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





Certification of CEO pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, Mark Hiatt, Chief Executive Officer of America First Tax Exempt Investors, L.P. (the “Company”), certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:





(1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended June 30, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); 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:  August 9, 2010


/s/ Mark Hiatt


Mark Hiatt


Chief Executive Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to America First Tax Exempt Investors, L.P. and will be retained by America First Tax Exempt Investors, L.P. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### MRS. RUBY O’QUINN v. C. J. O’QUINN.

(Filed 26 October, 1927.)

Civil action, before *Bowie, Special Judge,*at June Term, 1927, of LeNOIR.

. The plaintiff instituted an action against her husband, the defendant, for alimony without divorce. Issues were submitted to the jury and answered in favor of the plaintiff.

From judgment, awarding alimony and counsel fees, the defendant appealed.

*Sutton & Greene for plaintiff.*

*Shaw & Jones for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

The record presents an unfortunate marital disagreement and controversy culminating in a lawsuit. Both parties made out a good case. The charge of the trial judge is without reversible error. The evidence discloses an issue of fact only, and the jury, in the exercise of the function delegated to it by law, has found the facts against the defendant, and the judgment as rendered is

Affirmed.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED APRIL 28, 2023

NO. 03

- 22

- 00512

- CR

Qusai Walid Zaqzouq , Appellant

v.

The State of Texas , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 428TH DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, SMIT H, A ND JONES

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the judgment adjudicating guilt entered by the trial court. Having

reviewed the record a nd t he parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible

error in the judgment

. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt

.

Because appellant is indi gent and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of costs is made.

### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED APRIL 28, 2023

NO. 03

- 22

- 005 5 9

- CR

Qusai Walid Zaqzouq , Appellant

v.

The State of Texas , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 428TH DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, SMIT H, A ND JONES

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the judgment adjudicating guilt entered by the trial court. Having

reviewed the record a nd t he parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible

error in the judgment

. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt

.

Because appellant is indi gent and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of costs is made.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 33 (Friday, February 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 9394]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3974]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[ID-942-04-1420-00]


Idaho: Filing of Plats of Survey; Idaho

    The plat of the following described land was officially filed in 
the Idaho State Office, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho, 
effective 9:00 a.m., February 9, 1995.
    The plat representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the 
south boundary and subdivisional lines, the subdivision of section 34, 
the survey of portions of the center line of Old Lemhi Road, and lot 7 
in section 34, Boise Meridian, Idaho Group No. 895, was accepted, 
February 3, 1995.
    All inquiries concerning the survey of the above described land 
must be sent to the Chief, Branch of Cadastral Survey, Idaho State 
Office, Bureau of Land Management, 3380 Americana Terrace, Boise, Idaho 
83706.

    Dated: February 9, 1995.
Duane E. Olsen,
Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Idaho.
[FR Doc. 95-3974 Filed 2-16-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GG-M
#### JOHN T. PILLEY v. GREENVILLE COTTON MILLS, INCORPORATED.

(Filed 7 October, 1931.)

Master and Servant F a — Remedies under Workmen's Compensation Act exclude all other remedies.

Tbe Workmen’s Compensation Act provides that its provisions shall be presumed *to be*accepted *by all*employers *and employees,*with certain exceptions, and that the remedies therein provided shall exclude all other remedies, and where an employee coming within the provisions of the act brings an independent action and alleges negligence and that his application for compensation was refused by the Industrial Commission on the grounds that his injuries did not result from an accident arising *427out of and in the course of Ms employment, from which, no appeal was taken, the employer’s demurrer thereto is properly sustained, and the employee’s contention of a distinction between an injury by accident and an injury from negligence cannot avail him, the act eliminating the question of negligence in determining the employer’s liability.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Frizzelle, J.,*at April Term, 1931, of Pitt.

Tbe plaintiff brought suit against the defendant to recover damages caused by the alleged negligence of the defendant. The complaint contains the following paragraph: “The North Carolina Industrial Commission upon plaintiff’s application for compensation dismissed the same as an accident not sustained in the course of and arising out of his employment.”

The defendant demurred to the complaint; the trial judge sustained the demurrer, and the plaintiff excepted and appealed.

*S. J. Everett for plaintiff.*

*Thomas W. Ruffin for defendant.*

Adams, J.

The complaint sets out the plaintiff’s residence, his contract of employment, his duties, and his injury. It contains an averment that the Industrial Commission dismissed his application for compensation for the reason that the plaintiff was not injured by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. From this judgment there was no appeal.

Under the Workmen’s Compensation Law every employer and employee, except as therein stated, is presumed to have accepted the provisions of the act and to pay and accept compensation for personal injury or death as therein set forth. The plaintiff, not being in the excepted class, is bound by this presumption. P. L., 1929, ch. 120, sec. 4. It follows by the express terms of the statute (sec. 11) that the rights and remedies thus granted to an employee exclude all other rights and remedies of such employee as against his employer at common law, or otherwise, on account of injury, loss of service or death. The appellant’s suggested distinction between an injury by accident and an injury resulting from a negligent act cannot avail him. By mutual concession between the employer and employee who are subject to the compensation law the question of negligence is eliminated. *Conrad v. Foundry Co.,*198 N. C., 723. Judgment

Affirmed.
Exhibit 4.1


 




	
  

  	
  SECRETARY
  PRESIDENT COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED: AMERICAN STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST
  COMPANY, LLC (NEW YORK, N.Y.) TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR BY AUTHORIZED
  SIGNATURE FULLY PAID AND NONASSESSABLE SHARES OF THE COMMON STOCK, $0.0001
  PAR VALUE PER SHARE, OF TANGOE, INC. transferable on the books of the
  Corporation in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of the
  Certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate is not valid until
  countersigned by the Transfer Agent and registered by the Registrar. Witness
  the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the facsimile signatures of its
  duly authorized Officers. Dated: THIS CERTIFIES THAT IS THE RECORD HOLDER OF
  SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS CUSIP 87582Y 10 8 COMMON STOCK COMMON
  STOCK TANGOE, INC. INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE S H A
  R E S T SPECIMEN 

  






 


 












	
  

  	
  Signature(s)
  Guaranteed THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR
  INSTITUTION (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT
  UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM),
  PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15. X X NOTICE: The signature to this assignment
  must correspond with the name as written upon the face of the certificate, in
  every particular, without alteration or enlargement or any change whatever.
  Signatures of registered owners on this certificate or on powers of attorney,
  and signatures of attorneys on this certificate or on powers of substitution,
  must be guaranteed. TEN COM —as tenants in common TEN ENT —as tenants by the
  entireties JT TEN —as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as
  tenants in common UNIF GIFT MIN ACT— Custodian (Cust) (Minor) under Uniform
  Gifts to Minors Act (State) Additional abbreviations may also be used though
  not in the above list. The following abbreviations, when used in the
  inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though
  they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations:
  For Value Received, hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto PLEASE PRINT OR
  TYPEWRITE IDENTIFYING NUMBER AND NAME OF ASSIGNMENT AS IT SHOULD APPEAR ON
  CERTIFICATE AND SHOW ADDRESS Shares Attorney, of the Common Stock represented
  by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint
  to transfer the said shares on the books of the within-named Corporation,
  with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated:
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 364 

To prohibit the use of funds to provide for the United States to become 

a party to the Paris Agreement. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 23, 2021 

Mrs. BLACKBURN (for herself, Mr. TUBERVILLE, Mrs. HYDE-SMITH, Mr. 

BARRASSO, Mr. MARSHALL, Mr. DAINES, Ms. LUMMIS, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. 

COTTON, Mr. CRUZ, and Mr. WICKER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of funds to provide for the United 

States to become a party to the Paris Agreement. 

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 ‘‘No Taxpayer Funding 

5 for Paris Climate Agreement Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 364 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO PROVIDE FOR 

2 THE UNITED STATES TO BECOME A PARTY TO 

3 THE PARIS AGREEMENT. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi5 sion of law, no funds may be appropriated, obligated, or 

6 expended to take any action to provide for the United 

7 States to become a party to the Paris Agreement. 

8 (b) PARIS AGREEMENT DEFINED.—In this section, 

9 the term ‘‘Paris Agreement’’ means the decision by the 

10 21st Conference of the Parties to the United Nations 

11 Framework Convention on Climate Change in Paris, 

12 France, adopted December 12, 2015. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>
                          GOLDEN STATE VINTNERS, INC.

             STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

                     (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

                                   EXHIBIT 11

Basic and fully diluted earnings per share ("EPS") are determined as follows:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                 THREE MONTHS
                                                                     ENDED           SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                                 SEPTEMBER 30,         DECEMBER 31,
                                                              -------------------   -------------------
                                                                2000       1999       2000       1999
                                                              --------   --------   --------   --------
<S>                                                           <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
Basic EPS Computation
Numerator:
  Net income................................................   $4,858     $4,819     $5,401     $5,150
                                                               ======     ======     ======     ======
Denominator:
  Weighted average common shares............................    9,498      9,498      9,498      9,498
                                                               ======     ======     ======     ======
Basic EPS...................................................   $ 0.51     $ 0.51     $ 0.57     $ 0.54
                                                               ======     ======     ======     ======
Diluted EPS Computation
Numerator:
  Net income and assumed conversions........................   $4,858     $4,819     $5,401     $5,150
                                                               ======     ======     ======     ======
Denominator:
  Weighted average common shares outstanding................    9,498      9,498      9,498      9,498
  Stock options.............................................      340         11        250         48
                                                               ------     ------     ------     ------
  Adjusted weighted average common shares...................    9,838      9,509      9,748      9,546
                                                               ======     ======     ======     ======
Diluted EPS                                                    $ 0.49     $ 0.51     $ 0.55     $ 0.54
                                                               ======     ======     ======     ======
</TABLE>
#### WILLIAM M. HENSON v. ESTELLE JONES HENSON.

(Filed 5 November, 1952.)

Partition § 4a—

In a suit for partition, a tenant in common may assert in ber pleading that she has paid off an encumbrance on the property and ask that she be reimbursed for such sum in the adjustment of the rights of the parties, since the proceeding is equitable in nature and the court has jurisdiction to adjust all equities in respect to the property.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Sharp, Special Judge,*June Term, 1952, of RaNdolph.

Affirmed.

Petition for sale of real property for partition.

Tbe plaintiff and defendant, wbo were then husband and wife, obtained title to property, a bouse and lot, as tenants by tbe entireties. Since divorced, tbeir relationship to tbe property bas become that of tenants in common. Tbe plaintiff now brings this proceeding to have tbe property (incapable of actual partition) sold for division.

Tbe defendant filed an answer admitting these facts, but alleged (1) that she was entitled to support for tbe minor children of tbe marriage, and (2) that plaintiff and defendant during coverture bad executed a mortgage on tbe property, and that defendant has paid tbis mortgage in whole or in part. Demurrer to tbe answer was sustained as to tbe claim for support of minor children. Defendant’s appeal from tbis judgment was dismissed, and defendant allowed to file amended answer. Defendant’s amended answer sets out that defendant bas paid $2,500 on tbe mortgage on tbe property, and asks that she be reimbursed that sum in tbe adjustment of tbe rights of tbe parties.

Demurrer to tbe amended answer was overruled and plaintiff appealed.

*OUway Burton for plaintiff, appellant.*

*P. W. Glidewell, Sr., J. A. Webster, Jr., and Miller •& Moser for defendant, appellee.*

Devin, C. J.

Tbe single question presented is whether in answer to a petition for partition one tenant in common may set up claim for amounts expended to remove an encumbrance on tbe common property.

Tbe court below overruled tbe plaintiff’s demurrer to tbe answer on tbis point, and in tbis we concur.

*430Petitions for partition are equitable in their nature, and the court has jurisdiction to consider the rights of the parties under the principles of equity and to do justice between the parties. *Raymer v. McLelland,*216 N.C. 443, 5 S.E. 2d 321; *Trust Co. v. Watkins,*215 N.C. 292, 1 S.E. 2d 853; *Gibbs v. Higgins,*215 N.C. 201, 1 S.E. 2d 554; *Jenkins v. Strickland,*214 N.C. 441, 199 S.E. 612; *McLamb v. McLamb,*208 N.C. 72, 178 S.E. 847.

The rule is that in a suit for partition a court of equity has power to adjust all equities between the parties with respect to the property to be partitioned. 68 C.J.S. 208. “A tenant in common who has paid or assumed liens or encumbrances on the property ordinarily is entitled on partition to a proportionate reimbursement therefor from the other tenants.” 68 C.J.S. 212.

In such case the sale may be ordered and the rights of the parties adjusted from the proceeds of sale. McIntosh, sec. 937. This was apparently the view of the court below in remanding the cause to the clerk for further proceedings as by law provided.

Affirmed.
### Proposed Provision: B6.5. Starting in 2026, provide a 5 percent uniform PIA increase 20 years after benefit eligibility. Phase in the PIA increase at 1 percent per year from the 16th through 20th years after eligibility. The full PIA increase is equal to 5 percent of the PIA of a worker assumed to have career-average earnings equal to the SSA average wage index.  Auxiliary beneficiaries receive benefit enhancement based on the PIA of the governing worker.

back
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 20, 2019

No. 04-19-00235-CR

Nathan Manuel CANALES,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 38th Judicial District Court, Medina County, Texas

Trial Court No. 18-07-12935-CR

Honorable H. Paul Canales, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The clerk’s record has been filed, but does not contain a copy of the trial court’s 

certification of the defendant’s right of appeal as required by the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2)(d), 34.5(a)(12), App’x D. We order the trial court clerk to 

file a supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s certification of the defendant’s right 

of appeal by May 30, 2019.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 20th day of May, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 1, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 11161]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4995]



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


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application To Withdraw From Listing 
and Registration; (Roadmaster Industries, Inc., Common Stock, $0.01 Par 
Value, 8% Convertible Subordinated Debentures Due 2003) File No. 1-
11996

February 23, 1995.
    Roadmaster Industries, Inc. (``Company'') has filed an application 
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant 
to Section 12(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') and 
Rule 12d2-2(d) promulgated thereunder, to withdraw the above specified 
securities (``Securities'') from listing and registration on the 
American Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Amex'').
    The reasons alleged in the application for withdrawing the 
Securities from listing and registration include the following:
    According to the Company, in addition to being listed on the Amex, 
the Securities are listed on the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. 
(``NYSE''). The Securities commenced trading on the NYSE at the opening 
of business on December 12, 1994 and concurrently therewith the 
Securities were suspended from trading on the Amex.
    In making the decision to withdraw the Securities from listing on 
the Amex, the Company considered the direct and indirect costs and 
expenses attendant on maintaining the dual listing of the Securities on 
the NYSE and on the Amex. The Company does not see any particular 
advantage in the dual trading of the Securities and believes that dual 
listing would fragment the market for the Securities.
    Any interested person may, on or before March 16, 1995, submit by 
letter to the Secretary of the Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 
Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549, facts bearing upon whether 
the application has been made in accordance with the rules of the Amex 
and what terms, if any, should be imposed by the Commission for the 
protection of investors. The Commission, based on the information 
submitted to it, will issue an order granting the application after the 
date mentioned above, unless the Commission determines to order a 
hearing on the matter.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, 
pursuant to delegated authority.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-4995 Filed 2-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-14-00756-CV

Valley Baptist Medical Center - Brownsville

v.

Rosalinda Battles, Gerald Battles, as Surviving Spouse of Rosalinda Battles, Amanda 

Giselle Battles, as Surviving Child of Rosalinda Battles, and Jeremy Blake Battles, as 

Surviving Child of Rosalinda Battles

On Appeal from the

444th District Court of Cameron County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2013-DCL-4983-H

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed in part and rendered 

in part, and the case should be remanded to the trial court. The Court orders the judgment 

of the trial court REVERSED IN PART and RENDERED IN PART, and the case is 

REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are 

adjudged 50% against appellant and against appellee.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

June 25, 2015