alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT21.1**

 

**Subsidiaries of Rafaella ApparelGroup, Inc.**

 
| **Name  of Subsidiary**            | ** ** | **State or Other Jurisdiction of********Incorporation or Organization** | ** ** | **Names Under Which  Business is Done** |
|------------------------------------|------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                               |       |                                                                    | ** ** | ** **                              |
| Verrazano, Inc.               |       | New York                                                                | ** ** | **—**                              |
| ** **                         |       |                                                                    | ** ** | ** **                              |
| Rafaella  Apparel Far East Limited |       | Hong Kong                                                               | ** ** | **—**                              |

 

----
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 Annual Report of Atlas America Series 27-2006 L.P. (the
"Partnership") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Freddie M. Kotek, Chief Executive Officer of the MGP, 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 results of operations of the
      Partnership.





By:
            /s/ Freddie M.
      KotekName:
            Freddie
      M. KotekTitle:
            Chief
      Executive Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate:
            March
      30, 2009
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Theodore A. Boutacoff,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, certify that the Quarterly Report of IRIDEX Corporation on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended April 2, 2011 (i) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of IRIDEX Corporation.



|                  |  |                                      
|----------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: May 5, 2011
|                  | 
|By:               |  | /s/ THEODORE A. BOUTACOFF            
|Name:             |  | Theodore A. Boutacoff                
|Title:            |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                  |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 965

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 6, 1995

Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

AN ACT

To designate the United States Courthouse for the Eastern

District of Virginia in Alexandria, Virginia, as the Albert

V. Bryan United States Courthouse.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 965 RFH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF ALBERT V. BRYAN UNITED

2 STATES COURTHOUSE.

3 (a) NEW COURTHOUSE.—

4 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Federal building located

5 at Courthouse Square South and Jamieson Avenue

6 in Alexandria, Virginia, shall be known and des7 ignated as the ‘‘Albert V. Bryan United States

8 Courthouse’’.

9 (2) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law,

10 map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of

11 the United States to the Federal building referred to

12 in paragraph (1) shall be deemed to be a reference

13 to the ‘‘Albert V. Bryan United States Courthouse’’.

14 (b) OLD COURTHOUSE.—

15 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Federal building located

16 at 200 South Washington Street in Alexandria, Vir17 ginia, shall not be known and designated as the

18 ‘‘Albert V. Bryan United States Courthouse’’.

19 (2) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law,

20 map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of

21 the United States to the Federal building known and

22 designated prior to the effective date of this section

23 as the ‘‘Albert V. Bryan United States Courthouse’’

24 shall be deemed to be a reference to the Federal

25 building referred to in paragraph (1).
3

S 965 RFH

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall become ef2 fective on the date of the completion of the construction

3 of the Federal building referred to in subsection (a)(1).

Passed the Senate August 9 (legislative day, July

10), 1995.

Attest: KELLY D. JOHNSTON,

Secretary.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 757 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 757

   To amend title 10, United States Code, to terminate the Civilian 
Marksmanship Program; to rescind funding for the National Board for the 
          Promotion of Rifle Practice; and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                  May 4 (legislative day, May 1), 1995

Mr. Lautenberg (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Simon, and Mr. Levin) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 10, United States Code, to terminate the Civilian 
Marksmanship Program; to rescind funding for the National Board for the 
          Promotion of Rifle Practice; and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF THE CIVILIAN MARKSMANSHIP PROGRAM.

    Chapter 410 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking out sections 4307, 4308, 4310, 4311, 4312, 
        and 4313;
            (2) in section 4309--
                    (A) in subsection (a), by striking out ``and by 
                persons capable of bearing arms'' and inserting in lieu 
                thereof ``law enforcement agencies''; and
                    (B) in subsection (b), by striking out 
                ``civilians'' each place it appears in paragraphs (1) 
                and (3) and inserting in lieu thereof ``law enforcement 
                agencies''; and
            (3) in the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 
        410 of such title, by striking out the items relating to 
        sections 4307, 4308, 4310, 4311, 4312, and 4313.

SEC. 2. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR NATIONAL BOARD FOR THE PROMOTION OF 
              RIFLE PRACTICE.

    The unobligated balance of the funds appropriated by title II of 
Public Law 103-335 under the heading ``National Board for the Promotion 
of Rifle Practice, Army'' is rescinded.

SEC. 3. FISCAL YEAR 1996 FUNDING NOT AUTHORIZED FOR THE NATIONAL BOARD 
              FOR THE PROMOTION OF RIFLE PRACTICE.

    Funds are not authorized to be appropriated for the National Board 
for the Promotion of Rifle Practice.
                                 <all>
```
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 50131 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee

v. CHARLES MARRION HARDING,
Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:10 -CR- 1376 -1

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Charles Marrion Harding, federal prisoner # 06729

- 078, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentencing reduction based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. On September 23, 2016, before this case was decided, Harding was released from federal custody. “Where a defendant has begun serving a term of supervised release, the appeal of the denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion is moot.” United

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 21, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-50131 Document: 00513808319 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/21/2016No. 16

- 50131

2 States v. Booker , 645 F.3d 328, 328 (5th Cir. 2011). Harding’s appel late arguments pertain only to the denial of relief under § 3582(c)(2) as related to the term of his imprisonment, and he makes no challenge to his term of supervised release. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED AS MOOT. Case: 16-50131 Document: 00513808319 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/21/2016
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricky McKinley INGRAM, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6817

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 16, 2017

Decided: November 20, 2017

Ricky McKinley Ingram, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael Hamilton, Angela Hewlett Miller, Kyle David Pousson, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ricky McKinley Ingram seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Ingram’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless á circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ingram has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal without prejudice to Ingram’s right to file in this court on the proper forms a motion for authorization to *188file a second or successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Benton, Willis and Overton Argued at Alexandria, Virginia

BESSIE L. WEBSTER MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 1323-95-4 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON APRIL 2, 1996 VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION AND STAFFORD COUNTY SCHOOLS

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF STAFFORD COUNTY James W. Haley, Jr., Judge Robin J. Mayer (Rappahannock Legal Services, Inc., on brief), for appellant. Lisa J. Rowley, Assistant Attorney General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General; D. Patrick Lacy, Jr.; Curtis G. Manchester; Hazel & Thomas, on brief), for appellees.

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication. The Virginia Employment Commission (VEC) denied Bessie L. Webster's request for unemployment benefits. Webster appeals the judgment of the circuit court affirming the commission's finding that Webster voluntarily left her employment without good cause. Finding no error in the judgment from which she appeals, we affirm. "When determining whether good cause existed for a claimant to voluntarily leave employment, the [VEC] and the reviewing courts must first apply an objective standard to the reasonableness of the employment dispute and then to the reasonableness of the employee's efforts to resolve that dispute- 2 - before leaving the employment." Umbarger v. Virginia Employment

Comm'n , 12 Va. App. 431, 435, 404 S.E.2d 380, 383 (1991). However, the courts are governed by the statutory directive that "the findings of the [VEC] as to the facts, if supported by evidence and in the absence of fraud, shall be conclusive, and the jurisdiction of the court shall be confined to questions of law." Code § 60.2-625(A); see Shifflett v. Virginia Employment

Comm'n , 14 Va. App. 96, 97, 414 S.E.2d 865, 865 (1992). "The VEC's findings may be rejected only if, in considering the record as a whole, a reasonable mind would necessarily come to a different conclusion." Craft v. Virginia Employment Comm'n , 8 Va. App. 607, 609, 383 S.E.2d 271, 273 (1989). The record supports the VEC's determination that Webster did not qualify for unemployment benefits because she did not have good cause to leave her employment. Code § 60.2-618(1). Webster worked as a custodian at a Stafford County School. During the course of her employment, she had experienced various medical problems, including pain in her heel, knee, and elbow. In March 1992 Webster saw her doctor because of continuing pain. Her doctor diagnosed a bone spur on her heel and tendinitis in her elbow, but he indicated that she could return to work the next day, and he did not advise her to quit. Nevertheless, Webster went to her principal and informed him that she could not continue to work because of medical reasons. The circuit court affirmed the VEC's determination that- 3 - Webster left her job voluntarily without good cause because she demonstrated no medical reason sufficient to compel her to resign. We cannot say that the record as a whole necessarily leads us to a different conclusion than that reached by the VEC.

Affirmed.
Opinion issued March 26, 2024

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 2 4
- 00 020
- CV

——————————— MICHAEL NEWSOME , Appellant

V. HOUSTON POLICE OFFICERS ’ PENSION SYSTEM, TERRY BRATTON, D. TREY COLEMAN, GEORGE GUERRERO, STEVE LE, DON A. SANDERS, AND MELISSA DUBOWSKI , Appellees

On Appeal from the 152nd District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2 023
- 82123

MEMORANDUM OPINION On January 8, 202 4 , appellant, Michael Newsome , filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s December 20, 2023 order granting the plea to the jurisdiction of appellees , the Houston Police Officers ’ Pension System, Terry Bratton, D. Trey2

Coleman, George Guerrero, Steve Le, Don A. Sanders, and Melissa Dubowski (collectively, “appellees”) . Appellant has neither paid the required fees nor established indigence for purposes of costs. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 145; T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 5, 20.1; see also T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . §§ 51.207, 51.208, 51.851(b), 51.941(a); Order, Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil Cases in the Courts of Appeals,
and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi

- District Litigation, Misc. Docket No.
15

- 9158 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2015). On January 31 , 2024, a ppellant was notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal if appellate costs were not paid, or indigence was not established, by March 1 , 2024. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(b), (c). Appellant did not adequately respond. Further, appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay the fee for the preparation of the clerk’s record. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 37.3(b). On Febr uary 16 , 2024, appellant was notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal if appellant did not submit written evidence that he had pa id or made arrangements to pay the fee for the preparation of the clerk’s record by February 26 , 2024. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(b), (c). Appellant did not adequately respond. Based on appellant’s failure to pay appellate costs, or pay or make arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the clerk’s record, on March 5, 2024, appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. More than ten days have passed , and appellant has not responded to appellees’ motion to3

dismiss

. F urther, appellees’ motion states that appellant has “indicated he is not opposed to [appellees’] motion to dismiss.” See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 10.1(a)(5) , 10.3(a). Accordingly, we grant appellees’ motion and dismiss the appeal for nonpayment of all required fees and want of prosecution. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 5, 42.3(b), (c), 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guerra and Farris.
#### Alnese FRAZIER, As parent, natural guardian and next friend of LF and BF, minor children of Melvin Vernell, III, deceased; As next friend of KW, a minor child of Melvin Vernell, III, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-15154

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(April 12, 2017)

Craig Thomas Jones, The Orlando Firm, LLC, Decatur, GA, Louis Francis Robbio, Law Office of Louis F. Robbio, North Port, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Gabriel Adam Mendel, Lori Beranek, John Andrew Horn, Lawrence R. Sommer-feld, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before WILSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI,* Judge.

*

 Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge for the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

After careful review of the briefs and the record, and having the benefit of oral argument, we find no reversible error.

Frazier argues that her complaint set forth a plausible claim for negligence, wrongful death, deliberate indifference, and negligent supervision; and the district court erred by granting the United States’ motion to dismiss for failure to allege a legal duty. According to Frazier, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) owed a legal duty to her fiancé, Melvin Vernell, III (Vernell), because a “special relationship” existed between the FBI and its confidential informant, Mani Chulpayev (Chulpayev). Frazier asserts that the FBI, through Special Agent Jackson, had a professional relationship with Chulpayev for several years prior to the murder of Ver-nell.

After reviewing the district court’s grant of the motion to dismiss de novo, we conclude that Frazier’s allegations are insufficient to support a finding that the FBI had the requisite degree of control over Chul-payev to be held liable under Georgia law. Moreover, Frazier has not identified, nor havp we found, a liability-inducing cause of action for deliberate indifference under Georgia law in this context. The decision of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
```

[Federal Register: January 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 17)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 4269]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27ja10-6]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0705; Airspace Docket No. 09-ASO-25]

 
Establishment of Class E Airspace; Hertford, NC

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action confirms the effective date of a direct final rule 
published in the Federal Register September 14, 2009 that establishes 
Class E Airspace at Harvey Point Defense Testing Activity, Hertford, 
NC.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, January 27, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, Operations Support 
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. 
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-5610.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Confirmation of Effective Date

    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for 
comments in the Federal Register on September 14, 2009 (74 FR 46892), 
Docket No. FAA-2009-0705; Airspace Docket No. 09-ASO-25. The FAA uses 
the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule 
where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. 
This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were 
anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written 
notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received 
within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on 
December 17, 2009. No adverse comments were received, and thus this 
notice confirms that effective date.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on January 14, 2010.
Myron A. Jenkins,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air 
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2010-1384 Filed 1-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Clifford S. Feibus, certify
that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by
this report on Form 10-K of the Corporate Backed Callable Trust Certificates, J.C. Penney Debenture-Backed Series 2006-1 Trust (the Exchange Act periodic reports);

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement
required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing, or similar, agreement in all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this
report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

Date: April 28, 2016



|       |  |                                                              
|------ |  | -------------------------------------------------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Clifford S. Feibus                                       
|Name:  |  | Clifford S. Feibus                                           
|Title: |  | Senior Vice President and Controller                         
|       |  | (Senior Officer in Charge of Securitization of the Depositor)