alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 32.5**

**Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code**

     I, Thomas M. O’Flynn, Chief Financial Officer of PSEG Power LLC, to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of PSEG Power LLC on Form 10-Q for the period endedSeptember 30, 2007 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of PSEG Power LLC. 

/s/ Thomas M. O’Flynn
# Fourth Court of Appeals
**San Antonio, Texas**

December 28, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00344

- CV

John B. URBAHNS

, Appellant

v.

LSREF2 COBALT (TX), LLC

, Appellee

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2017CI22479 Honorable Richard Price, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant’s reply brief was due on December 27, 2018. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 3 8.6(c). Before the due date, Appellant filed an unopposed first motion for an extension of time to file the reply brief.

Appellant’s motion is GRANTED. Appellant’s reply brief is due on January 10, 2019.
See id. R. 38.6(d).

____________________ _____________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 28th day of December, 2018

.

_____________ ______________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 178 (Friday, September 12, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 53043]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21290]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Development of Voluntary Standard (ANSI/ROV-1-
200X) for Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles

    Notice is hereby given that, on July 24, 2008, pursuant to section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Development of Voluntary Standard 
(ANSI/ROV-1-200X) for Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles (``DVSROV'') 
has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney 
General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities 
of the parties and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The 
notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances.
    Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties 
to the venture are: American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Torrance, CA; 
Arctic Cat Inc., Thief River Falls, NM; Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A., 
Irvine, CA; Polaris Industries Inc., Medina, MN; and Yamaha Motor 
Corporation, U.S.A., Cypress, CA. The general areas of DVSROV's planned 
activities are conducting research, collecting, exchanging and 
analyzing research information relating to development of a voluntary 
standard (ANSI/ROV-1-200X) for recreational off-highway vehicles.

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. E8-21290 Filed 9-11-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
#### MILES v. KILGORE, Marshal, et al.

No. 5874.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

April 28, 1939.

Rehearing Denied June 28, 1939.

Certiorari Denied Oct. 30, 1939.

H. D. Montgomery, of Monroe, and W. Decker Moore, of West Monroe, for appellants.

J. B. Dawkins, of Monroe, for appellee.

TALIAFERRO, Judge.

This case was consolidated below and here with that of A. B. Miles et ux. v. R. L. Kilgore, Marshal, et al., La.App., 191 So. 556, No. 5872, decided by this court on this date.

*561Plaintiff is one of the sons of plaintiffs in said suit, No. 5872. He sues for damages on the ground that he was unlawfully ejected from the leased premises and was compelled to stay awake all the night following the ejectment to watch over and protect his parents’ household effects which had been deposited by the Marshal in the open space near the leased residence and while so doing, he was harassed, bitten and badly stung by mosquitoes and other pestiferous insects. He was awarded judgment for $25.00, and defendant appealed.

For the reasons assigned in the opinion this day rendered in said suit No. 5872, the judgment appealed from herein is reversed, annulled and set aside, and plaintiff’s suit is dismissed at his cost.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Patrick Walsh

v. Civil No. 05-cv-188-JD

Concord Police Department, et al.

O R D E R

Patrick Walsh, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,

brought suit against the Concord Police Department and identified

and unidentified police officers. His claims arose from his

arrest and incarceration after an altercation with his

girlfriend. Following preliminary review, Walsh proceeded with

his false arrest claim against the officers, and the other claims

were dismissed. Officer Brian Fee, who is the only remaining

defendant, moved to dismiss on the ground that he had not been

served with the complaint. 

Because of the problems encountered in effecting service on

Fee, the court gave Walsh one last opportunity to complete the

summons form with a correct address and return the form to the

clerk of court for service. See Order, Aug. 23, 2006 (document

no. 33). The deadline for returning the completed summons form

was September 22, 2006. Instead of complying with the court’s

order, Walsh filed a motion for joinder on September 22, seeking

to join other unidentified police officers and to add a claim

Case 1:05-cv-00188-JD Document 38 Filed 10/25/06 Page 1 of 2
2

about another allegedly false arrest. That motion was denied on

October 20, 2006.

Brian Fee moves, again, to dismiss the claim against him due

to Walsh’s failure to make service. Walsh did not file a

response to the motion. As is described in detail in the court’s

previous order, Walsh has been given multiple extensions of time

and opportunities to complete service in this case, which he has

failed to do. Therefore, the claim against Fee is dismissed,

without prejudice, due to Walsh’s failure to complete service of

process. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); see also Cintron-Lorenzo v.

Departamento de Asuntos del Consumidor, 312 F.3d 522, 526 (1st

Cir. 2002); Figueroa v. Rivera, 147 F.3d 77, 82 (1st Cir. 1998).

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s motion to dismiss

(document no. 36) is granted. The clerk of court shall enter

judgment accordingly and close the case.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

October 25, 2006

cc: Michael A. Ricker, Esquire

Patrick Walsh, pro se

Case 1:05-cv-00188-JD Document 38 Filed 10/25/06 Page 2 of 2
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. H A R R Y L E E R E D D S , J r ., D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 12- 50320 D. C. No . 3 : 0 8 - c r - 0 1 8 3 5 - BT M ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia B a rryT . M os kow i t z , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r24, 2013 ** B efo re: R A W L IN S O N , N . R . S M IT H , an dC H R IS T E N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. H a rryL e e R e dds , J r . , appe a l s f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e ntr e voki ng s up e rv is e dr e le a s e a n dth e s e n te n c e im p o s e dup o n r e v o c a tio n . P u r s u an t to A n ders v . Ca lifo rn ia , 38 6 U . S . 73 8 (19 67 ), R edds’ s c ou nselhas f i l ed a bri ef

st at i ng that the r e a r e no gr ounds f

orr e l i e f , a l ong w i th am ot i on t o w i thdr aw a s c ouns e l of



# FI LED OC T 03 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 50320 2 re cord. W e have provi ded R edds the op po rtun i ty t o fi l e apro se s up pl em ent al br i e f . N o pr o s e s uppl e m e nt a l br i e f ora ns w e r i ng br i e f

ha s be e n f

i l e d. A re v iew o f th e r ec o rd in d icates th at th is ap p ea l i s m o o t b ec au se R ed d s’s s up e rv is e dr e le a s e h a s a g a in b e e n r e v o k e d . Se e Spe nc e rv . Ke m na , 5 2 3 U .S . 1 , 7 ( 1 9 9 8 ) . W e a c c o r d in g lyd is m is s th e ap p e a l. C o u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s GR AN T E D. DI S MI S S E D.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-Q FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<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
<CASH>                                          14,294
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       5,173,627
<DEPRECIATION>                                 342,757
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,359,209
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      2,149,285
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    292,371
<COMMON>                                       139,399
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,213,339
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,359,209
<SALES>                                        343,536
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               361,829
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  184,653
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,170
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   400
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              71,527
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                119,902
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            119,902
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   119,902
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.86
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.86


</TABLE>
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ANNY MILAGROS ALCANTARA

, Appellant,

v.

DAVID ANTONIO DISLA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 20 2 3

- 1769

[ November 16, 2023 ]

Appeal from the C ircuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Mariya Weekes , Judge; L.T. Case No. FMCE21007918

.

Carrie A. Turner

- Krzyzaniak of Turner Family Law, Hollywood, for

appellant

.

David Antonio Disla, Tamarac, pro se

.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

M AY

, L EVINE and A RTAU

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### RUSILLION v. PAPANIA et al.

No. 1993.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

June 6, 1939.

M. R. Stewart, of Lake Charles, for appellant.

Robt. R. Stone, of Lake Charles, for ap-pellee.

LE BLANC, Judge.

This is a suit instituted by Eddie Rusil-lion, Curator of Joseph Dalovisio, interdict, against the alleged interdict’s sisters to have certain contracts and transactions, especially the sale of- his interest in his deceased mother’s estate, set aside on the ground that at the time they took place he was mentally incompetent and therefore unable to enter into a legal contract, and for a monied judgment against them both, in solido, in the sum of $6223.33. In the alternative he prays that in the event the court should hold that the interdict’s estate is not the owner of the property he seeks to recover for it, that he recover of the defendants, in addition, the sum of $2990.-36, that being the actual value of the buildings and improvements placed on the property by the interdict.

The thing and the - amount in dispute are both far in excess of the sum of $2000 and this court is therefore without jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Constitution 1921, Article VII, Section 10. In oral argument before this court' counsel for appellant realized that he had mistaken his right of appeal and conceded that the case should properly have been appealed to the State Supreme Court.

Under the provisions of Act No. 19 of 1912 it becomes necessary therefore for us to transfer the appeal and it is no-w accordingly ordered that this appeal be now transferred to the State Supreme Court within sixty days from the date hereof.
1... This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2008-CR-6258, styled State v. Averin A. Woodard, pending in the

226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Sid L. Harle presiding.

i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-09-00159-CR

IN RE Averin A. WOODARD

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 25, 2009

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On March 16, 2009, relator Averin A. Woodard filed a petition for writ of mandamus.

Relator complains of the trial court’s failure to rule on various pro se motions and a pro se pretrial

petition for writ of habeas corpus, all relating to the criminal proceeding for which he is currently

confined. However, relator has been appointed counsel to represent him in the criminal proceeding

pending in the trial court. A criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation. See

Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481,

498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]

1994, orig. proceeding). A trial court has no legal duty to rule on pro se motions or petitions filed
04-09-00159-CR

-2-

with regard to a criminal proceeding that the defendant is represented by counsel in. See Robinson,

240 S.W.3d at 922. Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to rule on

relator’s various pro se motions and pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus that all relate directly

to his criminal proceeding pending in the trial court. Therefore, we conclude that relator has not

shown himself entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, the petition is denied. TEX. R. APP. P.

52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.17

                   AMERICA SERVICE GROUP INC. (THE "COMPANY")

             SUMMARY OF DIRECTOR AND EXECUTIVE OFFICER COMPENSATION

      I.    DIRECTOR COMPENSATION. Directors who are employees of, or paid
         consultants to, the Company do not receive additional compensation
         for serving as directors of the Company. The following table sets
         forth current rates of cash compensation for the Company's
         non-employee directors.

<TABLE>
<S>                                                               <C>
Annual retainer                                                   $  20,000

Board meeting attendance fee                                      $   1,000

Audit Committee Chair or Incentive Stock
    and Compensation Committee chair annual retainer              $   5,000

Committee meeting fee for all committee meetings
    held on a date other than a Board meeting date                $   1,000
</TABLE>

            In addition, each non-employee director receives 1,000 restricted
      shares of the Company's common stock on an annual basis. These shares vest
      over three years.

      II.   EXECUTIVE OFFICER COMPENSATION. The following table sets forth the
         current annual base salaries provided to the Company's Chief Executive
         Officer and four most highly compensated executive officers.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Executive Officer                       Current Salary
-----------------                       --------------
<S>                                     <C>
Michael Catalano                        $     477,648
Michael W. Taylor                             260,000
Lawrence H. Pomeroy                           227,700
Trey Hartman                                  260,000
Richard D. Wright                             305,318(1)
</TABLE>

            In addition to their base salaries, the Company's Chief Executive
Officer and four most highly compensated executive officers are also eligible
to:

      -     receive cash bonuses under the Company's Bonus Plan, which has been
            filed as Exhibit 10.18 to the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K
            for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004;

      -     participate in the Company's long-term incentive program, which
            currently involves the award of stock options pursuant to the
            Company's Amended and Restated 1999 Incentive Stock Plan;

      -     participate in the Company's broad-based benefit programs generally
            available to its salaried employees, including health, disability
            and life insurance programs, 401(k) Plan and Employee Stock Purchase
            Plan.


Notes:

(1) On January 28, 2005, the Company announced that Mr. Wright has resigned from
    his management position as Vice Chairman of Operations, effective March 31,
    2005, and will return to his role as a non-management member of the
    Company's board of directors.
Case 1:05-cv-00231-JD Document 3 Filed 07/05/05 Page 1 of 1
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


In  connection  with the Annual Report of Citizens  Communications  Company (the
"Company")  on Form 10-K for the year ended  December 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Jerry
Elliott,  President and Acting Chief Financial 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; and

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


/s/ Jerry Elliott
------------------------------------
Jerry Elliott
President and Acting Chief Financial Officer
March 1, 2006


This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject
to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section 906, has been  provided to Citizens  Communications  Company
and will be retained by Citizens  Communications  Company and  furnished  to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<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 PGI Incorporated (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Laurence A. Schiffer, 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:

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

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

/s/ Laurence A. Schiffer

    Laurence A. Schiffer
    Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
    November 14, 2003

<FN>
*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 will
 be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
 request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Juan Hernandez, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John Collins, J.), rendered March 3, 1988, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminally negligent homicide and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of from *lVs*to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was convicted of killing Jacqueline Mack, his live-in companion and mother of his children. They lived with Carrie Mack, the mother of Jacqueline, who was a witness against defendant. At trial, defendant unsuccessfully attempted to introduce evidence of Carrie’s 1974 mental breakdown, which allegedly was caused by the refusal of the father of her unborn child to marry her. Defendant sought to introduce such evidence to establish her bias against him. While hostility of the witness towards the party he is testifying against is relevant to his credibility, a court may properly limit the introduction of such evidence where it is too remote. *(People v Thomas,*46 NY2d 100, 105.) The court acted well within its discretion in requiring expert psychiatric testimony demonstrating that Carrie Mack was hallucinating at the time or that her alleged hostility to defendant was linked to the 1974 breakdown.

Defendant’s argument that the prosecutor committed error on summation is unpreserved for appellate review since the complained-of remarks were never objected to at trial. *(People v Medina,*53 NY2d 951.) Were we to consider these issues in the interest of justice, we would find them to be meritless. Defense counsel’s summation attacked the credibility of the People’s witnesses. Thus, the People could, quite properly in their summation, respond in support of the credibility of their witnesses. *(See, People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396.) Concur— Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Kassal and Smith, JJ.