alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| 001-11001                                | 06-0619596                        |
|------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
| (Commission File Number)                 | (IRS Employer Identification No.) |
|                                     |                              |
| 3 High Ridge Park, Stamford, Connecticut | 06905                             |
| (Address of principal executive offices) | (Zip Code)                        |

|   | o | Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b)) |
|--------|---|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | o | Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR240.13e-4(c)) |
|--------|---|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

| Item 9.01 | Financial Statements and Exhibits |
|-----------|-----------------------------------|

|   | 99.1 | Press Release of Frontier Communications Corporation released on July 29, 2010. |
|--------|------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

|                           | FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION |
|--------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
|                           |                                |
| Date:  July 30, 2010 | By:/s/ Robert J. Larson             |
|                           | Robert J. Larson                    |
|                           | Senior Vice President and           |
|                           | Chief Accounting Officer            |
|                           |                                |
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 this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Maxco, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Max A. Coon, as Chief
      Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
      as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:




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




(2)
            Information
                contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
                the
                financial condition and result of operations of the
                Company.




Date: 
      February 3, 2006


/s/
      MAX
      A. COON


Max
      A.
      Coon


Chief
      Executive Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.


-24-
<XBRL>
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<!--XBRL Document Created with the Workiva Platform-->
<!--Copyright 2024 Workiva-->
<!--r:c167aeb9-2e51-4695-8898-601a07e7a14c,g:7b8b3830-691c-4165-bae3-0fe998195129-->
<xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:link="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/linkbase" xmlns:cinf="http://www.cinfin.com/20240425" attributeFormDefault="unqualified" elementFormDefault="qualified" targetNamespace="http://www.cinfin.com/20240425">
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xlink-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xbrl-instance-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/linkbase" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xbrl-linkbase-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://xbrl.sec.gov/dei/2024" schemaLocation="https://xbrl.sec.gov/dei/2024/dei-2024.xsd"/>
  <xs:annotation>
    <xs:appinfo>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="cinf-20240425_pre.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="cinf-20240425_lab.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/labelLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:roleType id="CoverPageCoverPage" roleURI="http://www.cinfin.com/role/CoverPageCoverPage">
        <link:definition>0000001 - Document - Cover Page Cover Page</link:definition>
        <link:usedOn>link:presentationLink</link:usedOn>
        <link:usedOn>link:calculationLink</link:usedOn>
        <link:usedOn>link:definitionLink</link:usedOn>
      </link:roleType>
    </xs:appinfo>
  </xs:annotation>
</xs:schema>
</XBRL>
**
Exhibit 34.2 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm (Ernst & Young LLP) 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

The Board of Directors 

U.S. Bank National Association 

We have examined management’s****assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment ofCompliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, that U.S. Bank National Association (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the U.S.Bank Corporate Trust Asset-Backed Securities****Platform (the “Platform”), for which the Company provides trustee, securities administration, registrar and paying agent services, as of and for the year ended March 31, 2022, exceptfor****servicing criteria Items 1122 (d)(1)(i)-(v), 1122 (d)(2)(i), 1122 (d)(2)(iii), 1122 (d)(2)(v)-(vii), 1122 (d)(3)(i), and 1122 (d)(4)(i)-(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities it performs with respectto the servicing platform covered by this report. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’scompliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination. 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established bythe American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with theapplicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of less than all of the individual asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise thePlatform, testing of less than all of the servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria.Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred eitherprior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that the evidencewe obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. 

Our examination does not provide a legal determination on theCompany’s compliance with the servicing criteria. 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementionedservicing criteria as of and for the year ended March 31, 2022, for the U.S. Bank Corporate Trust Asset-Backed Securities Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects. 

 
/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Minneapolis, Minnesota 

May 26, 2022 

 
19 

**
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 (as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of National Presto Industries, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 29, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.



Date: November 7, 2008

| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /S/ R. LIEBLE          
| | R. Lieble,             
| | Chief Financial Officer
Order entered January 3, 2017

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 16 - 01293 - CV IN THE INTEREST OF M.J. P., A CHILD On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court

Colli n County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 296 - 30044 - 2015



### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s December 30, 2016 motion for an extension of time to file his brief. We GRANT a ppellant’s motion and ORDER the brief received on December 30, 2016 filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE JUSTICE
<PAGE>
                       PEERLESS MFG. CO. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                                   FORM 10-Q
                     FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2002


                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


               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 Form 10-Q of Peerless Mfg. Co.. (the "Company") for the
quarter ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Sherrill Stone, 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 the Report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

                                                         /s/ Sherrill Stone
                                                         ------------------
                                                         Sherrill Stone
                                                         Chief Executive Officer
                                                         Date: February 13, 2003

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed, except to the extent
required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,157,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,061,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (806,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  9,012,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                         211,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                (184,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,206,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                     21,541,000
<COMMON>                                       332,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,000,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (25,631,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,206,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               145,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               276,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             654,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (787,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (787,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.29)
<FN>
<F1>CURRENT ASSETS AND CURRENT LIABILITIES VALUES ARE ZERO BECAUSE OF AN
UNCLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET.
        

</TABLE>
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 12

- 00182

- CV

Crosstex North Texas Pipeline, L.P.

v.

Andrew Gardiner and Shannon

Gardiner §

§

§

§

§ From th e 431st District Court o f

Denton County (2008

- 40133

- 362 )

November 13, 2014

Opinion by Justice McCoy

Concurrence and Dissent By

Justice Walker



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the

trial court is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court for a new trial

and to allow the Gardiners to add the abnormal and out

- of

- place variation of their

nuisance claim.

It is f urther ordered that appellees Andrew Gardiner and Shannon Gardiner

shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Bob McCoy

_________________ Justice Bob McCoy
<PAGE> 1

                                EXHIBIT 3.1

                         ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION

                                    OF

                            PYRAMID OIL COMPANY


     FIRST: That the name of said Corporation is, and shall be PYRAMID OIL
COMPANY.

     SECOND: The purpose of this corporation is to engage in any lawful act or
activity for which a corporation may be organized under the General
Corporation Law of California other than the banking business, the trust
company business or the practice of a profession permitted to be incorporated
by the California Corporations Code.

     THIRD: The principal office for the transaction of the business of the
corporation shall be located at such place or places within the State of
California, as the Board of Directors shall from time to time, determine.

     FOURTH: This corporation shall have perpetual existence.

     FIFTH: That the number of directors or trustees shall be five.

     SIXTH: This corporation is authorized to issue only one class of no par
shares of stock; and the total number of shares which this corporation is
authorized to issue is 10,000,000.

     Upon the effective date of this amendment, each four outstanding shares
shall be split into five shares.  No fractional shares shall be issued in
connection with this amendment, but in lieu thereof, any fractional share
shall be rounded up to the nearest full share.

     SEVENTH: That the amount of said capital stock which has actually been
subscribed is Five (5) Dollars, and the following are the names of the persons
by whom the sum has been subscribed to-wit:

      NAME OF SUBSCRIBER      NUMBER OF SHARES           AMOUNT
      ------------------           ----------------           ------

       G. S. JOHNSON                   ONE SHARE              $1.00
       FRED G. COX                     ONE SHARE              $1.00
       R. K. HOWK                      ONE SHARE              $1.00
       C. J. BOWER                     ONE SHARE              $1.00
       J. B. COTTLE                    ONE SHARE              $1.00






<PAGE> 2

     EIGHTH: LIMITATION ON LIABILITY OF DIRECTORS AND AUTHORITY TO INDEMNIFY
AGENTS

     The liability of directors of the corporation for monetary damages shall
be eliminated to the fullest extent permissible under California law.

     The corporation is authorized to provide indemnification of agents (as
defined in Section 317 of the California Corporations Code) through bylaw
provisions, agreements with agents, vote of shareholders or disinterested
directors, or otherwise, in excess of the indemnification otherwise permitted
by Section 317 of the California Corporations Code, subject only to the
applicable limits set forth in Section 204 of the California Corporations Code
with respect to actions for breach of duty to the corporation and it's
shareholders.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7140 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to increase the ability of 

Medicare and Medicaid providers to access the National Practitioner 

Data Bank for the purpose of conducting employee background checks. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 17, 2022 

Mr. RICE of South Carolina (for himself and Mr. SOTO) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to increase 

the ability of Medicare and Medicaid providers to access 

the National Practitioner Data Bank for the purpose 

of conducting employee background checks. 

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 ‘‘Promote Responsible 

5 Oversight and Targeted Employee background Check 

6 Transparency for Seniors Act’’ or the ‘‘PROTECTS Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7140 IH

1 SEC. 2. PERMITTING MEDICARE AND MEDICAID PRO2 VIDERS TO ACCESS THE NATIONAL PRACTI3 TIONER DATA BANK TO CONDUCT EMPLOYEE 

4 BACKGROUND CHECKS. 

5 Section 1921(b)(6) of the Social Security Act (42 

6 U.S.C. 1396r–2(b)(6)) is amended— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘and other health care entities 

8 (as defined in section 431 of the Health Care Qual9 ity Improvement Act of 1986)’’ and inserting ‘‘, 

10 other health care entities (as defined in section 431 

11 of the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 

12 1986), providers of services (as defined in section 

13 1861(u)), suppliers (as defined in section 1861(d)), 

14 and providers of items or services under a State plan 

15 under this title (or a waiver of such a plan)’’; and 

16 (2) by striking ‘‘such hospitals or other health 

17 care entities’’ and inserting ‘‘such hospitals, health 

18 care entities, providers, or suppliers’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
#### GLENN H. CURTISS PROPERTIES, Inc., v. LEATHERMAN, as Circuit Court Clerk.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 28, 1936.

William A. Lane and W. J. McLeod, Jr., both of Miami, for relator.

Bart A. Riley, of Miami, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

It appears that this proceeding was brought for the purpose of having complied with an order of the delinquent tax adjustment board of Dade county duly entered in favor of relator under chapter 17406, Acts 1935, Laws of Florida, on March 31, 1936. The order as made by the board under said chapter 17406, Acts 1935, supra, does not on its face appear to be violative, of what was held by a majority of this court in Richey v. Wells (Fla.) 166 So. 817, especially in view of the circumstance that no objection or protest of taxpayers has been timely made or interposed to the said action of said Dade county delinquent tax adjustment board, and that the action of the board in the premises is otherwise in conformity to the terms and conditions of the statute aforesaid.

Therefore this cause being now ready for final disposition, on the motion of relator for a peremptory writ of mandamus, the respondent’s return to the contrary notwithstanding, and the court having considered the arguments in the briefs of the several parties, and being advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it is thereupon considered, ordered, and adjudged by the court that the return of the respondent is insufficient to bar or preclude the performance of the commands of the alternative writ of mandamus, and that thereupon relator is entitled to final judgment awarding a peremptory writ of mandamus herein as prayed, and that such peremptory writ of mandamus do issue •and be returned according to law and the judgment of this court, the costs of this proceeding to be taxed against the relator.

WHITFIELD, C. J., and ELLIS, TERRELL, BROWN, BUFORD, and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
#### Edward M. CAREY, Appellant, v. S. A. BEYER and Mary T. Beyer, his wife, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

Oct. 22, 1954.

Benjamin E. Carey, Miami, for appellant.

Leonard E. Treister and Morehead, Forrest, Gotthardt & Orr, Miami, for ap-pellees.

TERRELL, Justice.

The point for determination in this case is whether or not the disability of insanity existing when the right of action for slander of title accrued and continuing for a period of time thereafter tolls the running of the statute of limitations.

It is settled in this State that actions for slander of title are controlled by the two year statute of limitations, Section 95.11(6), F.S.A.; Old Plantation Corp. v. Maule Industries, Inc., Fla., 68 So.2d 180.

Did complainant’s disability of insanity toll the statute of limitations? In his brief he contends that the cause of action accrued October 11, 1949, but in his complaint he alleges that , it accrued January 22, 1947. It is admitted that appellant was committed to the State Hospital at Chattahoochee July 6, 1939, that he was released therefrom on furlough July 25, 1949, and that he was discharged July 25, 1950. .As to date, of accrual of the action, appellant is bound by the allegation in his complaint. It is clear that 'his action was barred unless his insanity tolled the statute. *■ . ■*

The general rule is that unless a statute of limitations contains a saving clause., relief from its provisions account of disability will .not be granted. .The statute in . question contains an . exception, relative to recovery of real property but it does not help appellant who claims dam« ages for slander of title. When the leg*218islature refuses to write exceptions into the act the courts have consistently refused to do . so. 34 American Jurisprudence, page 162, Section 201; Dobbs v. Sea Isle Hotel, Fla., 56 So.2d 341. See also Faulk & Coleman v. Harper, Fla., 62 So.2d 62. In this holding we do not overlook appellant’s contention that Section 95.20,. F.S.A., authorizes this action. This statute has to do with actions for recovery of real property while the action here is based on tort and is not covered by the last-cited statute.

The judgment appealed from must be and is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

ROBERTS, C. J., and SEBRING' and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.