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 Quarterly Report of Colmena Corp. on Form 10-QSB
for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, I, Anthony Q. Joffe, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         1. The Report 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/ Anthony Q. Joffe
---------------------
Anthony Q. Joffe
President and Chief Executive Officer

June 11, 2004
#### *In re*Herr’s Will.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.*

July 18, 1890.)

Legacy Tax—Exemption—Home por Consumptives.

Under Rev. St. N. Y. (7th Ed.) p. 982, § 4, subd. 4, which provides that “every poor-house, almshouse, * * * and the real and personal property used for such purposes, ” shall be exempt from taxation, a legacy to a home for consumptives, whose inmates are entirely supported by charity, is not subject to the succession tax provided for in Laws N. Y. 1887, c. 713, § 1, since that act excepts “societies, corporations, and institutions now exempted by law from taxation. ” Following 7 N. Y. Supp. 852.

Appeal from surrogate’s court, Kings county.

The court below adjudged that a legacy of $1,000, bequeathed by the will of Frederick Herr to the Brooklyn Home for Consumptives, is subject to the collateral inheritance tax. The legatee appeals. For former reports, see 5 1ST. Y. Supp. 48, and 7 1ST. Y. Supp. 852.

Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Dykman and Pratt, JJ.

*Benjamin Estes,*for .appellant. *D. E. Meeker,*for the executors.

Pratt, J.

The previous decision in the matter of a legacy under this will is decisive of this appeal. The opinion found in 7 N. Y. Supp. 852, fully discusses the questions involved. In that case the orphan asylum was held to be a house of industry. In this case the consumptive home, whose inmates are entirely supported by charity, is an almhouse. The same rule applies to one as to the other. It follows that the decree appealed from must be reversed, so far as it relates to the appellant, with costs.
#### In the Matter of Akiva Katz, Appellant, v New York University, Respondent.

[943 NYS2d 518]—

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered November 16, 2011, which denied a petition pursuant to article 78 to annul a determination by respondent (New York University [NYU]), dated on or about October 22, 2010, directing that petitioner receive an “F” grade in General Physics I and withdraw from the course, and dismissed the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly found that NYU’s disciplinary determination was based on a rational interpretation of the relevant evidence and substantially adhered to its published administrative rules and procedures *(see generally Matter of Katz v Board of Regents of the Univ. of the State of N.Y.,*85 AD3d 1277 [2011], *lv denied*17 NY3d 716 [2011]; *see also Matter of Dequito v New School for Gen. Studies,*68 AD3d 559 [2009]). NYU’s Academic Integrity Policy (AIP) for its College of Arts and Sciences expressly provided that all outside materials used in laboratory reports be accurately and completely acknowledged, and that any determination as to plagiarism would be based on fact, not upon a student’s intention. As such, given the documentary evidence supporting NYU’s determination, petitioner’s argument, that he had no intention to plagiarize and that he only sought to rely upon prior student laboratory reports as guidance to properly draft a laboratory report, is unavailing. The AIP also explicitly provided that if any student had doubts as to the requirements for acknowledging outside sources when drafting laboratory reports, the student was to confer with his or her professor on the issue, which petitioner did not do.

*548Finally, the determination to assign petitioner an “F” as a grade, as well as to require his withdrawal from the course, was within the parameters of permissible discipline authorized by the AH] and such discipline was not shocking to one’s sense of fairness under the circumstances. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, Renwick and Freedman, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 32999CU).]
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: In re Elite Specialty Welding, LLC

Appellate case number: 01

- 18

- 00788

- CV

Trial court case number: 2017

- 36068

Trial court: 190th District Court of Harris County

The Court abated this original proceeding on January 7, 2019 pursuant to Rule 7.2 to permit the successor judge to reconsider the original decision challenged in this proceeding. Relator has

filed a motion to reinstate the case. Relator attached to its mo tion a copy of the trial court’s February 1, 2019 order agreeing with the predecessor judge’s order denying relator’s motion to

dismiss for forum non conveniens

.

The Court grants the motion and reinstates this case on the active docket.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

____

/s/ Justice Peter Kelly

___________________  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: _ March 7, 2019

__
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 23(b)

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus constituting part
of the Registration Statement on Form S-8 and Form S-3 (No. 33-34855) for the
Flowers Industries, Inc. 1982 Incentive Stock Option Plan and the Flowers
Industries, Inc. 1989 Executive Stock Incentive Plan dated May 18, 1990 and of
the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 33-91198 and No. 333-23351) for the
Flowers Industries, Inc. 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan, of our reports dated
February 18, 1998, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements and
financial statement schedule of Keebler Foods Company which reports are included
in this Transition Report on Form 10-K of Flowers Industries, Inc.  


/s/ Coopers & Lybrand, L.L.P.

Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
Chicago, Illinois
March 27, 1998
#### DWYER v. RORKE.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June, 1896.)

Action by Thomas N. Dwyer against James Rorke.

No opinion. Motion denied. See 40 N. Y. Supp. 934,, and 41 N. Y. Supp. 721.
I 

DON SMOOT, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

CAROLYN COL VIN, 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

3: 15-CV-00708-MC 

ORDER 

Based upon the stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that attorney fees in the 

amount of $3,494.62 shall be awarded to Plaintiff pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 

U.S.C. § 2412. The parties agree that attorney fees will be paid to Plaintiff's attorney, dependent 

upon verification that Plaintiff has no debt which qualifies for offset against the awarded fees, 

pursuant to the Treasury Offset Program as discussed inAstrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010). 

If Plaintiff has no such debt, then the check shall be made out to Plaintiff's attorney and 

mailed to Plaintiff's attorney's office as follows: Merrill Schneider, P.O. Box 14490, Portland, 

OR 97293. If Plaintiff has a debt, then the check for any remaining funds after offset of the debt 

shall be made to Plaintiff and mailed to Plaintiffs attorney's office at the address stated above. 

DATED this 4day of ll.e-~ . , 2016. 

The ~~ Honorable Owen M. Parmer 

Senior U.S. District Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-00708-PA Document 26 Filed 12/14/16 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6110

JOHNNY LOUIS WARDLAW,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DENT G. LYNCH, JR., Public Defender; OFFICE OF

THE PUBLIC DEFENDER FOR PRINCE GEORGE’S

COUNTY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-97-

4110-MJG)

Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: July 8, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnny Louis Wardlaw, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Wardlaw v. Lynch, No. CA-97-4110-MJG (D. Md. Dec. 18, 1997).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6053

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALFRED TITUS SHULER, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CR-96-13-BR, CA-99-106-7-BR) Submitted: June 9, 2000 Decided: June 28, 2000 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Alfred Titus Shuler, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Skiver, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Alfred Titus Shuler seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Government on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Shuler , Nos. CR-96-13-BR; CA-99-106-7-BR (E.D.N.C. Nov. 30, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Livestock Arthropod Pest Research Unit: Kerrville, TX
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Kerrville, Texas Knipling-Bushland U.S. Livestock Insects Research Laboratory Livestock Arthropod Pest Research Unit Research





- ARS National Programs
- Search for a scientific manuscript
- Search for a research project
- ARS Software
- Programs and Projects
- Collaborations
- Subjects of Investigation
- Publications

Collaborations The Livestock Arthropod Pest Research Unit has a long and productive history of collaborative research involving stakeholders.  Current collaborators and projects:  Screwworm Genetic Sexing Line Development  Defining Biochemical Pathways That Regulate Mouthpart Development and Seminal Fluid Production in Stable Fly Males Elucidating Mechanisms of Pyrethroid Resistance in Stable Flies  Collaborative Research Involving the Use of Biohazardous Materials, Biological Toxins, Non-Exempt rDNA, and/or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules  Investigating New World Screwworm Courtship and Mate Selection  Expanding Precision-guided Sterile Insect Technique (pg-SIT) to Tick Species  Developing Phylogenomic-based Diagnostic Tools for Species Identification Across Diptera Functional Characterization of Sex-biased Odorant Receptors in Screwworm to Develop Sex Specific Baits


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Katisha Beaty, Appellant.

[945 NYS2d 917]

Resentence unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s motion to be relieved of assignment granted *(see People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38 [1979]). (Appeal from Resentence of Erie County Court, Michael F. Pietruszka, J.) Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Fahey, Peradotto and Sconiers, JJ. (Filed June 8, 2012.)
# C_2005310EN.01000101.xml

| 8.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 310/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/1

---

Notification by Iceland concerning visa reciprocity (1)

1

(2005/C 310/01)

I refer to my letter to you today, where I informed you that Iceland accepts the content of a Council Regulation (EC) No 851/2005, amending Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 as regards the reciprocity mechanism, following your notification to Iceland of the adoption by the Council of the referred act, in accordance with Article 8(2a) of the Agreement concluded by the Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the latter's association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis.

Please accept the following notification from Iceland.

In accordance with Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 of 2 June 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 539/2001, I wish to inform you that nationals of the Republic of Iceland are subject to a visa requirement in the following third countries listed in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 539/2001:

| — | Australia |
| --- | --- |

—

Australia

| — | Brunei Darussalam |
| --- | --- |

—

Brunei Darussalam

| — | Nicaragua |
| --- | --- |

—

Nicaragua

| — | Panama |
| --- | --- |

—

Panama

| — | Paraguay. |
| --- | --- |

—

Paraguay.

---

(1)  This notification is published in conformity with Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 of 2 June 2005 (OJ L 141, 4.6.2005, p. 3) amending Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 (OJ L 81, 21.3.2001, p. 1).

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
          This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from
          Pen  Interconnect,  Inc.  March 31,1997  financial  statements  and is
          qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001000266
<NAME>                        i$krjk9q
                 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         51,087
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  4,201,993
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (232,590)
<INVENTORY>                                    4,497,006
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               10,112,258
<PP&E>                                         3,668,481
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,103,383)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 15,344,690
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          7,047,484
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       30,334
<OTHER-SE>                                     8,069,714
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   15,344,690
<SALES>                                        10,740,637
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               10,740,637
<CGS>                                          8,829,116
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  10,248,426
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               669,584
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             268,776
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                893,019
<INCOME-TAX>                                   361,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            531,419
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   531,419
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.18
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 4.84

                              Fourth Amendment to
                              Amended and Restated
                      Certificate of Limited Partnership of
                Geodyne Energy Income Limited Partnership II-H


     The undersigned,  desiring to amend its amended and restated  certificate
of limited  partnership  pursuant  to the  Oklahoma  Revised  Uniform  Limited
Partnership Act, as amended,  Okla.  Stat. tit. 54 (1993),  Section 301 et seq
(the "Act"), do hereby state:

1.  The  name of the  limited  partnership  is  Geodyne  Energy  Income  Limited
Partnership II-H.

2. The  dates of  filing  of the  Certificate  of  Limited  Partnership  and all
amendments thereto are as follows:

      Name                                                    Date
      Agreement and Certificate of Limited
            Partnership                                       5/19/89
      Amended and Restated Certificate of
            Limited Partnership                               3/10/89
      First Amendment to Amended and Restated
            Certificate of Limited Partnership                2/25/93
      Second Amendment to Amended and Restated
            Certificate of Limited Partnership                7/19/96
      Third Amendment to Amended and Restated
            Certificate of Limited Partnership                11/21/01

3.  The  Third  Amendment  to  Amended  and  Restated   Certificate  of  Limited
Partnership  dated November 14, 2001,  and filed with the Oklahoma  Secretary of
State on November 21,  2001,  stated that the latest date upon which the limited
partnership  is to dissolve is December  31,  2003.  Pursuant to its terms,  the
Agreement  and  Certificate  of  Limited  Partnership  dated  May 17,  1989 (the
"Partnership  Agreement")  was amended on November 18,  2003,  to state that the
latest date upon which the  Partnership  is to dissolve  is December  31,  2005,
provided that the General  Partner may extend the term of the Partnership for up
to three additional  periods of two years each pursuant to the provisions of the
Partnership Agreement.

      Therefore,  the Amended and Restated Certificate of Limited Partnership is
hereby  revised  to state that the latest  date on which the  Partnership  is to
dissolve  is  December  31,  2005,  subject  to  extension  as set  forth in the
Partnership's Partnership Agreement.

      Dated:  November 21, 2003.

                                          GEODYNE RESOURCES, INC.
                                          General Partner


                                          By://s// Dennis R. Neill
                                          -------------------------
                                          Dennis R. Neill, President
105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2032

AMENDMENTS
In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

September 14, 1998.

Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 2032) entitled ‘‘An Act to designate the Federal building in Juneau,

Alaska, as the ‘‘Hurff A. Saunders Federal Building’’, do

pass with the following

AMENDMENTS:

Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

2 The Federal building located at 709 West 9th Street

3 in Juneau, Alaska, shall be known and designated as the

4 ‘‘Hurff A. Saunders Federal Building’’.

5 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

6 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

7 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

8 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a

9 reference to the ‘‘Hurff A. Saunders Federal Building’’.
2

•S 2032 EAH

Amend the title so as to read: ‘‘An Act to designate

the Federal building located at 709 West 9th Street in

Juneau, Alaska, as the ‘Hurff A. Saunders Federal

Building’.’’.

Attest:

Clerk.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MATTHEW JONES,

Plaintiff BelowAppellant,

v.

ROCKFORD CENTER, et al.,

Petitioner BelowAppellee.

§

§ No. 437, 2017

§

§

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ C.A. No. N17C-08-233

§

§

Submitted: March 9, 2018

 Decided: March 15, 2018

O R D E R

This 15th day of March 2018, it appears that the Court issued a notice to the 

appellant to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for his failure to 

pay the Superior Court record preparation fee. The appellant responded, indicating 

that this Court granted his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, which should excuse 

his responsibility for payment of the Superior Court’s fee. On February 22, 2018, 

the Clerk wrote to the appellant and explained that the Court’s order only waived the 

Supreme Court’s filing fee but did not waive the Superior Court’s record preparation 

fee. The appellant was given an extended deadline until March 9 to pay the Superior 

Court’s fee and was informed that failure to pay the fee would result in dismissal of 

his appeal without further notice. The appellant failed to pay by the deadline. 

Accordingly, dismissal of this appeal is deemed to be unopposed.
2

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court 

Rules 3(b) and 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice