alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 3.1

AMENDED AND RESTATED

CERTIFICATE OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

OF

STAR GAS PARTNERS, L.P.



Star Gas Partners, L.P., a limited partnership organized under
the Delaware Revised Uniform Partnership Act (the Act), for purposes of amending and restating its Certificate of Limited Partnership filed with the office of the Secretary of State of Delaware on October 16, 1995 under the name
Star Gas Partners L.P. and amended on October 19, 1995 changing its name to Star Gas Partners, L.P., hereby certifies that effective upon filing its Amended and Restated Certificate of Limited Partnership is amended and restated to read in its
entirety as follows:

1. The name of the limited partnership is Star Gas Partners, L.P.

2. The address of the registered office of the limited partnership in Delaware is 615 South Dupont Hwy., Dover, DE 19901. The limited partnerships
registered agent at that address is Capital Services, Inc.

3. The name and address of the general partner is as follows:



|                  |  |                     
|----------------- |  | --------------------
|Name              |  | Address             
|                  | 
|Kestrel Heat, LLC |  | 2187 Atlantic Street
|                  |  | Stamford, CT 06902  

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amended and Restated Certificate of Limited Partnership; which restates
and integrates and also further amends the Amended and Restated Certificate of Limited Partnership as heretofore amended or supplemented, has been duly executed as of the 28th day of April, 2006 and is being filed in accordance with
Section 17-210 of the Act by the withdrawing general partner thereunto duly authorized and by the general partner designated herein as the new general partner.





|                                |  |                         |  |        |  |                        
|------------------------------- |  | ----------------------- |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
|STAR GAS LLC                    |  | KESTREL HEAT, LLC      
|The withdrawing general partner |  | The new general partner
|                                |  |                         | 
|By:                             |  | /s/ Joseph Cavanaugh    |  | By:    |  | /s/ Joseph Cavanaugh   
|Name:                           |  | Joseph Cavanaugh        |  | Name:  |  | Joseph Cavanaugh       
|Title:                          |  | Chief Executive Officer |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNews Releases1998

# NRC Staff Issues Confirmatory Action Letter to Consolidated Edison

----

----

I-98-35

March 27, 1998

**NRC STAFF ISSUES CONFIRMATORY ACTION LETTER TO CONSOLIDATED EDISON**

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has issued a Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL) to Consolidated Edison Company confirming the firm's commitments to improve performance at its Indian Point 2 nuclear plant in Buchanan, N.Y.

Indian Point 2 was shut down on October 14 to address problems with electrical breakers. Subsequently, plant workers and NRC inspectors found other equipment and performance problems that must be addressed prior to restart.

The CAL confirms commitments ConEd made in a March 23 letter to the NRC discussing its intent to conduct an independent safety assessment and then meet with the NRC to discuss the findings of that assessment. ConEd also agreed: 1) to conduct equipment performance and material condition reviews and correct deficiencies prior to restart; 2) complete procedure and process reviews prior to restart; and, 3) to complete pre-startup activities in the areas of work management, corrective actions, conduct of operations and conduct of engineering prior to restart.

Issuance of the CAL does not preclude issuance of an order formalizing the commitments or requiring other actions on the part of the company.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

                            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 report of Claxson Interactive Group Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 20-F as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Roberto Vivo-Chaneton, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, 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) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

Dated: July 14, 2003

                                                       /s/ Roberto Vivo-Chaneton
                                                       -------------------------
                                                       Roberto Vivo-Chaneton
                                                       Chief Executive Officer
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-09-00059-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF B.I., et al., Children

From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2007-PA-02085

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 20, 2009

DISMISSED

This is an appeal from a judgment terminating appellant’s parental rights. The trial court

found the points on which appellant states she intends to appeal to be frivolous. See TEX. FAM.

CODE ANN. § 263.405(c),(d)(3). The trial court also found that appellant is not indigent. We

ordered appellant to file a brief on the issue of whether the appeal is frivolous by March 4, 2009.

See id. § 263.405(d). We further ordered appellant to provide proof that the filing fee in the amount

of $175 was paid by March 23, 2009. 

After appellant failed to respond to either of our orders, we ordered appellant to: (1) file an

appellant’s brief challenging the trial court’s finding that her appeal is frivolous; and (2) file an
04-09-00059-CV

-2-

appellant’s brief challenging the trial court’s finding that she is not indigent or pay the filing fee.

Our order stated that if appellant failed to respond to our order no later than April 13, 2009, the

appeal would be dismissed. See TEX.R. APP. P. 5, 42.3(c). Appellant did not respond. The appeal

is dismissed.

PER CURIAM
THE STATE OF TEXAS

VS.

KERRY MAX COOK

Cause No. 1-77-179

IN TH

OF

CLERK JKIhjilO

Vri

•RT SMITH CO Ty

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

ER ON MOTION FOR DNA TESTING

Wkr, On this/Cz day of Aoguat, ami, came to be heard matters pertaining to motion for DNA

testing under Criapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the defendant, Kerry Max

Cook. Pursuant to Art. 64.03 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Court makes the following

findings:

1. The State has, within the time frame imposed under Art. 64.02 (a) (2) of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, constructively delivered to the Court evidence of the offense

of Murder under this cause. By order of the Judge John Ovard, Presiding Judge of the 1st

Administrative Judicial District, this evidence has been maintained by the Smith County

Criminal District Attorney's office until such time as it is ordered to be delivered to the

Court or sent for testing.

2. The State has further provided this Court with written reports concerning the

condition of this evidence, the chain of custody of the evidence, and its suitability for DNA

testing as required by Art. 64.02 (a) (2) (A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. On August 6, 2012, Judge John Ovard, Presiding Judge of the 1" Administrative

Judicial District, issued an order of assigning this case to the 114lh District Court of Smith

County, Texas, Judge Christi Kennedy, presiding.

4. The evidence uncovered by the State still exists and is in condition making DNA

testing possible.

5. sufficient chain of custody for this evidence exists to establish that it has not been

substituted, tampered with, replaced, or altered in any material respect.

6. Identity was an issue in the case.

7. The defendant has shown by preponderance of the evidence that he would not have

been convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through DNA testing; and the request

for the proposed DNA testing is not made to unreasonably delay the execution of sentence

or administration of justice.

Page of
8. Other evidence in this case, which was found in storage at the Southwestern Institute

of Forensic Sciences and the Texas Depailment of Public Safety Lab, was previously ordered

by Judge John Ovard, Presiding Judge of the 1st Administrative Judicial District, on

May 4, 2012, to be sent to Orchid Cellmark, 13988 Diplomat Drive, Dallas, Texas 75234,

for DNA testing.

9. Said evidence pertinent to this order consists of the following:

Item 1: Hair found next to the victim's right hand

Item 2: Victim's bedspread and pillow

Item 3: Cigarette butts found in the victim's ashtray

Item 4: Vacuumed items from area of floor between victim's legs

Item 5: Victim's blouse

Item 6: Knife collected at the crime scene

10. The Court orders that the items of evidence listed above and currently in possession

of the Smith County Criminal District Attorney's office should be sent to Orchid Cellmark,

13988 Diplomat Drive, Dallas, Texas 75234, for DNA testing.

SIGNED ON THIS DAY OF

nj rt -iWZ wv UJH^ HONORABLE CH

Judge, 114lh District Court

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

Page of
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 Han Logistics, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Annual Report), I, Amee Lombardi, President, Secretary and Treasurer of the Registrant, 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 Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.  Date:December 22, 2011By:/s/Amee LombardiAmee Lombardi, President, Secretary, Treasurer

, Principal Financial Officer

 and Director    1
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 23

- 00369

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2

Wichita County, Texas Trial Court No. CCL2

- CV2021

- 2429

- 1

Before Walker, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Kerr, J. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### K AREN 

### M OLINA 

### T HOMPSON 

### , Appellant

V



### . J OHN 

### D EERE 

### C ONSTRUCTION 

### & F ORESTRY 

### C OMPANY AND 

### D EERE 

### C REDIT 

### S ERVICES 

### , I NC



### . D 

### / B 

### / A 

### J OHN 

### D EERE 

### F INANCIAL 

### , Appellees2 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT Appellant’ s brief was due on June 13, 2024. On June 26, 2024, we notified appellant that her brief had not been filed as the appellate rules require. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a). We stated that we could dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution

unless , within ten days, appellant filed with the court a n appellant ’ s brief and a n accompanying motion reasonably explaining the brief’s untimely filing and why an

extension was needed. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b), 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). We have

received no response. Because appellant has failed to file a brief even after we afforded an opportunity to explain the initial failure, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

Per Curiam

Delivered : July 2 5, 2024
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 Form 10-QSB of Absolute Waste Services, Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of their knowledge and belief, that:

          1)   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a)
               or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
               and

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



                                            /s/  Thomas F. Duszynski
                                            -----------------------------------
                                                 Thomas F. Duszynski
                                                 Chief Executive Officer and
                                                 Chief Financial Officer

                                            Date:    May 27, 2005

     This certification shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, or otherwise
subject to the liability of Section 18 of the Exchange Act. Such certification
shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the
Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
Exhibit 32.2








CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 Speedus Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John A. Kallassy, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 SecuritiesExchange of 1934, amended; and





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




Date:    August 16, 2010




By:
/s/ John A. KallassyTitle:
Treasurer and Chief Financial and Accounting Officer
EXHIBIT
10.5




LETTER
OF REAFFIRMATION OF ABSOLUTE ASSIGNMENT OF FRANCHISEE NOTES AND PROCEEDS DUE,
ASSIGNMENT OF RENTS AND SUBLEASES, PLEDGE AGREEMENT, AND UNITED STATES TRADEMARK
COLLATERAL ASSIGNMENT AND SECURITY AGREEMENT





DATED: As
of November 11, 2009




TO:
            Manufacturers
      and Traders Trust Company


One
      M & T Plaza, Buffalo, New York
14240





Re:                      REAFFIRMATION of ABSOLUTE ASSIGNMENT
OF FRANCHISEE NOTES AND PROCEEDS DUE, ASSIGNMENT OF RENTS AND SUBLEASES, PLEDGE
AGREEMENT, AND UNITED STATES TRADEMARK COLLATERAL ASSIGNMENT AND SECURITY
AGREEMENT (collectively, the "Security Documents") made to MANUFACTURERS AND
TRADERS TRUST COMPANY (the “Bank") dated as of August 7,
2007 in connection with loans made to EMERGING VISION, INC. (“Borrower”) by
Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company (collectively, the
“Loan”).





Dear
Sirs:





Each of
the undersigned hereby reaffirms and ratifies all the terms, conditions,
representations, and covenants contained in the Security Documents and certifies
that there are no defenses, offsets, or counterclaims thereto as of the date
hereof.





Each of
the undersigned further covenants and agrees (i) that the security interests
granted to Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company by the Security Documents and
respectively as appropriate perfected by subsequent UCC-1 filings, remain in
full force and effect as set forth therein and that same continue to constitute
a binding first security interest in the stated assets of each of the
undersigned securing the Borrower’s and each of the undersigned’s debt to
Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company and that they are unaffected by the
execution of that certain ALLONGE TO NOTE and that certain LIMITED WAIVER AND
AMENDMENT AGREEMENT evidencing, among other things, (i) the reduction of the
Principal amount of the Loan as set forth therein and (ii) the waiver of certain
financial covenants for fiscal period ended 9/30/09, and any related documents,
each dated of even date herewith, copies of which each of the undersigned
acknowledges having received and reviewed, and (ii) that the Security Documents
are in full force and effect.




Very
truly yours,





EMERGING
VISION, INC.





By:           /s/ Christopher G.
Payan


Christopher G. Payan, CEO







OG
ACQUISITION, INC.





By:           /s/ Brian P.
Alessi


Name: Brian P. Alessi


Title: Chief Financial
Officer
| (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 all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ John M. Jurasin                                                                                                                                                                             |         |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------|
| John M. JurasinPresident, Principal Executive Officer, Secretary, Treasurer,Principal Financial Officer, Director(Duly Authorized, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer) |         |
|                                                                                                                                                                                            |         |   |
| Date: January 22, 2014                                                                                                                                                                          |    |
#### Leonard (Donald), by guardian *ad litem,*Respondent, vs. Bottomley and another, Appellants.

*November 11*

December *6, 1932.*

For the appellant there was a brief by *Whaley & Paulsen*of Racine, and oral argument by *Vilas H. Whaley.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *Simmons, Walker, Wratten & Sporer*of Racine, and oral argument by *Harold J. Sporer*and *Charles W. Wratten.*

Fairchild, J.

The facts in this case are identical with those in the case of Samuel R. Leonard v. C. E. Bottomley *et al.,*decided herewith *(ante,*p. 411, 245 N. W. 849), and the determination of the questions there rule this case. The-judgment here, as in that case, is modified and affirmed for the same reasons and in the particular therein set forth.

*By the Court.*— So ordered.
February 10, 1987

No. A-565 (86-6300).

#### Johnson *v.*Lynaugh, Interim Director, Texas Department of Corrections.

C. A. 5th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice White, and by him referred to the Court, is granted pending the disposition by this Court of the petition for writ of certiorari. Should the petition for writ of certiorari be denied, this stay terminates automatically. In the event the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, this stay shall continue pending the sending down of the judgment of this Court.

The Chief Jus*1072tice, Justice White, Justice O’Connor, and Justice Scalia would deny the application.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 21

- 00273

- CV

I N THE I NTEREST OF S.B., A C HILD §

§

§

§ O n Appeal from the 393rd District Court

of Denton County ( 21

- 0938

- 39 3 )

October 21, 2021

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of

jurisdiction

.

SECOND DI STRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Brian W a lker

Justice Brian Walker
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Jerry J. Mast an, Sr., Appellant, v Nashua Tape Products et al., Respondents. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

[631 NYS2d 446]

Spain, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed February 28, 1994, which, *inter alia,*ruled that claimant did not have a total industrial disability.

On May 10, 1989, claimant injured his right shoulder while working as a mill operator. Following two surgical procedures to correct problems with this shoulder, it was determined by the medical examiner for the Workers’ Compensation Board that claimant was only permanently partially disabled. A hearing before a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (hereinafter WCLJ) was held, after which the WCLJ found based upon the medical evidence and claimant’s own testimony that there is a permanent partial disability and claimant does not have a total industrial disability. The Board affirmed the WCLJ’s findings and this appeal ensued.

We affirm. Claimant testified at the hearing that he can read and write and was capable of driving his car and assisting in household chores after the accident. The record also shows that claimant is extensively involved in the community and is an active and involved member of several civic organizations. The carrier’s physician testified that while he agreed that claimant was permanently partially disabled, he found that claimant was benefiting from pain management counseling and could be gainfully employed in light duty work. Claimant’s orthopedist also testified that claimant might be able to perform a *light*duty or sedentary job. We find this evidence to be sufficient to support the Board’s factual determination that claimant did not have a total industrial disability *(see, Matter of Yanarella v IBM Corp.,*195 AD2d 620, 621; *Matter of Buchanon v Adirondack Steel Casting Co.,*175 AD2d 971).

*767While it is true that another of claimant’s physicians opined that claimant had a total disability for his present occupation as a mill worker, he did not have an opinion as to whether claimant could be gainfully employed in light duty work. Claimant nevertheless argues that because he was found to be an unsuitable candidate for vocational rehabilitation in October 1991 and February 1992 because of his complaints of pain, the Board should have found him to be totally disabled. However, there is also evidence in the record, including testimony from a clinical psychologist and claimant himself, indicating that claimant was reluctant to be retrained to do work at a lesser wage because it would be "demeaning”, thus raising the inference that claimant was unwilling to perform other work as opposed to being unable to do so. Accordingly, we conclude that the Board’s findings were rationally based.

The remaining arguments raised by claimant have been examined and found to be either unpreserved or without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, White and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.