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

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1368

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove the requirement

of a mandatory beginning date for distributions from individual retirement plans.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 3, 2001

Mr. SAXTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove

the requirement of a mandatory beginning date for distributions from individual retirement plans.

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

3 SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF REQUIREMENT OF MANDATORY

4 BEGINNING DATE FOR DISTRIBUTIONS FROM

5 INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT PLANS.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (6) of section 408(a)

7 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to indi8 vidual retirement account) and paragraph (3) of section

9 408(b) of such Code (relating to individual retirement an-
2

•HR 1368 IH

1 nuity) are each amended by inserting ‘‘(other than sub2 paragraph (A) thereof)’’ after ‘‘section 401(a)(9)’’.

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

4 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enact5 ment of this Act.

Æ
**
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Christine T. Komola, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that, to my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Covetrus, Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2018 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Covetrus, Inc. 

 

/s/ Christine T. Komola
 
Name:
 
Christine T. Komola
 
Title:
 
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
 
March 29, 2019
 **
**Exhibit32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Covance Inc. (“Covance”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William E. Klitgaard,Corporate Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Covance,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

(2)          Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of Covance.
| Date:  | May 8, 2007                      |   |   |
|--------|----------------------------------|--------|--------|
|   |                             |
|   | /s/ William E. Klitgaard         |   |
|   | William E. Klitgaard             |
|   | Corporate Senior Vice  President |
|   | and Chief Financial  Officer     |
|   | (Principal Financial  Officer)   |

 

----
Exhibit 32.3


                            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 Eagle Broadband, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the three-month period ended February 28, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Eric Blachno, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 results of operations of the Company.

Date:  April 11, 2005

/s/ Tom Matura
Tom Matura
Principal Accounting Officer
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 16, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 53420]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21581]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Notice of FERC Staff Attendance at Southwest Power Pool 
Independent Coordinator of Transmission (ICT) Stakeholder Policy 
Committee Meeting

September 10, 2008.
    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that 
members of its staff may attend the meeting noted below. Their 
attendance is part of the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts.
    ICT Stakeholder Policy Committee Meeting: September 23, 2008 (9 
a.m.-3 p.m. CST), Sheraton North Houston Hotel, 15700 John F. Kennedy 
Blvd., Houston, TX 77032.
    The discussions may address matters at issue in the following 
proceedings:
Docket No. EL07-52--Louisiana Public Service Commission v. Entergy 
Services, Inc.
Docket No. OA07-32--Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. ER05-1065--Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. EL00-66--Louisiana Public Service Commission v. Entergy.
Docket No. EL95-33--Louisiana Public Service Commission v. Entergy.
Docket No. ER00-2854--Louisiana Public Service Commission v. Entergy.
Docket No. EL05-15--Arkansas Electric Cooperative, Corp. v. Entergy 
Arkansas, Inc.
Docket No. ER08-844--Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. EL01-88--Louisiana Public Service Commission v. Entergy.
Docket No. ER03-583--Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. ER08-879--Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. ER01-2214--Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. EL08-59--ConocoPhillips v. Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. EL08-60--Union Electric v. Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. OA08-92--Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. OA08-75--Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. OA08-59--Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. ER07-1252--Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. EL03-230--ExxonMobil v. Entergy.
Docket No. ER08-774--Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. ER08-1006--Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. ER08-1078--Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. ER08-1079--Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. ER08-1056--Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. ER08-1057--Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. ER08-682--Entergy Services. Inc.
Docket No. EL08-72--NRG Energy, Inc. v. Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. EL08-51--LPSC v. Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. EL08-84--AEEC v. Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. ER08-513--Entergy Services, Inc.

    These meetings are open to the public.
    For more information, contact Patrick Clarey, Office of Energy 
Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (317) 249-
5937 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#74041500061d171f5a17181506110d34121106175a131b02"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5e2e3f2a2c373d35703d323f2c3b271e383b2c3d70393128">[email protected]</span></a>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-21581 Filed 9-15-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**Exhibit 32.01**

 

**Officer Certification**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of PSCo on Form 10-Q for the quarterended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (Form 10-Q), each of the undersigned officers of PSCocertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officer’s knowledge:

 

(1)          The Form 10-Qfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          The informationcontained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of PSCo as of the dates and forthe periods expressed in the Form 10-Q.

 

Date: Aug. 1, 2008

 
|   | /s/ TIM E. TAYLOR                           |
|--------|---------------------------------------------|
|   | Tim E. Taylor                               |
|   | President  and Chief Executive Officer      |
|   |                                        |
|   | /s/ BENJAMIN G.S. FOWKE  III                |
|   | Benjamin G.S. Fowke III                     |
|   | Vice  President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

The foregoing certificationis being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is notbeing filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, orother document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, has been provided to PSCo andwill be retained by PSCo and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
[No. 34469.

Department Two.

December 12, 1957.]

#### *In the Matter of the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus of*Jack R. Allen, *Petitioner,*v. B. J. Rhay, *as Superintendent of the State Penitentiary, Respondent.*
      *1*

*Jack R. Allen, pro se.*

*The Attorney General*and *Michael R. Alfieri, Assistant,*for respondent.

Reported in 318 P. (2d) 957.

Per Curiam.

The petitioner was found guilty of a violation of RCW 9.54.020, Rem. Rev. Stat., § 2601-1, and RCW 9.31.010, Rem. Rev. Stat., § 2342, and was sentenced to a term of twenty years on each of these counts. (He was, at the same time, sentenced to not more than fifteen years on a conviction for the crime of second-degree burglary [a violation of RCW 9.19.020, Rem. Rev. Stat., § 2579].) These three offenses were charged in the same information, and the sentences were directed by the court to run concurrently.

Upon careful examination of the pleadings and supporting memorandum briefs submitted by the respective parties, we find the petitioner’s application for a writ of *habeas corpus*to be without merit.

Complaint has been made, however, that the sentence entered upon petitioner’s conviction for escape, is erroneous under the provisions of RCW 9.92.010, Rem. Rev. Stat., § 2265 and prior decisions of this court. See *In re Ashley v. Delmore*(1956), 49 Wn. (2d) 1, 297 P. (2d) 958.

It has also been pointed out by the assistant attorney general that this same complaint may be addressed to petitioner’s conviction of taking a motor vehicle without the owner’s permission, and that the sentences under both of these convictions should have been ten years, rather than twenty, under the provisions of RCW 9.92.010. *In re Klapproth v. Squier*(1957), 50 Wn. (2d) 675, 314 P. (2d) 430; *In re Braun v. Belnap*(1957), *ante*p. 892, 316 P. (2d) 472.

For the reasons indicated in the *Klapproth*and the *Braun*decisions, *895the petitioner is to be returned to the court where judgment and sentence were entered, and that court is directed to impose corrected sentences for the violation of RCW 9.54.020, Rem. Rev. Stat., § 2601-1, and RCW 9.31.010, Rem. Rev. Stat., § 2342, in accordance with RCW 9.92.010, Rem. Rev. Stat., § 2265 and the cases cited.

This, of course, in no way affects the sentence on the conviction for second-degree burglary.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v.

Stephen M. Butler

Criminal No. 06-cr-47-01-JD

O R D E R

The assented to motion to reschedule jury trial (document no.

24) filed by defendant is granted.

Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights within 10

days. The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting

a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. § 3131(h)(8)(B)(iv), for the

reasons set forth in the motion.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Date: March 19, 2007

cc: Harry Batchelder, Jr., Esq.

Mark Zuckerman, Esq.

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:06-cr-00047-JD Document 25 Filed 03/19/07 Page 1 of 1
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 98-20884

Summary Calendar

_____________________

EDDIE L. BURNS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

K-MART CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(H-97-CV-250)

_________________________________________________________________

March 22, 1999

Before POLITZ, BARKSDALE and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Eddie Burns, a black male, contests the summary judgment in

favor of K-Mart, in which he asserted sundry claims of racial

discrimination under Title VII and the Texas Commission on Human

Rights Act, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and

negligent hiring and retention. The parties consented to trial

before a magistrate judge.

Of course, we review a summary judgment de novo, applying the

same standard as the district court. E.g., OHM Remediation

Services v. Evans Cooperage Co., Inc., 116 F.3d 1574, 1579 (5th

Cir. 1997). Such judgment is appropriate where “there is no
- 2 -

genuine issue of material fact and ... the moving party is entitled

to a judgment as a matter of law". FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c).

After being employed by K-Mart for approximately 25 years, and

having served as the operations manager of one of its stores for

the final two years, Burns was terminated. The given reason was

poor job performance. He was replaced by a black female.

Burns posits racial discrimination in his termination

(claiming both discriminatory and retaliatory termination) and his

workplace treatment (promotion, assignments, duties, discipline,

and evaluations); maintains that K-Mart’s conduct was extreme and

outrageous; and asserts that K-Mart negligently hired and retained

Burns’ supervisors. Pursuant to our de novo review of the record

and our review of the briefs, except for the workplace treatment

claims, discussed infra, summary judgment is proper, essentially

for the reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s opinion. See

Burns v. K-Mart Corporation, No. H-97-0250, mem. op. (S.D.Tex.

August 26, 1998). 

In that opinion, the magistrate judge granted K-Mart’s summary

judgment motion on all claims, but without specifically addressing

Burns’ workplace treatment claims. No doubt, this is because KMart failed to specifically address those claims in its motion and

supporting brief, notwithstanding seeking judgment “on all of

‘Burns’] claims as a matter of law....”

Accordingly, we remand the workplace treatment claims to the

district court so that Burns has the opportunity to respond to them

when presented properly. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e).
- 3 -

AFFIRMED in PART and 

VACATED and REMANDED in PART
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 Report of Puget Sound Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Form 10-Q”), I, Stephen P. Reynolds, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1)
The Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.











Date:  July 28, 2009/s/ Stephen P. ReynoldsStephen P. ReynoldsPresident and Chief Executive 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 the  Quarterly  Report of Cash  Technologies,  Inc. on Form
10-QSB/A for the period ended  February 28, 2005,  as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the  undersigned,
being,  Bruce Korman,  Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  and Edmund King,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  respectfully,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss.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 operation of the Company.


Dated: May 25, 2005


/s/ Bruce Korman                                     /s/ Edmund King
--------------------------                           --------------------------
Chief Executive Officer                              Chief Financial Officer


A signed  original  of this  written  statement  required  by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002  (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 Cash  Technologies,  Inc.  and will be  retained  by Cash
Technologies,  Inc. and furnished to the Securities  and Exchange  Commission or
its staff upon request.
225 La. 489

#### Travis McCRARY et al. v. POLICE JURY OF CADDO PARISH et al.

No. 41377.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 22, 1954.

Rehearing Denied May 31, 1954.

Edwin L. Blewer, Dist. Atty., John A. Richardson, Asst. Dist. Atty., Shreveport, for defendants-relators.

Horace M. Bickham, Jr., Vivian, Booth, Lockard & Jack, Shreveport, for plaintiffs-respondents.

HAWTHORNE, Justice.

Our decision in the case of McGee v. Police Jury of Caddo Parish, No. 41376, 225 La. 471, 73 So.2d 424, is decisive of the issue upon which a writ was granted in this case.

For the reasons assigned in the case of McGee et al. v. Police Jury of Caddo Parish this day decided, the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, is affirmed. Relators are to pay all costs insofar as allowed by law.

HAMITER, J., dissents with written reason assigned by him in No. 41376.
Exhibit 99.2

#### 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 Quarterly Report of Covance Inc. (Covance)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William E. Klitgaard,
Chief Financial Officer of Covance, 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 Covance.
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: October 30, 2002

| | /s/ WILLIAM E. KLITGAARD                                                                                                        
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | William E. Klitgaard
      Corporate Senior Vice President
      and Chief Financial Officer
      (Principal Financial Officer)

25
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, I, Barry D. Elkins, hereby certify that,
to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Direct General Corporation
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in that
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Direct General Corporation.

    November 8, 2004               By: /s/ Barry D. Elkins
-------------------------              -----------------------------------------
        Date                                          (Signature)
                                   Name:  Barry D. Elkins
                                   Title: Senior Vice President and Chief
                                          Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

MARIO LOUIS DUNCAN,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 454 WAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 4th day of February, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
#### BAINS v. KENNESON.

No. 2602.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Feb. 3, 1944.

D. D. Newman, of Leesville, for appellant.

Dickson & Denny, of Shreveport, for ap-pellee.

DORE, Judge.

This suit is a sequel to the suit of Carl A. Kenneson v. James Bain et al., decided by this court on June 30, 1942, in which decision we affirmed a judgment of the lower court dismissing plaintiff’s suit. The issues in that case are clearly stated in our opinion. See 8 So.2d 722.

In the present suit, plaintiff, defendant in the other suit, is seeking damages in the amount of $1,525, allegedly caused him by the illegal issuance of the writ of provisional seizure issued in the former suit whereby his building was seized. The defense of the suit is a general denial for want of sufficient information.

On the trial of the 'case, it was admitted that the plaintiff had made one trip from Shreveport to Leesville for the purpose of selling his building, but was prevented in so doing on account of the writ of provisional seizure then in effect; that plaintiff had to make a trip to Leesville for the purpose of attending the trial of the former case; that plaintiff had to employ an attorney to dissolve the writ; that the said attorney had to appear before our court in Lake Charles on May 12, 1942 to represent him; that a fair rental value of the property provisionally seized was $25 per month, for a period of 6 months.

The trial of the case resulted in a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the sum of $300. Defendant appealed.

 While defendant obtained an order of appeal to this court and furnished a bond therefor, he has failed to appear either in person or by brief and present any argument or point to any error committed by the District Court. We would be *556fully justified in dismissing his appeal on the ground of abandonment. However, after a careful review of the record w& find that the evidence supports the judgment rendered.

For these reasons the judgment is affirmed.