alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 23.2

[CAWLEY, GILLESPIE & ASSOCIATES LETTERHEAD]

March 26, 2002

MarkWest
Hydrocarbon, Inc.
155 Inverness Drive West, Suite 200
Englewood, Colorado 80112

Ladies
and Gentlemen:

Cawley,
Gillespie & Associates, Inc. hereby consents to the use of the oil and gas reserve information in the MarkWest Hydrocarbon, Inc. Securities & Exchange Commission
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001 and in the MarkWest Hydrocarbon, Inc. Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2001 based on reserve reports
prepared by Cawley, Gillespie & Associates, Inc. and dated March 15, 2002.



2

---
Exhibit 32.2


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)


In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2014 (the "Report") of APOLLO INVESTMENT CORPORATION (the "Registrant"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, GREGORY H. HUNT, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:


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


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








By: /s/ Gregory W. HuntName: Gregory W. HuntDate: February 5, 2015
EXHIBIT 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE
 SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 I, Jack L. Alexander, Senior Vice President of MidAmerican Energy Company (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:
 
 (1)
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and(2)
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. 
 
 
 
 Dated: August 3, 2004
 
 
 /s/ Jack L. Alexander
 Jack L. Alexander
 Senior Vice President
 (co-chief executive officer)
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5676 

To designate the historic Federal Building located at 100 North Palafox 

Street in Pensacola, Florida, as the ‘‘Winston E. Arnow Federal Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 1, 2008 

Mr. MILLER of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To designate the historic Federal Building located at 100 

North Palafox Street in Pensacola, Florida, as the ‘‘Winston E. Arnow Federal Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

4 The historic Federal Building located at 100 North 

5 Palafox Street in Pensacola, Florida, shall be known and 

6 designated as the ‘‘Winston E. Arnow Federal Building’’, 

7 in honor of Winston E. Arnow who was appointed United 

8 States District Judge for the Northern District of Florida 

9 by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1968, and who served 

10 with distinction until his death in 1994. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5676 IH

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

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

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the building 

4 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 

5 to the ‘‘Winston E. Arnow Federal Building’’. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
<PAGE>

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 Marketing WorldWide, Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
Winzkowski, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my
knowledge 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 result of operations of the Company.

                                         /S/ MICHAEL WINZKOWSKI
                                         -----------------------
                                         Michael Winzkowski
                                         Chief Executive Officer
                                         August 7, 2006


                                       25
STATE v. John Frank BOWEN.

No. 342P05-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 4, 2006.

Anne M. Middleton, Assistant District Attorney, Michael Bonfoey, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 29th day of November 2005 by Defendant for Appeal of Right Under G.S. 7A-30(1)-Constitutional Questions and G.S. 7A-31-Discretionary Review:

"Motion Dismissed ex mero motu by order of the Court in conference this the 4th day of May 2006."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          15,992
<SECURITIES>                                   426,945
<RECEIVABLES>                                  201,109
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,094
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               694,528
<PP&E>                                       1,224,951
<DEPRECIATION>                                 665,884
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,287,083
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          289,827
<BONDS>                                        317,873
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,308
<OTHER-SE>                                     568,333
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,287,083
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,625,131
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,152,613
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,401
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                305,856
<INCOME-TAX>                                   119,282
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            186,574
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   186,574
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.43
        

</TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. Quincy Lee PEGUSE, Daniel Dewayne Burch, Kevin Tyrone Hickmon.

No. 625P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 6, 2006.

Amos Tyndall, Chapel Hill, for Daniel Dewayne Burch.

Anne Bleyman, for Kevin Tyrone Hickmon.

Kip D. Sturgis, Philip A. Lehman, Barbara A. Shaw, Assistant Attorney Generals, Michael Parker, District Attorney, for State of NC.

D. Tucker Charns, Durham, for Quincy Lee Peguse.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Defendant (Burch) on the 8th day of November 2005 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

"Dismissed ex mero motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of April 2006."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 8th day of November 2005 by Defendant (Burch) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of April 2006."
EXHIBIT 32.3

CERTIFICATION BY THE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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 Visant Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 3, 2010 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Marc L. Reisch, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                   |  |                              
|------------------ |  | -----------------------------
|Date: May 18, 2010 |  | /s/ Marc L. Reisch           
|                   |  | Marc L. Reisch               
|                   |  | President and                
|                   |  | Chief Executive Officer      
|                   |  | (principal executive officer)
[797 NYS2d 95]

#### In the Matter of Cary M. Hirshon (Admitted as Cary Martin Hirshon), an Attorney, Respondent. Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner.

First Department,

June 28, 2005

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Thomas J. Cahill, Chief Counsel, Departmental Disciplinary Committee,*New York City *(Kevin E.F. O’Sullivan*of counsel), for petitioner.

*Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP.,*New York City *(Hal R. Lieberman*of counsel), for respondent.

*103OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent Cary M. Hirshon was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Second Judicial Department on May 5, 1993 as Cary Martin Hirshon. At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent has maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.

Petitioner Departmental Disciplinary Committee seeks an order pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.16 (c) (1) suspending respondent from the practice of law, effective immediately, on the ground that he is suffering from a mental condition that makes, it impossible for him to adequately defend himself in the underlying disciplinary proceeding.

Between May 2003 and February 2004, the Disciplinary Committee received three complaints against the respondent. With the assistance of respondent’s counsel, those complaints were resolved and certain client matters were assumed by other attorneys. However, counsel was unable to contact respondent in November and December to obtain the necessary medical certification to complete a motion based upon mental infirmity. Based upon respondent’s disability and the fact that he is no longer in contact with his attorney, the Disciplinary Committee filed a motion for suspension in January 2005.

Respondent’s attorney stipulates, in consent to the Committee’s motion, that respondent should be suspended pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.16. The record contains letters from two of respondent’s treating psychiatrists, and a report of a psychiatrist retained by the Committee, all of which support a conclusion that respondent is not presently mentally fit to continue practicing law, or adequately defend himself in the instant proceeding to address his professional misconduct.

In view of the stipulation of the parties and the uncontroverted medical evidence that respondent is presently mentally incapacitated from continuing to practice law, the motion of the Disciplinary Committee pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.16 (c) (1) should be granted, and respondent suspended from the practice of law for an indefinite period of time and until further order of this Court upon the ground that respondent is suffering from a mental condition which makes it impossible for him to adequately defend himself in the pending disciplinary proceeding *(see Matter of Eubank,*293 AD2d 41 [2002]).

*104Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ., concur.

Respondent suspended from the practice of law in the State of New York, effective the date hereof and until further order of this Court.
- 606 - N ebraska S upreme C ourt A dva nc e S heets 296 N ebraska R eports STATE v . ARTIS Cite as 296 Neb. 606



### S tate of 

### N ebraska 

### , appellee 

### , v



### .

T

areik 

### Q. A rtis 

### , appella n t



### . ___ N.W.2d ___
Filed May 5, 2017. No. S-16-464.

suppleme n tal opi n io n 

### Appeal from the District Court for Lancaster County: L ori 

### A

. M aret 

### , Judge. Supplemental opinion: Former opinion modified. Motion for rehearing overruled. Robert Wm. Chapin, Jr., for appellant. Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, Sarah E. Marfisi, and Nathan A. Liss for appellee.

H eavi c a n 

### , C.J., W right 

### , M iller



### - L erma n 

### , C assel 

### , S ta c y 

### , K el c h 

### , and F u n ke 

### , JJ.

P er 

### C uriam



### . Case No. S-16-464 is before this court on the appel

lee’s motion for rehearing concerning our opinion in State v. Artis

. 1 

### We overrule the motion, but we modify the original opinion as follows: In the section entitled “V. ANALYSIS,” under subheading “ 2. P lai n 

### E rror 

### ,” subsection “(a) Artis’ Sentence Is Indeterminate,” we withdraw the third and fourth sentences of the single paragraph of that subsection, which now reads:

1 State v. Artis, ante p. 172, ___ N.W.2d ___ (2017). Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 07/21/2017 08:11 AM CDT- 607 - N ebraska S upreme C ourt A dva nc e S heets 296 N ebraska R eports STATE v . ARTIS Cite as 296 Neb. 606



### (a) Artis’ Sentence

Is Indeterminate [9-12] The State has mischaracterized Artis’ sentence of “not less than 2 years, nor more than 2 years” as a determinate sentence. A determinate sentence is imposed when the defendant is sentenced to a single term of years, such as a sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment. See State v. White , 256 Neb. 536, 590 N.W.2d 863 (1999). In contrast, when imposing an indeterminate sentence, a sentencing court ordinarily articulates either a minimum term and maximum term or a range of time for which a defendant is to be incarcerated. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-105 (Reissue 2016); State v. White, supra . In Nebraska, the fact that the minimum term and maximum term of a sentence are the same does not affect the sentence’s status as an indeter

minate sentence. See, State v. Marrs , 272 Neb. 573, 723 N.W.2d 499 (2006); State v. Urbano , 256 Neb. 194, 589 N.W.2d 144 (1999). Thus, we conclude that Artis’ sen

tence for his Class IV felony is an indeterminate sentence in which the minimum and maximum terms are the same. Such sentence complies with L.B. 1094’s requirement that the court impose an indeterminate sentence for a Class IV felony when that sentence is imposed consecutively with a Class IIA felony, and we therefore find no plain error in this regard. 2 

### The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified. F ormer opi n io n modified



### . M otio n for reheari n g overruled



### .

2 Id. at 179-80, ___ N.W.2d at ___.
Jaye DAY, Plaintiff, v. Timothy A. NORDGREN, Executor of the Estate of Edmund A. Rasmussen, Defendant.

No. COA05-1317.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

June 6, 2006.

Appeal by plaintiff from an order entered 13 June 2005 by Judge James C. Spencer, Jr., in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 20 April 2006.

Randolph M. James, P.C., by Randolph M. James, Winston-Salem, for plaintiff appellant.

Brady, Nordgren, Morton & Malone, PLLC, by Travis K. Morton, Raleigh, for defendant appellee.

McCULLOUGH, Judge.

Plaintiff Day filed a companion case in Wake County Superior Court and has appealed therefrom in which the facts and legal issues are identical, with the only difference being the named defendants. Therefore, the decision of *Day v. Rasmussen,* (No. COA05-1314) ___ N.C.App. ___, 629 S.E.2d 912, 2006 WL 1527128 (filed 6 June 2006), is controlling in the instant case, and we therefore

Affirm.

Judges CALABRIA and STEELMAN concur.
STATE of North Carolina v. Johnny PAULINO, Defendant and Aegis Security Insurance Company, Surety.

No. 253P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2005.

Kenneth P. Andresen, Charlotte, for Aegis Security Insurance Co.

Jill R. Wilson, Greensboro, C. Robin Britt, Jr., for Guilford Co. Bd. of Education.

*193*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 10th day of May 2005 by Surety (Aegis Security Ins. Co.) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th day of August 2005."
Exhibit 10.1


 


Summary
of Non-Employee Director Compensation(1)


 


	
  Annual
  Retainer

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  25,000

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Committee
  Chair Annual Retainer

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Audit
  Committee

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  15,000

  	
   

  
	
  All Other
  Committees

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  5,000

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Attendance
  at Board Meetings

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  In-Person
  Meetings

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  5,000

  	
   

  
	
  Telephonic
  Meetings

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,000

  	
   

  
	
  Committee
  Meetings

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2,500

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Independent
  Director Annual Equity Equivalent Grant

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  100,000

  	
   

  



 










(1)          Employee directors are
compensated based on negotiated compensation packages.
STATE v. BOWENS

No. COA05-828

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed February 7, 2006

Certification Date February 27, 2006

Appeal from Guilford (03CRS30811, 03CRS24196, 03CRS24198).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     UT
<LEGEND>

     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
consolidated  balance  sheet of  MidAmerican  Energy  Company as of June 30,
2000, and the related  consolidated  statements of income and cash flows for the
six  months  ended  June 30, 2000,  and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000928576
<NAME>                        MidAmerican Energy Company
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000


<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                                   PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      2,626,021
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    253,170
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         260,898
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       312,430
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 102,164
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3,554,683
<COMMON>                                       560,563
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            563,489
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 1,124,052
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          150,000
<PREFERRED>                                    31,759
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           758,368
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                      0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 214,711
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  1,517
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                      0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                    0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                               0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 1,274,276
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  3,554,683
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      983,914
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           48,208<F1>
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     826,870
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     826,870
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        157,044
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             (1,475)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 155,569
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       38,687
<NET-INCOME>                                   68,674
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                    2,477
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  66,197
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      28,387
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         189,591
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>

     INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE  includes  all income  taxes and is excluded  from Total
Operating Expenses above and on the Consolidated Statement of Income.

</FN>


</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 16, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00288

- CV

Eduard o BENAVIDES

, Appellant

v.

Julia BENNETT

, Appellee

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012

- CI

- 16084

Honorable Larry Noll, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

On September 23, 2015, this court ordered appellant to file his appellate brief no later

than October 5, 2015

. Our order cautioned appellant that if he fa il ed to file the brief by this date

or fail ed to reasonably explain the reason for his failure to do so, this appeal w ould be dismissed

for want of prosecution. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a). Because appellant did no t timely respond to

our order, this court issued an opinion and judgment dismissing the appeal on October 14, 2015.

However, the day before our opinion issued, appellant had filed a response to our September 23

order in which he explained the delay in fil ing his brief and asking this court to accept an

attached “letter brief” as his appellate brief.

We hereby WITHDRAW our opinion and judgment dated October 14, 2015 and GRANT

appellant’s motion.

Appellee’s brief is due no later than November 16, 2015.It is so ORDERED on October 16, 2015.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

____________________________ _

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court