alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**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 Quarterly Report of AtheroGenics, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Russell M. Medford,
      President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that, to the best of my knowledge:





(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 results of operations of the Company.





/s/RUSSELL
      M.
      MEDFORD


Russell
      M. Medford


President and Chief Executive
      Officer


Date:
      July 28,
      2005














**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 AtheroGenics, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark P. Colonnese,
      Senior Vice President of Finance and Administration and Chief Financial Officer
      of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
      knowledge:





(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 results of operations of the Company.





/s/MARK
      P. COLONNESE


Mark
      P.
      Colonnese


Senior
      Vice President
      of Finance and


Administration
      and Chief Financial
      Officer


Date: July 28,
      2005
No. 2956.

#### State *v.*McFail.

April Term, 1892.

G. *W. M. Williams,*for the motion. *Murphy,*solicitor, contra.

This was an order per curiam. May 24, 1892, refusing motion of defendant, appellant, for further time within which to print and serve this “Case.” In refusing the motion the court said : It appears that this case was tried at the November term, 1891, of the Court of General Sessions for Barnwell County; the defendant was convicted of manslaughter, and sentence was passed November 20th, 1891. _ Notice of appeal was given on the same day. The appellant’s proposed “Case” was served on the solicitor January 22d, 1892, the solicitor accepted service, with the distinct notice endorsed thereon, that no further agreements would be made, and that appellant would be required to observe the rules of court. Amendments to the proposed “Case” were served January 22d, 1892; and the “Case” was settled by the Circuit Judge February 16th, 1892. The next step in the preparation of the “Case” for hearing on appeal is the letter of the stenographer, dated May 9th, 1892, explaining his delay. In this letter the stenographer says he expects to commence the preparation of his work on that day or the next, and would soon have it written off. Fourteen days have elapsed since that time, and no reason has been shown why the testimony, as taken by him, has not been furnished. Under the circumstances, it appears to the court that there has been inexcusable delay in the preparation of the “Case.” It is true, the motion is addressed to the discretion of the court; but it must be a reasonable discretion, and in its exercise the court is bound to look at both sides.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4457 

To provide for the payment to the City of New York and Washington, 

DC, of amounts attributable to the unpaid fully adjudicated parking 

fines and penalties issued to foreign governments, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 13, 2010 

Mr. WEINER (for himself and Mr. MCMAHON) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To provide for the payment to the City of New York and 

Washington, DC, of amounts attributable to the unpaid 

fully adjudicated parking fines and penalties issued to 

foreign governments, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4457 IH

1 SECTION 1. PAYMENT OF CERTAIN AMOUNTS TO THE CITY 

2 OF NEW YORK AND WASHINGTON, DC, AT3 TRIBUTABLE TO THE UNPAID FULLY ADJU4 DICATED PARKING FINES AND PENALTIES 

5 ISSUED TO FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi7 sion of law, including Acts making appropriations for the 

8 Department of State, foreign operations, and related pro9 grams, the Secretary of State shall, in any fiscal year, pay 

10 to the City of New York and Washington, DC, as the case 

11 may be, an amount equal to the total amount attributable 

12 to unpaid fully adjudicated parking fines and penalties 

13 issued during any such fiscal year by the City of New York 

14 or Washington, DC, as the case may be, to foreign govern15 ments that pursuant to such appropriations Acts are with16 held from obligation for assistance provided during any 

17 such fiscal year to such governments. Any such payment 

18 accepted by the City of New York or Washington, DC, 

19 as the case may be, shall be deemed to satisfy in full any 

20 such unpaid fully adjudicated parking fines and penalties 

21 at issue and as a waiver of such city’s right to pursue 

22 collection of such fines and penalties through any other 

23 method. 

24 (b) DEFINITIONS.—The terms ‘‘fully adjudicated’’ 

25 and ‘‘parking fines and penalties’’ have the meanings 

26 given such terms in subsection (f) of section 7055 of the 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4457 IH

1 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related 

2 Programs Appropriations Act, 2009 (division H of Public 

3 Law 111–8), except that the definition of ‘‘parking fines 

4 and penalties’’ shall not include the end date specified in 

5 paragraph (2)(B) of such subsection for purposes of this 

6 Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from SEC Form
10-K and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          50,009
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  142,719
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,223
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                       2,467,779
<DEPRECIATION>                                 238,167
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,759,183
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                      2,042,254
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     254,628<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,759,183
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               591,904
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  331,083
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,991
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             162,485
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                100,899
<INCOME-TAX>                                   100,899
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            100,899
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (3,723)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    97,176
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.93<F3>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.93<F3>
<FN>
<F1>The Registrant does not use a classified Balance Sheet.
<F2>The Registrant is a partnership.  The amount reported is Partner's equity.
<F3>Amounts are actually earnings per unit.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
ITEM 7 - EXHIBIT.

                  CEO/CFO CERTIFICATION OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. STATUTE 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY CERTIFY IN THEIR CAPACITY AS
OFFICERS OF SUBJEX CORPORATION. (THE "COMPANY") THAT (A) THE QUARTERLY REPORT OF
THE COMPANY ON FORM 10-QSB FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30ST 2003 FULLY
COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 13(A) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
OF 1934 AND (B) THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN SUCH REPORT FAIRLY PRESENTS, IN ALL
MATERIAL RESPECTS, THE FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE COMPANY AT THE END OF SUCH
PERIOD AND THE RESULTS OF OPERATIONS OF THE COMPANY FOR SUCH PERIOD.



                             BY  /S/ ANDREW HYDER
                                 ----------------------------------
                                     ANDREW HYDER, CEO (ACTING CFO)


<PAGE>
2:17-cv-998

Travis and Julie Abbott 

v.

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company

and

2:18-cv-136

Angela and Teddy Swartz 

v.

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company

Jury Trial Day 23

Wednesday, February 26, 2020

before Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.

For Plaintiffs: F. Jerome Tapley, Jon Conlin, Mitchell Theodore and Nina Herring 

For Defendant: D. Patrick Long, Damond Mace, Aneca Lasley, Robert Fehrenbacher 

and John Burlingame

Court Reporter: Darla Coulter, Allison Kimmel, Lahana DuFour and Shawna Evans 

Courtroom Deputy: Christin Werner

9:00 a.m. Jury Charge given

10:00 a.m. – 4:15 p.m. Jury deliberates

Jury to return February 28, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. to continue deliberations.

Case: 2:17-cv-00998-EAS-EPD Doc #: 175 Filed: 02/27/20 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 6826
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

In re: SHANE DOMINIC BRITTON Case No. 1:17-MC-33
Black, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Shane Dominic Britton, a resident of Cincinnati, Ohio, has filed documents
entitled “Petition to Be Received In Forma Pauperis” and “Declaration of Status for a Natural
Person.” (Doce. 1).

On November 28, 2017, the Court ordered plaintiff to pay the required filing fee of $400.00
or resubmit his application to proceed in forma pauperis with the appropriate affidavit or
declaration. The Court granted plaintiff an extension of time of thirty (30) days to submit a
revised application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the required filing fee. (Doc. 2).
Plaintiff was also ordered to submit a complaint setting forth the facts of his claims and the relief
he is seeking within thirty (30) days if he wished to file a civil action. Plaintiff was warned that if
he failed to comply with the Order, the Court would dismiss his case for want of prosecution. Jn
re Prison Litigation Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131 (6th Cir. 1997).

To date, more than thirty days later, plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s order.
Accordingly, this matter should be closed and terminated on the docket of this Court.

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

Date: Lsll Lin <A <ettonk

Karen L. Litkovitz
United States Magistrate Judge


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION
In re: SHANE DOMINIC BRITTON Case No. 1:17-MC-33
Black, J.

Litkovitz, M.J.

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING THE FILING OF OBJECTIONS TO R&R
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy of the

recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations. This period may be extended further by the Court on
timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected
to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report
and Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon matters occurring on the record at an oral
hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such
portions of it as all parties may agree upon, or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the
assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party's objections
WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in
accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140

(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
Exhibit 35.1

Servicer Compliance Statement of AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.

This Annual Statement as to Compliance is delivered to you pursuant to Section 4.10 (a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of April 3,
2013 (the Agreement) and Item 1123 of Regulation AB, executed in connection with the formation of AmeriCredit Automobile Receivables Trust 2013-2 (the Trust), the issuance of the Notes by the Trust and the closing of the
transactions and the execution and delivery of the various documents by General Motors Financial Company, Inc. (f/k/a AmeriCredit Corp.), AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (the Servicer) and AFS SenSub Corp. in connection therewith.
The capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meanings as in the Agreement.

The undersigned certifies that I am the Executive Vice President,
Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of the Servicer. I further certify as follows:



| | 1. | I have conducted, or caused to be conducted under my supervision, a review of the Servicer during the preceding period from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014, and its performance under the Agreement.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, following such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period, and, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no default in the
fulfillment of any such obligation.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.



|    |  |                                         |  |  |  |  |  |                      
|--- |  | --------------------------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ---------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Connie Coffey                       |  |  |  |  |  | Dated: March 30, 2015
|    |  | Connie Coffey                           |  |  |  |  |  |                      
|    |  | Executive Vice President, Corporate     |  |  |  |  |  |                      
|    |  | Controller and Chief Accounting Officer |  |  |  |  |  |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:17-cr-261 (2)

Judge Marbley

Antwan Deshawn Thomas 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 43) that the

defendant’s guilty plea be accepted. The Court accepts the

defendant’s plea of guilty to Counts 11 and 12 of the Supersding

Indictment, and he is hereby adjudged guilty on these counts. The

Court will defer the decision of whether to accept the plea

agreement until the sentencing hearing.

Date: October 12, 2018 s\Algenon L. Marbley 

 Algenon L. Marbley

 United States District Judge
#### Pruitt *v.*Pine Bluff Water & Sewer Extension District No. 2.

4-8582

214 S. W. 2d 489

Opinion delivered November 8, 1948.

*Thomas W. Raines,*for appellant.

*A. F. Triplett,*for appellee.

Wine, J.

Water Distribution & Seyer District No. 2 of Jefferson County, Arkansas, was formed and came into being by an order of the Jefferson County Court, September 10, 1926, pursuant to the provisions of Act 126 of 1923 and amendments, the name of said district being changed to Pine Bluff Water & Sewer Extension District No. 2 by order of the court, August 22, 1927. The objectives were to construct and provide water distribution, fire protection and sanitary sewer facilities for the use of the inhabitants within the confines of the district, adjacent to the City of Pine Bluff. Bonds in the principal sum of $55,000 were sold, maturing over a period of 21 years, a portion of which ($29,000) has since been refunded.

Appellants are owners of property subject to taxation located within said district.

November 29, 1947, appellants filed a suit in the Jefferson Chancery Court alleging twelve irregularities, among other things attacking the constitutionality of the acts under which the district was created, but upon a hearing of this cause held January 21, 1948, appellants *65proved absolutely nothing except that the several witnesses who testified were owners of property embraced within the district and that all had paid their assessments up to date and that none had ever before resisted or protested such payments. This can best be illustrated by setting but the verbal decision of the court at the conclusion of the hearing and the colloquy which took place between the court and counsel as' follows:

> “The Court: I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and consider that you brought this as a class suit, because you did finally mention it in your second amendment to the complaint. Even so, Rena Pruitt and these other parties who have testified own property in the district and have paid their assessments up to date. One of them, I believe, stated he did not live in the district, but owned property that was in the district. That’s all you proved. Mr. Raines: That’s all I wanted to prove by*the plaintiffs. The Court: What does that prove? Mr. Raines: Well, it proves this refunding is an unlawful exaction. The Court: Why? — Who said it was? — Who testified to that.? Mr. Raines: It’s in the complaint. The Court: Lots of things in complaints are never proved. — I am going to dismiss your complaint for want of equity. Mr. Raines: I want to take an appeal. The Court: Yes, sir.”

The complaint did not contain an exhibit of the character which will be treated as proof without supporting evidence.

Therefore the Chancellor was correct, and the decree will be affirmed.

Appellants’ motion to retax costs will be denied in the absence of any showing that the appellees unduly burdened the record.
Exhibit 23









CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-07621) pertaining to the LCA-Vision Inc. 1995 Long-Term Stock Incentive Plan and the LCA-Vision Inc. Directors Nondiscretionary Stock Option Plan and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-74485) pertaining to the LCA-Vision Inc. 1998 Long-Term Stock Incentive Plan, of our report dated February 14, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of LCA-Vision Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2002.







/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Cincinnati, Ohio

March 21, 2003
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

March 23, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 05-14282

________________________

D. C. Docket Nos.

05-00046 CV-HLM-4

02-50848 BKC-PW

IN RE:

MARK ANTHONY BAKER,

Debtor.

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

AUTOMOTIVE FINANCE CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MARK ANTHONY BAKER,

Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Georgia

_________________________

(March 23, 2006)
2

Before ANDERSON and DUBINA, Circuit Judges, and ALBRITTON*, District

Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant challenges the findings of fact of the bankruptcy court, which

findings were not disturbed by the district court. After oral argument and careful

review, we cannot conclude that appellant has established that the findings were

clearly erroneous.

AFFIRMED.

___________________________________

* Honorable William H. Albritton, III, United States District Judge for the Middle

District of Alabama, sitting by designation.
Order entered August 21, 2019 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00796-CV 

IN RE KAREN BURKS 

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 7 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 007-01918-2019 

ORDER 

Before Justices Bridges, Reichek, and Carlyle 

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we CONDITIONALLY GRANT relator’s 

petition for writ of mandamus. We DIRECT the county court to issue, within twenty-one (21) 

days of the date of this opinion, a written order vacating the court’s order remanding this matter 

to justice court and reinstating in county court relator’s appeal of the justice court’s judgment. 

We further ORDER the county court to file with this Court, within thirty (30) days of the date of 

this order, a certified copy of its order(s) issued in compliance with this order and with the 

Court’s opinion of this date. Should the county court fail to comply with this order, the writ will 

issue. We ORDER real party in interest Orion Prosper Lakes LLC to bear the costs, if any, of 

this original proceeding. 

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES 

 JUSTICE
### MANDATE



## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 13

- 00349

- CV

Drake Interiors, L.L.C., Appellant

v.

Andrea Marie Thomas and Robert Warren Thomas, Appellee s Appealed from the 334th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 2009

- 22182).
Substitute O pinion delivered by Justice Christopher. Justices Boyce and Brown also participating.



### TO THE 334TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

This court today issued a substitute opinion. We order this court’s former judgment of April 3, 2014, vacated, set aside, and annulled. We further order this court’s opinion of April 3, 2014, withdrawn. We deny the motions for rehearing filed by appellant, Drake Interiors, L.L.C., and by appellee, Andrea Marie Thomas.

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favo r of appellee, Andrea Marie
Thomas , signed March 20, 2013, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find error in the judgment. We therefore order the judgment of
the court below REVERSED and REMAND the cause for proceedi ngs in accordance
with the court ’ s opinion.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellee, Andrea Marie Thomas.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this behalf and in all things have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.
WITNESS , the Hon. Kem Thompson Frost , Chief Justice of our Fourteenth Court of Appeals, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of H ouston, August 4, 2015

.