alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1



DIVALL INSURED INCOME PROPERTIES 2

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP



Certification of Periodic Financial Report

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Divall Insured Income Properties 2 Limited Partnership (the Company) certifies that the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2004 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



|                     |  |                                        |  |                                                               
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |  | THE PROVO GROUP, INC., General Partner
|                     |  |                                       
|Dated: June 28, 2005 |  | By                                     |  | /s/ Bruce A. Provo                                            
|                     |  |                                        |  | President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer



This certification is
made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard

contained therein, and not for any other purpose.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1755 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.1755

                     One Hundred Fourteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
           the fourth day of January, two thousand and sixteen

                                 An Act

 
 To amend title 36, United States Code, to make certain improvements in 
      the congressional charter of the Disabled American Veterans.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CONGRESSIONAL CHARTER OF DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS.
    (a) Purposes.--Section 50302 of title 36, United States Code, is 
amended--
        (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``The 
    purposes of the corporation are--'' and inserting ``The corporation 
    is organized exclusively for charitable and educational purposes. 
    The purposes of the corporation shall include--'';
        (2) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
        (3) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (9); and
        (4) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following new 
    paragraphs:
        ``(7) to educate the public about the sacrifices and needs of 
    disabled veterans;
        ``(8) to educate disabled veterans about the benefits and 
    resources available to them; and''.
    (b) Dissolution.--Chapter 503 of such title is amended by adding at 
the end the following new section:
``Sec. 50309. Dissolution
    ``On dissolution or final liquidation of the corporation, any 
assets remaining after the discharge or satisfactory provision for the 
discharge of all liabilities shall be transferred to the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs for the care of disabled veterans.''.
    (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 503 of such title is amended by inserting after the item 
relating to section 50308 the following:

``50309. Dissolution.''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Exhibit 4(g)

 

PROTECTIVE   LIFE   INSURANCE   COMPANY           P.   O.   BOX    1928          BIRMINGHAM,   ALABAMA      35201-1928

 

ANNUITIZATION BONUS ENDORSEMENT

 

We are amending the Contract to which this endorsement is attached by adding the following provision:

 

Annuitization Bonus — If the Annuity Commencement Date is on or after the 10th Contract Anniversary, and if you select Annuity Option B with a certain period of not less than 10 years, we will add an annuitization bonus to the amount we apply to the Annuity Option.   The annuitization bonus will equal 2% of the Contract Value to be applied to the Annuity Option and will be calculated as of the Valuation Period that contains the Annuity Commencement Date.

 

Signed for the Company and made a part of the Contract as of the Effective Date.

 

PROTECTIVE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

 



 

Steve M. Callaway, Secretary

 

IPV-2125i
#### ST. JOHN et al., Respondents, v. COLVIN, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department.

December 28, 1895.)

Action by Charles R. St. John and another against Oliver A. Colvin.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1998, AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT
OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHES ENDED JUNE 30, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           9,359
<SECURITIES>                                    21,227
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,083
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,035
<INVENTORY>                                      1,828
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         810,551
<DEPRECIATION>                                 398,619
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,189,361
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      1,284,835
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                   (275,283)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,189,361
<SALES>                                        227,991
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               227,991
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  199,630
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,589
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              60,811
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (19,303)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,455
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (15,848)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (3,061)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (18,909)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RYAN BUNDY, 

Defendant. 

No. 3:16-cr-00051-BR-5 

ORDER GRANTING SUBSTITUTION 

OF COUNSEL PURSUANT TO THE 

PROVISIONS OF THE CRIMINAL 

JUSTICE ACT, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A 

IT IS ORDERED that CJA Panel attorney Andrew Bates is appointed 

pursuant to the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, as 

substitute counsel, relieving Federal Public Defender Lisa Hay for Ryan Bundy, 

effective January 27, 2016. 

DATED this ~ay of February, 2016. 

Hon~/ United States District Court Judge 

PRESENTED BY: 

Lisa C":iia§ 

Federal Public Defender 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 126 Filed 02/08/16 Page 1 of 1
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FEBRUARY 25, 2022

NO. 03-21-00352-CR

The State of Texas, Appellant

v.

William Derek Groves, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 27TH DISTRICT COURT OF LAMPASAS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND KELLY

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE KELLY

This is an appeal from an order granting Groves’s motion to suppress evidence signed by the 

trial court. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there 

was no reversible error in the order. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s order to 

suppress evidence. The State shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in 

the court below.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Case No.: 6:15−cr−00216−AA

Plaintiff(s),

v. DETENTION ORDER

(VIOLATION OF

PROBATION/SUPERVISED

RELEASE) MATTHEW L. MURDOCK

Defendant(s).

/

After a preliminary hearing (or waiver thereof) pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.1(a)(1) and/or

Fed.R.Crim.P. 46(c) and 18 U.S.C. § 3143 (violation of probation or supervised release), the Court finds

that there is probable cause to hold Defendant Matthew L. Murdock for a revocation hearing and that

Defendant has not met his/her burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that he/she will

not flee nor pose a danger to another person or to the community.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i)(2)−(4), IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

(1) Defendant is detained pending a probation/supervised release revocation hearing;

(2) Defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a

corrections facility separated, as far as practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being

held in custody pending appeal;

(3) Defendant shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity for private consultation with his

counsel; and

(4) The superintendent of the corrections facility in which defendant is confined shall make the

defendant available to the United States Marshal for the purpose of appearance in connection with any

court proceeding.

DATED this 2nd day of December, 2016 /s/Jolie A. Russo

Honorable Jolie A. Russo

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 6:15-cr-00216-AA Document 36 Filed 12/02/16 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

SHERLE SMITH, 

Plaintiff, 

Case No. 3:15-cv-1524-MC 

vs. 

COMMISSIONER of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

ORDER 

Attorney fees in the amount of $5,069.68 are hereby awarded to Plaintiff pursuant to the 

Equal Access To Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), and costs are awarded in the amount of$400.00 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Subject to any offset allowed under the Treasury Offset Program, 

payment of this award shall be made via check sent to Tim Wilborn's address: P.O. Box 370578, Las 

Vegas, NV 89137. In accordance with the fee assignment which Plaintiff has signed, payment shall 

be made in Tim Wilborn's name if no debt subject to offset exists. 

DA TED this 22__ day of A~') v JI '2016. 

ORDER - Page 1 

\. 

United States District Comt Judge 

Michael J. McShane 

Case 3:15-cv-01524-MC Document 18 Filed 08/23/16 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 99.1

                            STATEMENT UNDER OATH FOR
                           PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, Kanwar J.S. Chadha, Ph,. D., certify that:

         The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 31,
2002 of Entrada Networks, Inc. fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information
contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 31,
2002 of Entrada Networks, Inc fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Entrada Networks, Inc.

                                            Subscribed and sworn to
                                            before me this 27th day of November


/s/ Kanwar J. S. Chadha                     /s/ Gene R. O'Neal
-----------------------                     ------------------
Name:  Kanwar J.S. Chadha, Ph. D.           Notary Public
Date:  November 27, 2002                    Commission Expires April 14, 2004
                                                       Seal

                                       25
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.1

                               SYNC RESEARCH, INC.
                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                          QUARTER ENDED              SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                                             JUNE 30,                    JUNE 30,
                                                                            --------                     --------
                                                                       1997           1996           1997           1996
                                                                   -----------     ---------      ----------     ----------
<S>                                                               <C>              <C>            <C>            <C>
NET LOSS PER SHARE:
Net loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .        $(2,983)       $(2,513)       $(9,162)       $(4,086)
Accretion of cumulative dividend and redemption
  value of mandatorily redeemable preferred stock. . . . . .          -----           (222)          ----           (533)

                                                                   ---------     ---------       --------       ---------
Net loss attributable to common stockholders . . . . . . . .        $(2,983)       $(2,735)       $(9,162)       $(4,619)
                                                                   ---------     ---------       --------       ---------
                                                                   ---------     ---------       --------       ---------

Shares outstanding for computing net loss per share:
    Weighted average common and common equivalent shares
      outstanding used in calculating net loss per common
      share in accordance with generally accepted
      accounting principles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .         17,173         16,069         17,079         16,010
                                                                   ---------     ---------       --------       ---------


Net loss per share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .         $(0.17)        $(0.17)        $(0.54)        $(0.29)
                                                                   ---------     ---------       --------       ---------
                                                                   ---------     ---------       --------       ---------

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

LEVAR LEE SPENCE,

Petitioner

v.

NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF 

COMMON PLEAS, PRESIDENT JUDGE 

CHARLES H. SAYLOR, PROTHONOTARY, 

JAMIE SALESKI,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 1 MM 2023

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 4

th day of April, 2023, the Application for Leave to File Original 

Process is GRANTED. The “Petition to Compel Performance,” the “Petition for Speedy 

Disposition,” and the “Petition for Immediate Disposition” are DENIED. The Prothonotary 

is DIRECTED to strike the name of the jurist from the caption.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1712 

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to exempt providers of broadband 

Internet access service from Federal universal service contributions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 26, 2015 

Mr. MOONEY of West Virginia introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to exempt providers of broadband Internet access service from Federal 

universal service contributions. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Freedom from Internet 

5 Tax Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF BROADBAND PROVIDERS FROM 

7 FEDERAL UNIVERSAL SERVICE CONTRIBU8 TIONS. 

9 Section 254(d) of the Communications Act of 1934 

10 (47 U.S.C. 254(d)) is amended— 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1712 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘Every’’ and inserting the fol2 lowing: 

3 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Every’’; and 

4 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(2) EXEMPTION FOR PROVIDERS OF

6 BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS SERVICE.—This sub7 section does not apply to a person engaged in the 

8 provision of broadband Internet access service (as 

9 defined in the rules adopted in the Report and Order 

10 on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order that was 

11 adopted by the Commission on February 26, 2015 

12 (FCC 15–24)), insofar as such person is so en13 gaged.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1746 

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to protect employer rights. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 13, 2015 

Mr. KING of Iowa introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to protect 

employer rights. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Truth in Employment 

5 Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE. 

7 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: 

8 (1) An atmosphere of trust and civility in labor9 management relationships is essential to a produc10 tive workplace and a healthy economy. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1746 IH

1 (2) The tactic of using professional union orga2 nizers and agents to infiltrate a targeted employer’s 

3 workplace, a practice commonly referred to as ‘‘salt4 ing’’ has evolved into an aggressive form of harass5 ment not contemplated when the National Labor Re6 lations Act was enacted and threatens the balance of 

7 rights which is fundamental to collective bargaining. 

8 (3) Increasingly, union organizers are seeking 

9 employment with nonunion employers not because of 

10 a desire to work for such employers but primarily to 

11 organize the employees of such employers or to in12 flict economic harm specifically designed to put non13 union competitors out of business, or to do both. 

14 (4) While no employer may discriminate against 

15 employees based upon the views of employees con16 cerning collective bargaining, an employer should 

17 have the right to expect job applicants to be pri18 marily interested in utilizing the skills of the appli19 cants to further the goals of the business of the em20 ployer. 

21 (b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this Act are— 

22 (1) to preserve the balance of rights between 

23 employers, employees, and labor organizations which 

24 is fundamental to collective bargaining; 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1746 IH

1 (2) to preserve the rights of workers to orga2 nize, or otherwise engage in concerted activities pro3 tected under the National Labor Relations Act; and 

4 (3) to alleviate pressure on employers to hire 

5 individuals who seek or gain employment in order to 

6 disrupt the workplace of the employer or otherwise 

7 inflict economic harm designed to put the employer 

8 out of business. 

9 SEC. 3. PROTECTION OF EMPLOYER RIGHTS. 

10 Section 8(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 

11 U.S.C. 158(a)) is amended by adding after and below 

12 paragraph (5) the following: 

13 ‘‘Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as requir14 ing an employer to employ any person who seeks or has 

15 sought employment with the employer in furtherance of 

16 other employment or agency status.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
CURRENT STATUS OF THE LEES FERRY FISHERY

Spring 2016 *preliminary data

Goal: To maintain a quality rainbow trout fishery in Glen Canyon

1. Electrofishing catch is > 1 rainbow trout/minute. 

Current status: 1.25 fish/ min

2. Rainbow Trout < 6 inches compose 20-50% of the 

fall electrofishing catch. 

Current status: 65%

Current status: 1.4 juvenile rainbow trout/min

3. Angler catch rate ≥ 1 Rainbow Trout/ hour.

Boating (12 month ave): 0.97 fish/hour

Walk-in (12 month ave): 0.26 fish/hour

4. 10 Rainbow Trout ≥ 14 inches caught by an angler in 

a 10 hour day. At least 1 ≥ 20 inches in length.

Not measured in 2015. Stay tuned!

5. Maintain Rainbow Trout condition factor ≥ 1 in 

summer months.

Current status: 1.03 for all sizes combined

Year

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Fraction of young of the year rainbow trout 

captured in the fall

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

Year

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Fall juvenile Rainbow Trout CPUE (fish/min)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

For more information, please contact:

Bill Stewart, Aquatic Research Program Manager

BStewart@azgfd.gov; (623) 236 – 7368
#### Karly Servais et al., Respondents, v Silk Nail Corp., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[946 NYS2d 568]

*547Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered November 16, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from, in this action for personal injuries, denied defendant Silk Nail Corp.’s motion to vacate the note of issue and certificate of readiness, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court properly denied Silk Nail Corp.’s motion because its answer had been stricken by the court’s prior order. Accordingly, Silk Nail Corp. was not entitled to any further discovery *(see Hall v*Penas, 5 AD3d 549 [2004]), including discovery “in preparation for an appearance at inquest” *(Yeboah v Gaines Serv. Leasing,*250 AD2d 453, 454 [1998]; *see Gray v Jaeger,*57 AD3d 303 [2008]). Silk Nail Corp.’s attempt to relitigate the merits of the order striking its answer is improper as no appeal was taken from that order, and the time in which to seek reargument or to take an appeal from that order has long since lapsed (CPLR 2221 [d] [3]; 5513). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Sweeny, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 7, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00326

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.D.,

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- PA

- 01927

Honorable Martha B. Tanner, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant ’ s second motion for extension of time to file brief is hereby GRANTED. Time

is extended to August 24, 2015. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE ALLOWED.

__________ _______________________ Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 7th day of August, 2015

.

______________ _____________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court