alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32(a)



TXU CORP.

Certificate Pursuant to Section 906

of Sarbanes  Oxley Act of 2002

CERTIFICATION OF CEO



The undersigned, C. John Wilder, President and Chief Executive of TXU Corp. (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:



| | 1. | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be executed
this 5th day of August, 2005.



/s/ C. John WilderName:

C. John WilderTitle:

President and Chief Executive




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to TXU Corp. and will be retained by TXU Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-121- 01-PB

Christopher Aldrich

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

September 6, 2006 trial in the above case. Defendant cites the

need for additional time as he is currently being held in a

secure medical facility in South Carolina and his attorney needs

additional time to review discovery and prepare a defense. The

government does not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reasons and in order to allow the

parties additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court

will continue the trial from September 6, 2006 to November 7,

2006. In agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds

pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated

reasons, the ends of justice served in granting a continuance

Case 1:06-cr-00121-PB Document 20 Filed 08/09/06 Page 1 of 2
2

outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a

speedy trial.

The August 31, 2006 final pretrial conference is continued

until October 23, 2006 at 4:30 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

August 9, 2006

cc: Sven Wiberg, Esq.

Terry Ollila, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00121-PB Document 20 Filed 08/09/06 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 15


         ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


Linens 'n Things, Inc.
Clifton, New Jersey

Board of Directors:

Re:     Registration Statements Numbers 333-116719, 333-116720, 333-71903,
        333-42874, 333-55803, 333-62982 and 333-62984 on Form S-8

With respect to the subject registration statements, we acknowledge our
awareness of the use therein of our report dated November 4, 2004, except as to
Note 2 which is as of June 30, 2005, related to our review of interim financial
information.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, such report is not
considered a part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an
Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm or a report prepared or certified
by an Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm within the meaning of
sections 7 and 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.





/s/ KPMG LLP
---------------------
KPMG LLP

New York, New York
July 1, 2005


                                       35
#### J. P. FULLER v. The TEXAS COMPANY.

No. 3975.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit. Second Division.

Jan. 14, 1932.

John B. Files, of Shreveport, for appellant.

Chas. I-I. Blish, of Shreveport, for appellee.

DREW, J.

This is a suit to have an instrument declared to be a contract of lease and to be declared to be null and void; and in the alternative, if the court should hold that the instrument is not a mineral lease, but a reservation of mineral rights, then for same to be declared barred by ten years’ nonuser, and that plaintiff be recognized as the owner of all the mineral rights in and to the described land, consisting of 480 acres.

On trial of the case, it was admitted by plaintiff and defendant that the value of the property involved was in excess of $2,000.

The value placed on the property involved by both plaintiff and defendant takes the case out of the jurisdiction of this court. Exercising the authority granted to us by Act No. 19 of 1912, we therefore order this case transferred to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana, and .fix the time for appellant to perfect the transfer at 30 days from the time this judgment becomes final.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1360

To ensure project labor agreements are permitted in certain circumstances.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 3, 2001

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California (for himself, Mr. KING, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Ms. LEE, Ms. SLAUGHTER, and Mr. QUINN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the

Workforce

A BILL

To ensure project labor agreements are permitted in certain

circumstances.

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

3 SECTION 1. PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENTS.

4 (a) AGREEMENT.—Any person contracting with the

5 Federal Government to provide construction services or

6 any person receiving any form of Federal financial assist7 ance for a construction project may require that every con8 tractor or subcontractor on the construction project agree,

9 for a specific project only, to negotiate or become a party
2

•HR 1360 IH

1 to a project labor agreement with one or more labor orga2 nizations.

3 (b) IMPOSITION OF REQUIREMENT.—The contractor

4 or recipient of Federal assistance may choose to include

5 such a requirement under subsection (a)—

6 (1) if the contractor or recipient has determined

7 that a project labor agreement will advance its pro8 curement interest in cost, efficiency, quality, and the

9 promotion of labor-management stability; and

10 (2) if no laws applicable to the specific con11 struction project preclude the use of the proposed

12 project labor agreement.

13 SEC. 2. APPLICATION.

14 Any project labor agreement reached pursuant to this

15 Act—

16 (1) shall bind all contractors and subcontrac17 tors on the construction project through the inclu18 sion of appropriate clauses in all relevant solicitation

19 provisions and contract documents,

20 (2) shall allow all contractors and subcontrac21 tors wishing to compete for contracts and sub22 contracts on the project to do so, without discrimi23 nation against contractors, subcontractors, or em24 ployees based on union or nonunion status; and
3

•HR 1360 IH

1 (3) shall comply with all applicable statutes and

2 regulations.

3 SEC. 3. DEFINITION.

4 For purposes of this Act, the term ‘‘project labor

5 agreement’’ means a prehire collective bargaining agree6 ment in the construction industry, establishing the basic

7 terms and conditions of employment for the duration of

8 the project, and binding upon all construction employers

9 that operate on the project site.

Æ
No. 03-15-00313
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FORTHE THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN
HERMENIA JENKINS, Appellant, v. CROSBY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, and MICHAEL L. WILLIAMS, COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, Appellees.
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPELLEE'S BRIEF
To the Honorable Third Court ofAppeals: In accordance with Rules 10.5(b) and 38.6(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Appellee Crosby Independent School District ("Crosby ISD") requests a forty-five (45) day extension oftime to file its brief. 1. Appellant Hermenia Jenkins filed her briefon July 10, 2015. Amicus Curiae Texas Elementary Principals and Supervisors Association filed a brief on behalfofAppellant on July 10,2015. 2. Appellee Crosby lSD's brief is currently due on August 9, 2015. A forty-five day extension would move the deadline to September 24, 2015. 3. Appellee Crosby ISD has not previously requested an extension in this
case. ACCEPTED 03-15-00313-CV 6313013 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 7/31/2015 2:40:44 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK4. Appellee Crosby ISD requests this extension because counsel has significant other professional commitments during the next 45 days. 5. The undersigned counsel ofrecord for the District has corresponded with counsel for Appellant Hermenia Jenkins and Appellee Commissioner of Education and they are not opposed to this motion. 6. This extension is sought not for purposes ofdelay, but so thatjustice may be done. The parties and the Court will not be prejudiced by this extension of time. Therefore, Appellee Crosby Independent School District respectfully requests that this Court grant its motion and extend its time for filing Appellees' Brieffrom August 9,2015, to September 24,2015.Respectfully submitted, THOMPSON & HORTON

### LLP
By:

___________ _ David B. Hodgins State BarNo. 09775530 Amber K. King State BarNo. 24207244 Frances R. Broussard State BarNo. 24055218 3200 Southwest Freeway, Suite 2000 Houston, Texas 77027 Telephone: (713) 554-6766 Facsimile: (713) 583-9397 dhodgins@thompsonhorton.com aking@thompsonhorton.com fbroussard@thompsonhorton
.com ATTORNEYS FORAPPELLEE CROSBY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICTCERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE I certify that on July 28, 2015 I conferred with counsel for Ms. Jenkins and Commissioner ofEducation by email and they are unopposed to this motion.
S-Se-v

# 9--
DaVid B. Hodgins orFrances R. Broussard
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the

### ~ 

# l day ofJuly, 2015, a true and correct copy ofthe above and foregoing pleading was served upon counsel ofrecord bye-service as follows: Kevin F. Lungwitz The Lungwitz Law Firm, P.C. 3005 S. Lamar Blvd. Suite D-I09-362 Austin, Texas 78704-4785 P.512.462.0188 F.866.739.7138 kevin@lungwitzlaw.com

683127 Andrew Lutostanski Assistant Attorney General Administrative Law Division OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS P.O Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711-2548 P. 512.475.4200 F.512.320.0167 andrew
.lutostanski@texasattorneygenetal
.gov

# ~s~**9-**

Davjd B. Hodgins orFrances R. Broussard
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1368 Introduced in House (IH)]

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.

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

SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF REQUIREMENT OF MANDATORY BEGINNING DATE FOR 
              DISTRIBUTIONS FROM INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT PLANS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (6) of section 408(a) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to individual retirement account) and 
paragraph (3) of section 408(b) of such Code (relating to individual 
retirement annuity) are each amended by inserting ``(other than 
subparagraph (A) thereof)'' after ``section 401(a)(9)''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Civil No. 06-cv-203-PB

Judith Putzel and

Stephen M. Price

ORDER OF RECUSAL

I hereby recuse myself from this case. 

SO ORDERED.

__________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: August 21, 2007

cc: Wilbur A. Glahn, III, Esq.

Wendy J. Kisch, Esq. 

Judith Putzel, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00203-DBH Document 10 Filed 08/21/07 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 99.1


                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection with the Quarterly Report of AEI Income  &  Growth
Fund  XXII Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-QSB
for  the  period  ended March 31, 2003,  as  filed  with  the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission on  the  date  hereof  (the
"Report"), I, Robert P. Johnson, President of AEI Fund Management
XXI,  Inc.,  the  Managing General Partner  of  the  Partnership,
certify,  pursuant  to  18 U.S.C. 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 Partnership.


                           /s/ Robert P Johnson
                               Robert P. Johnson, President
                               AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                               Managing General Partner
                               May 12, 2003
g; , 

stock is valued at $42.22 per fine troy ounce.

2. Special drawing rights (SDRs) are valued according to a technique adopted by the

International Monetary Fund (IMF) in July 1974. Values are based on a weighted average of

exchange rates for the currencies of member countries. From July 1974 through December

1980, sixteen currencies were used; since January 1981, five currencies have been used. U.S.

3. Includes allocations of SDRs by the International Monetary Fund on Jan. 1 of the year

indicated, as follows: 1970—$867 million; 1971—$717 million; 1972—$710 million; 1979—

$1,139 million; 1980—$1,152 million; 1981—$1,093 million; plus net transactions in SDRs.

4. Valued at current market exchange rates.

3.13 FOREIGN OFFICIAL ASSETS HELD AT FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS1

Millions of dollars, end of period

Asset 1997 1998 1999

2000 2001

July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb.p

1 Deposits .............................. 457 167 71 76 78 139 115 104 215 199 195

Held in custody

2 U.S. Treasury securities2 ................. 620,885 607,574 632,482 624,177 628,001 611,641 595,591 591,071 594,094 594,694 603,906

3 Earmarked gold3 ........................ 10,763 10,343 9,933 9,688 9,674 9,620 9,565 9,505 9,451 9,397 9,343

1. Excludes deposits and U.S. Treasury securities held for international and regional

organizations.

2. Marketable U.S. Treasury bills, notes, and bonds and nonmarketable U.S. Treasury

securities, in each case measured at face (not market) value.

3. Held in foreign and international accounts and valued at $42.22 per fine troy ounce; not

included in the gold stock of the United States.
#### Buddy MASON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ron ANGELONE; L. Jarvis; Dr. Harland; Nena Adams; Mark E. Williams, D.D.S., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 03-6589.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 14, 2003.

Decided Aug. 21, 2003.

Buddy Mason, Appellant Pro Se. Alexander Leonard Taylor, Jr., Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia; George W. Wooten, Peter Duane Vieth, Eunice Park Austin, Wooten & Hart, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Buddy Mason appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Mason v. Angelone,*No. CA-01-309-7 (W.D.Va. Mar. 31, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
<PAGE>   1


AmerUs Life Holdings, Inc.
Exhibit 11 - Statement Re:  Computation of Earnings Per Share

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                    Three Months Ended March 31,
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            2000                                           1999
                                        -------------------------------------------       ----------------------------------------
                                                          Number of      Per Share                       Number of   Per Share
                                        Net Income          Shares         Amount         Net Income       Shares       Amount
                                        -------------------------------------------       ----------------------------------------
<S>                                     <C>               <C>            <C>              <C>            <C>         <C>
 ($ in thousands, except per share data)
 Basic EPS
       Net Income                           $ 15,718         29,968       $ 0.52           $ 16,957        30,433        $ 0.56

 Effect of dilutive securities
       Options                                     -             63            -                  -            37             -
       Warrants                                    -              -            -                  -             -             -
       Stock appreciation rights                   -                           -                  -             -             -

                                        -------------------------------------------       ---------------------------------------
 Diluted EPS                                $ 15,718         30,031       $ 0.52           $ 16,957        30,470        $ 0.56
                                        ===========================================       =======================================

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5

<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                       APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                         JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       320
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          29,444
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            29,764
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     19,764
<BONDS>                                        0
<COMMON>                                  10,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              29,764
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   0
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.18


 


AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO


PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This Amendment No. 1 (the “Amendment”), effective as of December 21,
2004 (the “Effective Date”),
modifies and amends that certain Part-Time Employment Agreement, dated as of December 31,
2003, by and between Melvin D. Booth (the “Employee”)
and MedImmune, Inc. (“MedImmune”).


 


Recitals


 


A.                                    MedImmune and the Employee desire to
amend the Agreement in order to extend the term of the Agreement.


 


The parties mutually agree to amend the Agreement as follows:


 


Agreement


 


1.                                      Extension of Term.  The term of the Agreement (as described in Section 2
of the Agreement) is hereby extended for a six-month period such that, subject
to the provisions for early termination described in the Agreement, the employment
of the Employee will end on June 30, 2005.


 


2.                                      No
Other Effect on Agreement. 
Except as set forth in Section 1 of this Amendment, in all
other respects the Agreement remains in full force and effect.  The Agreement (as amended by this Amendment)
sets forth the entire agreement and understanding between the parties as to the
applicable subject matter and supersedes any other prior agreements and
understandings in this respect.


 


[Remainder
of this page intentionally left blank.]


 





















 


The parties have duly executed this Amendment
effective as of the Effective Date.


 


 


	
  EMPLOYEE:

  	
   

  	
  COMPANY:

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  MEDIMMUNE,
  INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ Melvin D. Booth 

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ David M. Mott

  	
   

  
	
  Melvin D. Booth

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  David M. Mott

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Chief Executive Officer
  and President