea
Property Group, Inc., the sole general partner of CPG Partners, L.P. (the "OP"),
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, do hereby certify as
follows:

|1. | The quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the OP for the period ended March 31,
2004 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 such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the OP.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this
Certification this 13th day of May, 2004.

| | /s/ David C. Bloom
David C. Bloom
Chief Executive Officer
| | ---------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to CPG Partners,
L.P. and will be retained by CPG Partners, L.P. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 10 (Friday, January 16, 2009)]
[Daily Digest]
[Page D50]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

Committee Meetings
  No committee hearings were held.

Joint Meetings
  No joint committee meetings were held.
```
IA 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 90 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to clarify 

the authority of Congress and the States to regulate the expenditure 

of funds for political activity by corporations. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 16, 2017 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER (for herself, Mr. BEYER, Mr. GARAMENDI, Mr. HASTINGS, 

Mr. RASKIN, Mr. WELCH, and Mr. SOTO) submitted the following joint 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States to clarify the authority of Congress and the States 

to regulate the expenditure of funds for political activity 

by corporations. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

8 States: 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 90 IH 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. Nothing in this Constitution shall pro3 hibit Congress and the States from imposing content-neu4 tral regulations and restrictions on the expenditure of 

5 funds for political activity by any corporation, limited li6 ability company, or other corporate entity, including but 

7 not limited to contributions in support of, or in opposition 

8 to, a candidate for public office. 

9 ‘‘SECTION 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall 

10 be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32







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 Desert Mining, Inc. a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-KSB for the annual period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Peter K. Nelson, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to my knowledge:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and



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







Date: April 2, 2004

/s/ Peter K. Nelson

Peter K. Nelson

Chief Executive Officer and

Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Pension Partners 1994-A, Ltd.'s balance sheet and statement of operations con-
tained in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 1997 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         1,189
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  51,329
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               52,518
<PP&E>                                         2,814,653
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,189,582)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,677,589
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          74,742
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,602,847
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,677,589
<SALES>                                        136,053
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               136,073
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  190,549<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (80,439)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (80,439)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (80,439)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes lease operating expenses, production taxes and depreciation,
depletion and amortization expense.  Excludes general and administrative and
interest expense.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 177 (Thursday, November 20, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H10847-H10848]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              {time}  1500
                              AFTER RECESS

  The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the 
Speaker pro

[[Page H10848]]

tempore (Mrs. Boyda of Kansas) at 3 p.m.

                          ____________________
```
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19

- 1771 V

UNPUBLISHED

KRISTI A. BAKER

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: April 12, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU) ;

Rul ing on Entitlement; Concession;
Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (SIRVA)

Simina Vourlis, Law Office s of Simin a Vourlis, Colu mbus, OH , for petitioner.

Lynn Christina Schlie , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On November 18, 2019

, Kristi Baker filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 10, et seq

. 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered ri ght shoulder injuries related to

vaccine administration as a res ult of a November 23, 2017 influenza vaccine . Petit ion at

1

- 7 . The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special

Masters.

On April 8, 2021

, R espondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that

P etitioner is entitled to compensa tion in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, R espondent agrees that “ petitioner has satis fied the c riteria set forth in the

Vaccine Injury Table ( “ Table ” ) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation ( “ QAI ” )

.

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E

- Government Act

of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information,

the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755

. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa
(2012 ).2

That is, petitioner has no relevant history of pain, inflammation, or dy sfunction in her right

shoulder ; her pain and reduced range of motion occur red within 48 hours of receipt of an intramuscular vaccination; her symptoms were limited t o the shoulder in wh ich the

vaccine was admin istered; and no other condition or abnormality was identi fied to explain her sympt oms

. ” Id. at 5

- 6

.

In view of R espondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that

P etitioner is entitle d to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       5,967,854
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,278,078
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,518,870
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            42,553,475
<PP&E>                                      39,503,622
<DEPRECIATION>                              29,241,906
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              60,130,931
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       16,730,761
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       483,672
<OTHER-SE>                                  39,835,893
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                60,130,931
<SALES>                                     59,032,607
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            59,032,607
<CGS>                                       50,863,772
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               63,306,242
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,102,312
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (3,757,670)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (475,803)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (3,281,867)
<DISCONTINUED>                                (746,414)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (4,028,281)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.84)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.84)



</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 225 (Thursday, November 21, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 92196]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-27240]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

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 Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: November 21, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
November 15, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 737 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-423, K2025-421.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-27240 Filed 11-20-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited condensed balance sheets and unaudited condensed statements of
income found on pages 3, 4 and 5 of the Company's Form 10-QSB for the year to
date, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       2,769,099
<SECURITIES>                                         0      
<RECEIVABLES>                                  594,864
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     90,524
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,459,795
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,620,018
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          688,842
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        16,047
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,482,556
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,620,018
<SALES>                                        125,077
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               125,077
<CGS>                                           87,080 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   87,080
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               990,705
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (818,179)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0 
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (818,179)    
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.051)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0 

</TABLE>
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed March 17, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-423 Lower Tribunal No. F00-25707

________________ 

### Duane Walker, Appellant,
vs. 

### The State of Florida, Appellee.
An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Zachary James, Judge. Duane Walker, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee. Before EMAS, C.J., and FERNANDEZ and MILLER, JJ. PER CURIAM.2

Affirmed. See Bradley v. State, 3 So. 3d 1168 (Fla. 2009) (holding that defect in the charging document, which omitted a required element for sentencing enhancement, was cured by defendant’s explicit waiver of such defect during plea colloquy); Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(h)(2) (providing: “A second or successive motion is an extraordinary pleading. Accordingly, a court may dismiss a second or successive motion if the court finds that it fails to allege new or different grounds for relief and the prior determination was on the merits or, if new and different grounds are alleged, the judge finds that the failure of the defendant or the attorney to assert those grounds in a prior motion constituted an abuse of the procedure or there was no good cause for the failure of the defendant or defendant's counsel to have asserted those grounds in a prior motion.”)
#### JOSIAH HOLLY vs. ISAAC P. FREEMAN, ADM’OR &c.

The declaration of a defendant that she “ remembered giving the note, but believed she had paid it,” is no evidence to rebut the presumption of payment arising under our Act of Assembly from the lapse of ten years, and the Judge has a right so to inform the Jury.

This was an appeal from the judgment of (he Superior Court of Law oí Bertie county, at Spring Term, 1842, his Honor Judge Manly presiding. The case was an action of debt commenced by warrant before a justice of the peace, to which were pleaded the general issue and the statute declaring a presumption of payment of all contracts after the *219lapse of ten years from the time the right of action accrued, passed in 1826, (Rev. Stat. c. 65, s. 13.) It appeared that the note sued upon was due the 15th of September, 1826, and the action was brought the 18th of January, 1841. A witness was introduced, who proved that, a short time before the warrant was sued out, he, at the request of the plaintiff, spake .to the defendant’s testator about the note, when she declared that “she remembered giving the note, but said she believed she had paid it.” The testimony being here concluded on the part of the plaintiff, the presiding judge intimated ail opinion that there was no evidence to rebut the presumption of payment raised by the statute; whereupon, the plaintiff suffered a nonsuit, and appealed to the Suprema Court.

*A. Moon and Iredell*for the plaintiff.

No counsel for the defendant.

Daniel, J.

The statute declares that the presumption of payment shall arise in ten years after the right of action shall have accrued, under the same rules as theretofore existed at law in such cases. Rev. Stat. c. 65, s. 13. The Legislature has. therefore said, that forbearance for so long a time as ten years, unexplained, is a circumstance, from which the jury ought to infer that the debt has been satisfied. However, the presumption arising after such a lapse of time may be repelled by the defendant’s admission of the debt, or payment of interest within ten years; or the presumption may be answered by the proof of other circumstances, explaining satisfactorily why an earlier demand has not been made. More than fourteen years after this bond was due, the obli-gor was spoken to about it, when she said that she believed she had paid it. It seems to us that this evidence, so far from repelling the presumption of payment, which time had raised in her favor, rather went to strengthen that presumption. We think the judge was right in saying that it was *no*evidence to go to the jury to repel the presumption *of*payment, which the statute had raised.

Per CuRiam, Judgment below affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








I, William J. Fehrman, President and Chief Executive Officer of MidAmerican Energy Company (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:





|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended  March 31, 2011 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and




|    |                                                                                                                                                    
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.













Date:  May 6, 2011/s/ William J. FehrmanWilliam J. FehrmanPresident and Chief Executive Officer(principal executive officer)
EXHIBIT
15





AWARENESS
LETTER OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








MidAmerican
Energy Company


Des
Moines, Iowa





We have
reviewed, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board (United States), the unaudited consolidated interim financial
information of MidAmerican Energy Company and subsidiary for the periods ended
September 30, 2009 and 2008, as indicated in our report dated
November 6, 2009; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no
opinion on that information.





We are
aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-153777 on
Form S-3.





We also
are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the
Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement
prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an
accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that
Act.








/s/
Deloitte & Touche LLP





Des
Moines, Iowa


November 6,
2009