alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRESIDENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Patricia Cooke, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Asia Atlantic Resources on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Asia Atlantic Resources.    /s/ Patricia Cooke Patricia Cook President, Chief Executive Officer and Director  September 2, 2009
**EXHIBIT 21****SUBSIDIARIES OF AMERIGAS PARTNERS, L.P.**               **STATE OF** **SUBSIDIARY** **OWNERSHIP**  **INCORPORATION**  AmeriGas Finance Corp.  100% DelawareAmeriGas Eagle Finance Corp.  100% DelawareAP Eagle Finance Corp.  100% DelawareAmeriGas Propane L.P.  (1) DelawareAmeriGas Propane Parts & Service, Inc.  100% PennsylvaniaAmeriGas Eagle Propane, L.P.  (2) DelawareAmeriGas Eagle Parts & Service, Inc.  100% PennsylvaniaAmeriGas Eagle Propane, Inc.  100% DelawareAmerE Holdings, Inc.  100% DelawareAmeriGas Eagle Holdings, Inc.  100% DelawareActive Propane of Wisconsin, LLC  100% Delaware (1) AmeriGas Propane, Inc. is the general partner owning 1.01%; AmeriGas Partners, L.P.holds all limited partner interests owning 98.9899% (2) 99.8% owned by AmeriGasPropane, L.P. and <0.2 % owned by AmeriGas Eagle Holdings,Inc. (GP) and an unrelated third party
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Reef Oil & Gas Income and Development Fund III, L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael J. Mauceli, principal executive officer of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

 
| Date:   May 20, 2011 |                                                                                                                                                                          |
|---------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                      | /s/   Michael J. Mauceli                                                                                                                                                      |
|                      | Michael   J. Mauceli                                                                                                                                                          |
|                      | Manager   and Member of Reef Oil & Gas Partners, GP, LLC, the manager of Reef   Oil & Gas Partners, L.P., the Managing General Partner of the   Partnership |
|                      | *(Principal   Executive Officer)*                                                                                                                                             |

 

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of § 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2530 

To provide temporary authority to the general counsel of the Merit Systems 

Protection Board to grant stays of personnel actions, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2019 

Mr. CONNOLLY (for himself and Mr. CUMMINGS) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To provide temporary authority to the general counsel of 

the Merit Systems Protection Board to grant stays of 

personnel actions, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Interim Stay Authority 

5 To Protect Whistleblowers Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TEMPORARY AUTHORITY FOR MSPB GENERAL 

7 COUNSEL TO ISSUE STAYS OF PERSONNEL 

8 ACTIONS. 

9 During the period beginning on the date of the enact10 ment of this Act and ending on the first date after such 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2530 IH

1 date of enactment that an individual is confirmed by the 

2 Senate as a member of the Merit Systems Protection 

3 Board under section 1201 of title 5, United States Code, 

4 the general counsel of the Board shall carry out the func5 tions and authorities relating to stays of personnel actions 

6 provided to a member of the Board under subparagraph 

7 (A), or to the Board under subparagraph (B), (C), or (D), 

8 of section 1214(b)(1) of such title. 

9 SEC. 3. AUTHORITY FOR MSPB MEMBER TO CARRY OUT DU10 TIES OF THE BOARD IN THE EVENT OF A 

11 LACK OF QUORUM. 

12 Section 1214(b)(1) of title 5, United States Code, is 

13 amended— 

14 (1) in subparagraph (C), by inserting after 

15 ‘‘The Board’’ the following: ‘‘, or, if the Board lacks 

16 the number of members appointed under section 

17 1201 required to constitute a quorum, any remain18 ing member of the Board,’’; and 

19 (2) in subparagraph (D), in the matter pre20 ceding clause (i), by striking ‘‘A stay may be termi21 nated by the Board at any time, except that a stay 

22 may not be terminated by the Board’’ and inserting 

23 the following: ‘‘A stay may be terminated by the 

24 Board, or, if the Board lacks the number of mem25 bers appointed under section 1201 required to conVerDate Sep 11 2014 20:07 May 14, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2530.IH H2530

khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2530 IH

1 stitute a quorum, any remaining member of the 

2 Board, at any time, except that a stay may not be 

3 terminated by the Board or any remaining member 

4 of the Board (as the case may be)’’. 

Æ 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Geronimo Salvador SANTOS-NUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-40094

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 26, 2010.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

*919Kimberly S. Keller, Keller Law Firm, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Gerónimo Salvador Santos-Nuez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Santos-Nuez has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clement Jeremiah WELLS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-6888.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 19, 2010.

Decided: Oct. 28, 2010.

*845Clement Jeremiah Wells, Appellant Pro Se. Rose Mary Sheppard Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Clement Jeremiah Wells appeals the district court’s margin order denying his Rule 60(b) motion to reconsider his conviction and sentence. Wells filed his present Rule 60(b) motion more than four years after this court affirmed his conviction and sentence on direct appeal. *See United States v. Wells,*148 Fed.Appx. 174 (4th Cir.2005). Although “the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not specifically provide for motions for reconsideration and prescribe the time in which they must be filed,” *Nilson Van & Storage Co. v. Marsh,*755 F.2d 362, 364 (4th Cir.1985), a motion for rehearing or reconsideration in a criminal case extends the time for filing a notice of appeal if the motion is filed before the order sought to be reconsidered becomes final. *See United States v. Ibarra,*502 U.S. 1, 4 n. 2, 112 S.Ct. 4, 116 L.Ed.2d 1 (1991) (holding would-be appellant who files timely motion for reconsideration from criminal judgment entitled to full time period for noticing appeal after motion for reconsideration has been decided).

Wells submitted his Rule 60(b) motion well beyond the applicable period of time provided to notice an appeal of the judgment he sought the district court to reconsider. Moreover, Wells received review of the district court’s judgment on direct appeal to this court. Furthermore, we have previously affirmed the district’s court’s order denying an almost identical Rule 60(b) motion. *See United States v. Wells,*343 Fed.Appx. 877 (4th Cir.2009). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying Well’s present Rule 60(b) motion. *See United States v. Wells,*No. 4:04-cr-00149-TLW-1 (D.S.C. Jan. 27, 2010). We also deny Wells’ motion for appointment of counsel. 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.*
CERTIFICATION OF
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Pavle Zderic the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Global West Resources, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge: (i)the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company, for the quarter  ended April 30, 2008, and to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(ii)the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  By:/s/Pavle ZdericName:Pavle ZdericTitle:Chief Executive Officer and ChiefFinancial OfficerDate:June 11, 2008 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. This certification accompanies the Form 10-QSB to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-QSB), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-81,959-01

EX P ARTE MICHAEL EARL KELLE R, Applicant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 12405 IN THE 355 DISTRICT COURT T H F ROM HOOD COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of C ri m i n al P rocedure, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of possession of a controlled substanc e and se ntence d to seven year s’ imprisonment. Applicant’s claims concerning court costs are dismiss ed. In re Daniel , 396 S.W .3d 545, 548 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); Ex parte Knight , 401 S.W .3d 60, 67 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). Ba sed on this Court’s independe nt revie w of the rec ord, we find that Applicant’s re m ai n ing claims are without merit. Ther efore, wedeny relief
. Filed: September

17, 2014 Do not publish
```

[Federal Register: July 14, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 134)]
[Notices]
[Page 37566]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14jy97-39]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 2:30 p.m., Tuesday, July 29, 1997.

PLACE: 1155 21st St. NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Enforcement Objectives.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 97-18599 Filed 7-10-97; 3:40 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO    INDEX ========**

----
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 440 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

Chapter 1515

Copper Option - LME Copper CMA Option - LME

DESCRIPTION

Monthly cash settled put and call options based upon the price published by LME for the location specified in 

Floating Price A.

FLOATING PRICE A

The Floating Price for each contract month is equal to the arithmetic average of the LME Official Cash Settlement 

Price for Grade A Copper for each business day that it is determined during the contract month.

OPTION CHARACTERISTICS

TRADING UNIT

On expiration of a Call Option, the value will be the difference between the arithmetic average of the LME 

Official Cash Settlement Price for Grade A Copper (as described in Floating Price A) and the strike price, or 

zero whichever is greater. On expiration of a Put Option, the value will be the difference between the 

strike price and the arithmetic average of the LME Official Cash Settlement Price for Grade A Copper (as 

described in Floating Price A), or zero whichever is greater.

TYPE OPTION

Cash-settled Average Price option which cannot be exercised prior to expiration.

CONTRACT UNIT AND VALUE

The contract quantity shall be metric tons. Each contract based shall be valued as the contract quantity in metric 

tons multiplied by the settlement price.

LISTING CYCLE

Up to 120 consecutive monthly contract periods.

PRICING AND FLUCTUATIONS

Prices shall be quoted in U.S. dollars per metric ton. The minimum price fluctuation shall be $0.01 per 

metric ton. The minimum price increment will be $0.001. There shall be no maximum price fluctuation.

TERMINATION OF TRADING

Posting of transactions shall cease on the last calendar day of the contract month.

FINAL SETTLEMENT

Delivery under the contract shall be by cash settlement. Final settlement, following termination of posting 

for a contract month, will be based on the Floating Price. The final settlement price will be the Floating 

Price calculated for each contract month.
#### Lorenzo Dominic RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Corinda GREENE, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 11-1743.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 9, 2012.

Decided: Feb. 13, 2012.

Lorenzo Dominic Richardson, Appellant pro se.

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lorenzo Dominic Richardson appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing for lack of jurisdiction his complaint in which he sought to appeal the state court’s denial of his request to appeal his North Carolina criminal conviction. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. *See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman,*460 U.S. 462, 482, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983). Accordingly, we deny Richardson’s motion for relief and affirm for the *231reasons stated by the district court. *Richardson v. Greene,*No. 5:11-cv-00072-H (E.D.N.C. July 6, 2011). 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.*
```


[Federal Register: September 1, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 170)]
[Corrections]
[Page 52211]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01se06-110]


[[Page 52211]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 4

RIN 3038-AC35


Advertising by Commodity Pool Operators, Commodity Trading
Advisors, and the Principals Thereof

Correction

    In proposed rule document E6-13946 beginning on page 49387 in the
issue of Wednesday, August 23, 2006, make the following correction:
    On page 49388, in the first column, in footnote 3, in the first
line, ``4.31-4.26'' should read ``4.31-4.36''.

[FR Doc. Z6-13946 Filed 8-31-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
```
STATE OF MINNESOTA 

IN SUPREME COURT 

Al2-1978 

Al2-2015 

OFFICE OF 

APPELLATE COURTS 

SEP 0 3 2014 

FILED 

Lawrence Leiendecker, et al., 

Respondents, 

vs. 

Asian Women United of Minnesota, et al., 

Appellants (Al2-1978), 

Greenstein, Mabley & Wall, L.L.C., et al., 

Respondents, 

Ruvelson & Kautzer, Ltd., et al., 

Respondents, 

Maria Gloria Fressia, et al., 

Appellants (Al2-2015), 

Susan L. Triplett, 

Respondent. 

ORDER 

Respondents Lawrence Leiendecker, et al. filed a motion to strike the brief of 

defendants Greenstein, Mabley & Wall, L.L.C., et al., and requested that this court award 

1 
respondents their attorney fees and costs. We granted respondents' motion in our opinion 

filed on June 25, 2014, stating: 

We deny the motion of Frank T. Mabley and his law firm, Greenstein, 

Mabley & Wall, L.L.C., (collectively "Mabley") to file a brief in this court 

and we grant the Leiendeckers' motion to strike Mabley's brief because, 

although Mabley represented AWUM against the Leiendeckers in several 

lawsuits, he is not a party to the proceedings before this court. The 

Leiendeckers are also entitled to any attorney fees and costs that they 

incurred in responding to Mabley's brief in accordance with Minn. R. Civ. 

App. P. 139.06 so long as they file and serve documentation to support their 

request within 15 days after this opinion is filed. Mabley's response, if any, 

to the Leiendeckers' request must be filed and served in accordance with the 

requirements of Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 139.06, subd. 2. 

Respondents have timely filed and served a motion for an award of fees and costs, along 

with documentation supporting their request. Defendants have not responded to 

respondents' motion. 

Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of respondents Lawrence Leiendecker, 

et al. for an award of attorney fees and costs incurred in responding to defendants' brief be, 

and the same is, granted, in the amount of $4,306.80. 

Dated: September 3 2014 

David R. Stras 

Associate Justice 

2 
DIETZEN, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
```

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 112 (Monday, June 11, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 31212]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14541]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Article 1904 
Binational Panel Reviews: Notice of Termination of Panel Review.

AGENCY: NAFTA Secretariat, United States Section, International Trade 
Administration, Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of consent motion to terminate the panel review of the 
final antidumping duty administrative review made by the International 
Trade Administration, respecting cut-to-length carbon steel plate from 
Canada (Secretariat File No. USA-CDA-01-1904-01).

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Notice of Consent Motion to Terminate the 
Panel Review by the complainants, the panel review is terminated as of 
May 11, 2001. No panel has been appointed to this panel review. 
Pursuant to Rule 71(2) of the Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 
Binational Panel Review, this panel review is terminated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caratina L. Alston, United States 
Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite 2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue, 
Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-5438.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter 19 of the North American Free-Trade 
Agreement (``Agreement'') establishes a mechanism to replace domestic 
judicial review of final determinations in antidumping and 
countervailing duty cases involving imports from a NAFTA country with 
review by independent binational panels. When a Request for Panel 
Review is filed, a panel is established to act in place of national 
courts to review expeditiously the final determination to determine 
whether it conforms with the antidumping or countervailing duty law of 
the country that made the determination.
    Under Article 1904 of the Agreement, which came into force on 
January 1, 1994, the Government of the United States, the Government of 
Canada and the Government of Mexico established Rules of Procedure for 
Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews (``Rules''). These Rules were 
published in the Federal Register on February 23, 1994 (59 FR 8686). 
The panel review in this matter was requested and terminated pursuant 
to these Rules.

    Dated: May 29, 2001.
Caratina L. Alston,
United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat.
[FR Doc. 01-14541 Filed 6-8-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-GT-P
```