alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Energy, L.P. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2011 (the Report), I, Edward E. Cohen, Chief Executive Officer of the General Partner, 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.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                            
|------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ EDWARD E. COHEN                                         
|Edward E. Cohen                                             
|Chief Executive Officer and President of the General Partner
|July 6, 2012
#### COM. v. KOLOVICH, R.

1273 MDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

08/25/2017

CP-40-CR-0002136-2014

(Luzerne)

Affirmed
AFS

- 16

- 8939

- E

April 6 , 2016

Exemption No. 7772G Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2002

- 11395

Mr. James F. Kregiel

SkillsUSA VICA 4001 SkillsUSA Way Leesburg, VA 20177

Dear Mr. Kregiel :

This le tter is to inform you that we have granted you r petition to extend Exemption No. 7772,

as amended . It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated February 24 , 20 14 , you petitioned the Federal A viation Adm inistration (FAA) on behalf of SkillsUSA VICA (Vocational International Clubs of America) ( SkillsUSA ) for an

exte nsion of Exemption No. 7772, as amended. That exemption from § 147.21 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations relates to A viation M aintenance Technician S chools whose students participate in the SkillsUSA Championships. The exemption allows authorized faculty members of those schools to determine if the student time dedicated to preparing for and participating in the SkillsUSA Champi onships (up to 60 hours per student per year) satisfies the requirements of § 147.21.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the or iginal exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the reque sted extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be det rimental to SkillsUSA

.AFS

- 16

- 8939

- E

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 7772, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S .C. 106(f), 40113

, and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant SkillsUSA VICA petition to allow authorized faculty members of

those schools whose students participate in the SkillsUSA Championships, to determine if the

student time dedicated to preparing for and participating in the SkillsUSA Championships (up to 60 hours per student per year) satisfi es the requirements of § 147.21, subject to the following conditions and limitations:

1. This exemption is valid only for substitution of the curriculum requirements of § 147.21 for the purpose of student participation in the state and national SkillsUSA Championship.

2. Only authorized faculty members of schools whose students participate in the state

and national SkillsUSA Ch ampionship may determine if student time dedicated to preparing for and participating in the SkillsUSA Championship , may be considered creditable to satisfy the requirement of § 147.21.

3. Creditable time is limited to a maximum of 60 hours per student per y ear.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 7772, as amended , to May 31,

201 8 , unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan Director, Flight Standards Service
No. 12-6459.

#### Rios Rivera *v.*Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### COM. v. REICH, V.

1061 WDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

08/21/2017

CP-02-CR-0007920-2015

(Allegheny)

Affirmed
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>            		                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>           	           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          24,870
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,934
<ALLOWANCES>                                        70
<INVENTORY>                                        313
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,330
<PP&E>                                         104,980
<DEPRECIATION>                                  56,462
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  76,848
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,475
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           489
<OTHER-SE>                                      53,227
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    76,848
<SALES>                                          4,690
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,030
<CGS>                                            2,317
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,717
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 273
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    313
<INCOME-TAX>                                       105
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                208
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       208
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04
        

</TABLE>
** **

**Exhibit 23.1**

  

**Consent of Independent Registered PublicAccounting Firm**

 

We consent to the incorporation by referencein the following Registration Statements:

 

(1) Registration Statements (Form S-3 Nos.333-198721, 333-196758, 333-177535, 333-180423, 333-181815, 333-184362 and 333-190638) of InnerWorkings, Inc. and subsidiaries, and

(2) Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos.333-196759, 333-137173, 333-165363, 333-175103, and 333-183311) pertaining to the InnerWorkings, Inc. 2006 Stock Incentive Plan;

 

of our reports dated March 6,2015, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of InnerWorkings, Inc. and subsidiaries, and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of InnerWorkings, Inc. and subsidiaries included in this AnnualReport (Form 10-K/A) of InnerWorkings, Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2014.

 

 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

 

 

Chicago, Illinois

March 6, 2015

 

** **
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 91 (Tuesday, May 12, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 26166]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-12474]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-99-006]


Algonquin LNG, Inc.; Notice of Compliance Filing

May 6, 1998.
    Take notice that on May 1, 1998, Algonquin LNG, Inc. (ALNG) 
tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised 
Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets to become effective 
June 1, 1998:

Second Revised Sheet No. 31
Third Revised Sheet No. 51
Second Revised Sheet No. 83

    ALNG asserts that the purpose of this filing is to comply with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Letter Order issued on July 3, 
1997, in Docket Nos. RP97-90-001 and RP97-99-002. ALNG states that the 
above listed tariff sheets are being filed to bring ALNG's FERC Gas 
Tariff into compliance with Gas Industry Standards Board (GISB) 
Standards 4.3.6, 4.3.7, and 5.4.13 through 5.4.16.
    ALNG states that copies of this filing were served on firm 
customers of ALNG and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-12474 Filed 5-11-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
|                                                                 
|-----------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                 
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                   
|View History: Annual                                             
|View History: Annual                                             
|View History:                                                    
|                                                                 
|Montana Natural Gas % of Total Vehicle Fuel Deliveries  (Percent)
|                                                                 
|                                                                 
|Montana Natural Gas % of Total Vehicle Fuel Deliveries  (Percent)
|                                                                 

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        | 0.39   | 0.32   | 0.31   | 0.45   | 0.55   | 0.39   | 0.38  
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 0.39   | 0.36   | 0.36   | 0.36   | 0.36   | 0.02   | 0.01   | 0.01   | 0.00   | 0.00  
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0.00   | 0.00   | 0.00   | 0.00   | 0.00   | 0.00   | 0.00   | 0.00   | 0.00   | 0.00  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0.00   | 0.00   | 0.00   |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-31162

(Summary Calendar)

 

ROBERT N. HOWLE,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

KELLY WARD; WARDEN, WADE 

CORRECTIONAL CENTER,

Respondents-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

(99-CV-125-C)

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

July 18, 2000

Before POLITZ, WIENER, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Petitioner-Appellant Robert N. Howle, a Louisiana state

prisoner, appeals from the denial of his habeas corpus petition

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Howle was granted a

certificate of appealability by the district court on the issue

whether his Sixth Amendment right to cross-examine a state witness

was violated by the trial court’s rulings. He has not shown that

he is entitled to relief on that ground. The testimony about the

witness’s history of alcohol abuse was not necessary to argue that
2

the witness was unable to perceive events accurately on the night

of the shooting. See Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 318

(1974)(counsel should be allowed to present evidence from which

jurors could “appropriately draw inferences relating to the

reliability of the witness.”). Howle has not shown that the

witness’s prior unadjudicated offense of insurance fraud was an

appropriate line of cross-examination. Id. Finally, Howle has not

shown that his attorney was precluded from questioning the witness

about his use of Xanax on the night of the shooting and its effects

on his perceptions. See Shaw v. Collins, 5 F.3d 128, 132 (5th Cir.

1993)(a habeas petitioner must show that a limitation of crossexamination affected or influenced the verdict). Consequently, the

district court’s denial of his habeas petition is 

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 93 (Thursday, May 14, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 26790]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-12798]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Army Science Board; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting

    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), announcement is made of the following 
Committee Meeting:

    Name of Committee: Army Science Board (ASB).
    Date of Meeting: 12-13 May 1998.
    Time of Meeting: 0800-1700, 12 May 1998, 0900-1600, 13 May 1998.
    Place: Arlington, VA.
    Agenda: The Army Science Board's (ASB) Issue Group Study Panel 
on ``Impacts of Precision Guided Munitions on Future Tank and 
Howitzer Capabilities'' will meet for briefings and discussions on 
the study subject. The open portions of these meetings are open to 
the public. Any person may attend, appear before or file statements 
with the committee. The closed portions of these meetings will be 
closed to the public in accordance with Section 522b(c) of title 5, 
U.S.C., specifically subparagraph (1) thereof, and Title 5, U.S.C., 
Appendix 2, subsection 10(d). For further information, please 
contact our office at (703) 604-7490.
Wayne Joyner,
Program Support Specialist, Army Science Board.
[FR Doc. 98-12798 Filed 5-13-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
#### K.E., a Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-2620

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 8, 2017

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hills-borough County; Barbara Twine Thomas, Judge.

Affirmed.
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1369

To reduce Federal budget deficits by delaying the beginning of initial lowrate production of two new weapon systems of the Department of Defense.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

AUGUST 5 (legislative day, JUNE 30), 1993

Mr. WOFFORD introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To reduce Federal budget deficits by delaying the beginning

of initial low-rate production of two new weapon systems

of the Department of Defense.

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

3 SECTION 1. DELAY OF CERTAIN DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

4 NEW START PROGRAMS.

5 (a) TRI-SERVICE STANDOFF ATTACK MISSILE PRO6 GRAM.—Funds available for the Department of Defense

7 for fiscal year 1994 may not be expended for advance pro8 curement for proceeding into low-rate initial production in

9 fiscal year 1995 under the Tri-Service Standoff Attack

10 Missile (TSSAM) program.
2

•S 1369 IS

1 (b) JAVELIN ADVANCED ANTITANK WEAPON SYS2 TEM PROGRAM.—Funds available for the Department of

3 Defense for fiscal year 1994 may not be expended for pro4 ceeding into low-rate initial production under the Javelin

5 Antitank Weapon System–Medium (AAWS–M) program

6 of the Army.

Æ
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63**

**Of Title 18 of the United States Code**

 

 

 

 

I, Ralph F. Hake, the Chief Executive Officer of Maytag Corporation, certify that (i) theForm 10-Q/A for the period ended April 2, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the foregoing report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of Maytag Corporation. 

 

/s/Ralph F. Hake

****Ralph F. Hake, Chief Executive Officer 

 

April 22, 2005

Date 

 

- 27 -
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 19

- 40665 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Fabian Gonzalez Mora,** also known as **Fabian Mora Gonzalez,** 

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:16

- CR

- 481

- 1

Before **King, Smith** , and **Wilson,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
Fabian Gonzalez Mora pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, and he was sentenced to 135 months of imprisonment and five years of sup ervised

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 27, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-40665 Document: 00515616892 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/27/2020No. 19

- 40665

2 release. The district court’s written judgment imposed two special conditions of supervised release that Gonzalez Mora now challenges: one requiring him to report to the nearest probation office immediately if he
returns to the United States and a nother directing that active supervision would automatically reactivate upon his reporting.

We review for abuse of discretion because the se written special
conditions were neither mandatory nor orally pronounce d at sentencing. See
United States v. Diggles , 957 F.3d 551, 559

- 63 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc), petition for cert

. filed (U.S. Sept. 24, 2020) (No. 20

- 5836) ; see also United
States v. Huor , 852 F.3d 392, 397 (5th Cir. 2017). The district court abused its discretion by impo sing these two special conditions in the written judgment because they were more burdensome than the special conditions it
announced during the sentencing hearing. See Diggles , 957 F.3d at 559

- 63;
United States v. Mudd , 6 8 5 F.3d 473, 480 (5th Cir. 2012); United States v. Bigelow , 462 F.3d 378, 380 (5th Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is **VACATED IN**

**PART** , and the matter is **REMANDED** to the district court for the limited purpose of conforming the written judgment with the oral prono uncement of

sentence. Case: 19-40665 Document: 00515616892 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/27/2020
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The Honorable James V. Selna, United States District Judge for the **

Central District of California, sitting by designation. 

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision ***

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT ALLEN LONG,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 09-35036

D.C. No. 3:07-cv-00127-JVS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Alaska

James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding** 

Submitted February 15, 2011*** 

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Robert Allen Long appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing

for failure to prosecute his action seeking Social Security benefits. We have

FILED

FEB 25 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-35036

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. 

Townsel v. Cnty. of Contra Costa, Cal., 820 F.3d 319, 320 (9th Cir. 1987). We

affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action

without prejudice because Long failed to serve the summons and complaint as

required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), or to show good cause for his

failure. See id. 

Long’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. 

Long’s pending Motion for Emergency Court Protection is denied. 

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 35.3
                     SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                           HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL, LLC
                 RAMP SERIES 2006-RS1 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

      The undersigned,  a duly authorized officer of Homecomings Financial, LLC,
      as  servicer  (the  "Servicer")   pursuant  to  the  applicable  servicing
      agreement, does hereby certify that:

      1. A review of the Servicer's  activities during the period covered by the
      Issuing  Entity's  report on Form 10-K and of the  Servicer's  performance
      under  the  applicable   servicing   agreement  has  been  made  under  my
      supervision.

      2. To the best of my  knowledge,  based on such  review,  the Servicer has
      fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable  servicing agreement
      in all material respects  throughout such period. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  the
      undersigned  has duly  executed  this  Certificate  this 26th day of March
      2007.

      By: /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
          Name: Anthony N. Renzi
          Title: Managing Director