alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 32.01**

** **

**Section 1350 Certification**

** **

**Inconnection with this annual report of ML Aspect FuturesAccess LLC (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with theSecurities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this “Report”), I, PaulMorton, Chief Executive Officer, President and Manager of Merrill LynchAlternative Investments LLC, the manager of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:**

** **

1.This Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2. The information containedin this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: August 13, 2008            |            |
|---------------------------------------|-----------------|
|                                  |            |   |
| By                                    | /s/ PAUL MORTON |   |
| Paul Morton                           |            |
| Chief Executive Officer and President |            |
| (Principal Executive Officer)         |            |

 

----
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

June 23, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

136282 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 136282 COA: 273234 Muskegon CC: 06-052984-FC EDDIE RYAN LEWIS, a/ k/a EDWARD LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e February 28, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t0616 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 23, 2008

Clerk
# STATEOFLOUISIANA



# COURTOFAPPEAL,FIRSTCIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS JARRETT A. WALKER NO. 

### 2022 KW 0003


## FEBRUARY 25, 2022

In Re: 

### State of Louisiana, 

### applying for 

### supervisory writs,



### 18th Judicial 

### District Court, Parish of West Baton 

### Rouge, Nos. 

### 202200, 202201.
BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C.J., PENZATO AND HESTER, JJ.



### WRIT GRANTED. The 

### district court' s 

### ruling granting the 

### defendant' s motion to suppress 

### is reversed, and the matter 

### is remanded 

### for further proceedings. If a vehicle 

### is 

### readily mobile and probable cause exists to 

### believe it contains contraband, the Fourth 

### Amendment permits 

### the police to search the vehicle. 

### Pennsylvania v. Labron, 

### 518 U. S. 

### 938, 940, 11.6 S. Ct. 

### 2485, 2487, 135 L. Ed.2d 1031 ( 

### 1996) ( per curiam). In the 

### instant case, the evidence adduced at the suppression 

## hearing revealed that 

## while being detained for a traffic violation, the 

### defendant reached 

### into the center console of 

### his vehicle, retrieved a marijuana cigar, and 

### handed the cigar to the officer, which gave the officer probable cause to search the vehicle 

### for additional contraband. 

## Accordingly, the state met 

## its burden of proving the warrantless search was justified under an exception to the warrant requirement. 

### See United States v. Ross, 

### 456 U. S. 

### 798, 825, 102 S. Ct. 

### 2157, 2173, 72 

### L.Ed.2d 572 1982); Cf. State v. Landor, 

### 2020-0336 ( La. 

## App. 1st Cir. 

### 2/ 19/21), 318 So.3d 225. VGW AHP 

### Hester, J., 

# dissentsandwoulddenythewrit application.

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT 

# ZR DEPUTYI(f'

LERKOFCOURT FOR THE COURT
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

JUAN C. FLORES , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee.

No. 4D2023

- 1613

[ February 22, 2024 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Howard K. Coates, Jr., Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2007

- CF

- 006230

- A XXX

- MB

.
Juan Carlos Flores, Madison, pro se.

No response required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed

.

W ARNER , M AY and G ERBER , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 29, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-7480

General Motors:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>1,000

<S>                                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                        YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                                  DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                                              7,734
<SECURITIES>                                                            2
<RECEIVABLES>                                                       5,385
<ALLOWANCES>                                                          311
<INVENTORY>                                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                        0
<PP&E>                                                              1,636
<DEPRECIATION>                                                      1,249
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                     17,594
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                 939
<BONDS>                                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                                             0
<COMMON>                                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                                         16,655
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                       17,594
<SALES>                                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                    5,474
<CGS>                                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                       1,730
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                      493
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                     3,744
<INCOME-TAX>                                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                 3,744
<DISCONTINUED>                                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                         0
<CHANGES>                                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                                        3,744
<EPS-BASIC>                                                          2.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                           0


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of M.E.F. Builders, Inc., Appellant, v Harry J. Siegel, as Chairman of the Board of Zoning and Appeals of the Town of North Hempstead, et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a *534determination of the Board of Zoning and Appeals of the Town of North Hempstead dated November 30, 1988, which, after hearing, denied the petitioner’s application for area and sideyard variances, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Morrison, J.), dated June 5, 1989, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is granted to the extent of annulling the determination under review, and the matter is remitted to the respondent Board of Zoning and Appeals of the Town of North Hempstead, which is directed to grant the application for area and sideyard variances upon such conditions, if any, as it deems appropriate.

In view of the uncontroverted evidence that the subject parcel has been held in single and separate ownership since prior to the enactment of the pertinent zoning ordinance, the petitioner is entitled to the requested variances as a matter of right *(see, Matter of McDermott v Rose,*148 AD2d 615; *Matter of MacKay v Mayhall,*92 Misc 2d 868). Thus, the petitioner was not required to show economic hardship *(see, Modular Homes Corp. v Combs,*115 AD2d 527), and the Board’s determination, which was based upon lack of hardship, was arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion *(see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley,*45 NY2d 441; *Modular Homes Corp. v Combs, supra).*Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the Board with the direction that it grant the application upon such conditions as it deems appropriate. Kunzeman, J. P., Harwood, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5526 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to clarify the application 

of the in-office ancillary services exception to the physician self-referral 

prohibition for drugs furnished under the Medicare program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2023 

Mrs. HARSHBARGER (for herself, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Mr. 

FLEISCHMANN, Mr. DAVIS of North Carolina, Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS, and 

Mr. BALDERSON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee 

on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to clarify 

the application of the in-office ancillary services exception 

to the physician self-referral prohibition for drugs furnished under the Medicare program. 

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 ‘‘Seniors’ Access to Crit5 ical Medications Act of 2023’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5526 IH

1 SEC. 2. CLARIFYING THE APPLICATION OF THE IN-OFFICE 

2 ANCILLARY SERVICES EXCEPTION TO THE 

3 PHYSICIAN SELF-REFERRAL PROHIBITION 

4 FOR DRUGS FURNISHED UNDER THE MEDI5 CARE PROGRAM. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1877(b)(2) of the Social 

7 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395nn(b)(2)) is amended by 

8 adding at the end the following new sentence: ‘‘With re9 spect to services consisting of drugs, and any supplies nec10 essary to administer such drugs, furnished on or after 

11 May 11, 2023, the requirement that such drugs and sup12 plies be furnished in accordance with subparagraph (A)(ii) 

13 in order to qualify as a case described in this paragraph 

14 shall not apply.’’. 

15 (b) WITHDRAWAL OF FAQS.—The Secretary of 

16 Health and Human Services shall remove the frequently 

17 asked questions and answers published on the website of 

18 the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on Sep19 tember 20, 2021, and May 19, 2023, which prohibit or 

20 seek to prohibit the arrangement described in the amend21 ment made by subsection (a) and those frequently asked 

22 questions and answers shall be deemed to have never been 

23 published. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
56 w 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

mnoreble Bert Pord Adalni8tntor 

?esa8 Liqucfr eontref wmrd 

F. 0. Box m. se 

hu8tiEt, %‘UtU 

Tour roeat opinion 

read6 a8 roam88 

hr t0m6 or the 008d86fon0m. 

ocusmen~ed and be hsld at thm oowt 

eoord Konday oi oaeh,mcmth thiteughand may oontinuo in lwe8fo5 Qna ue6kg 

oourt nead.not hold mm tha.n one 

seeslon eaoh quarter ii the buafm8~ or ths oourt 

does Dot d8Dand a ~BLltO5. . . e= 
‘i 57 

Honorable Bert Ford,FMe e 

in Way or each year, or 88 8oon thereafter a8 

praatloabls berore the rlrst day or Jum, to raoeive all the aseasement llmte or book8 of th 

asaessore of their counties for inepeotion, oormotion or equalization and approval.a 

Our Court of Criminal Appeals hae held that tha 

CO5@i8dOWr8’ COUrt is in ZO@lhr 808&5n WhOa it dt8 a8 

a bOud Or eqU8liZatiOZI ruder the 188t @O&e& 8tatute a8 

~011 a8 when dtting under the prwlrlons of law rlrmt 

quoted. See ,AbbOt t. State, 59 8. W. 988 8tat.n t. !Stata, ' 

141 6. Pi. 535. 

pee trust that we bare antl~raotorily amuemd your 

inquir7. 

very truly y5ura 

ST 

ATTORWEY 053WlhL OF TXAS
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

MAY 27 1997

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

In re: DWIGHT WILLIAM ZWICK,

Debtor,

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

FLEET RESOURCES, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v.

DWIGHT WILLIAM ZWICK,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 96-1366

(Dist. of Colorado)

(D.C. No. 94-D-2192

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BRORBY, BRISCOE, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

Dwight Zwick appeals a district court order holding that his state court

judgment for fraudulent concealment is nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §

523(a)(2)(A) and (B). On appeal, Zwick argues that to prevail in a

nondischargeability action under section 523(a)(2), a creditor must prove it was
-2-

damaged as a proximate result of a debtor’s materially false statement. Zwick

further argues that because the state court judgment at issue here does not satisfy

the requirement of proximate causation, the district court erred in ruling that the

judgment was exempt from discharge under section 523(a)(2). The court

exercises jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d) and

affirms.

This court has reviewed the parties’ briefs and contentions, the district

court order, and the entire record on appeal. Finding Zwick’s appeal without

merit, we affirm for substantially the reasons set out in the district court’s order

dated July 15, 1996. In so doing, this court makes the following observation:

contrary to Zwick’s assertions on appeal, in the Tenth Circuit a creditor need not

prove that it was damaged as a proximate result of the debtor’s misrepresentations

in order to prevail on a nondischargeability action under section 523(a)(2). See

John Deere Co. v. Gerlach (In re Gerlach), 897 F.2d 1048, 1051 & n.2 (10th Cir.

1990); see also Norris v. First Nat’l Bank (In re Norris), 70 F.3d 27, 29 & n.6

(5th Cir. 1995) (joining the First and Tenth Circuits in refusing to “graft[]onto

section 523(a)(2) a proximate causation” element); Shawmut Bank, N.A. v.

Goodrich (In re Goodrich), 999 F.2d 22, 26 (1st Cir. 1993) (citing with approval

to this court’s decision in Gerlach for proposition that section 523(a)(2) does not

contain a damages element).
-3-

The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of

Colorado is hereby AFFIRMED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT,

Michael R. Murphy

Circuit Judge
|   | **Exhibit 32.1** |
|--------|------------------|

 

----

RULE 13(a)-14(b) CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002*

      In connection with the Quarterly    Report of Brandywine Operating Partnership, L.P. (the “Partnership”)    on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities    and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,    Gerard H. Sweeney, President and Chief Executive Officer of Brandywine Realty    Trust, the Partnership’s    General Partner, 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), as applicable, 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 ofthe Partnership. |
|----|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

/s/ Gerard H. SweeneyGerard H. SweeneyPresident and Chief Executive Officer of Brandywine Realty Trust, the GeneralPartner of Brandywine Operating Partnership, L.P.Date: November 9, 2004

*  A signed original of this written    statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Brandywine Operating    Partnership, L.P. and will be retained by Brandywine Operating Partnership,    L.P. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  

 

----
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 Lucas Energy, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William A. Sawyer, 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief: (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/William A. SawyerWilliam A. SawyerChief Executive OfficerAugust 14, 2009



---
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5444 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5444

   To amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to reauthorize the diesel 
                      emissions reduction program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 13, 2023

   Ms. Matsui (for herself, Mr. Calvert, Ms. Pingree, Mr. Pence, Ms. 
  Clarke of New York, and Mr. Wittman) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to reauthorize the diesel 
                      emissions reduction program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 
2023''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION ACT.

    Section 797(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 
16137(a)) is amended by striking ``2024'' and inserting ``2029''.
                                 <all>
```
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

I.G., a child,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-2583

[October 31, 2019]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Stacy Ross, Judge; L.T. Case No. 17-00439DLB.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Patrick B. Burke, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Maryellen M. Farrell, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.