alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 99(c)

                                    TXU CORP.

                       CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                         OF SARBANES - OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     The undersigned, Michael J. McNally, Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer of TXU Corp. (the "Company"), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:

     1.    The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
           June 30, 2002 (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 14th day of August, 2002.


                                           /s/     Michael J. McNally
                                         -------------------------------------
                                          Name:    Michael J. McNally
                                          Title:   Executive Vice President
                                                   and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM TRANSCRYPT
INTERNATIONAL, INC.'S CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS AND IS QUALIFED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          20,144
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,732
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,863
<INVENTORY>                                     12,022
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                47,748
<PP&E>                                           5,924
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  77,358
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,969
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           129
<OTHER-SE>                                      48,674
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    77,358
<SALES>                                         22,436
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,436
<CGS>                                           16,380
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,380
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,668<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (393)<F2>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,293)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,293)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Includes a one time reversal of 2,221 for a reduction of the provision for
litigation settlement.
<F2>Interest expense is net of $693 of interest and other income less $300 of
interest expense.
</FN>


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States 

v. Case No. 08-cr-56-01-SM

Raymond Cole

ORDER

Re: Document No. 77, Motion to Appoint New Counsel 

Ruling: Denied, without prejudice. Defendant’s pro se motion

seeking appointment of substitute counsel does not assert facts

warranting that relief. Defendant is entitled to effective legal

representation, not an attorney who will follow all directions

given by him. Counsel is ethically and legally bound not to file

wasteful or frivolous motions, nor is counsel permitted, under

local rules, to file motions related to discovery production until

and unless informal requests for same are rejected by the

government. This case is also scheduled for trial during the next

trial period in August, and allowing substitute counsel at this

point would necessarily delay resolution of the charges even

further. While defendant makes vague reference to an irremediable

breakdown in the professional relationship between him an counsel,

nothing in the motion supports that claim. 

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

Date: August 3, 2009

cc: Terry Ollila, AUSA

Donald Kennedy, Esq.

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Raymond Cole

Case 1:08-cr-00056-SM Document 84 Filed 08/03/09 Page 1 of 1
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 07-cr-122-01-PB

Larry N. Laing

O R D E R

On March 14, 2012, defendant was brought before the court 

for his initial appearance and preliminary hearing under Fed. R. 

Crim. P. 32.1 on four alleged violations of conditions of 

supervision, as charged in the government's petition dated March 

13, 2012 (doc. no. 29). Defendant is on release from his

convictions in 2008 for distribution of cocaine base (“Crack”) 

in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C).

Defendant stipulated to probable cause on the violations. 

I therefore find probable cause that defendant has violated the 

conditions as charged in the petition. 

Defendant sought bail conditions under Rule 32.1(a)(6). The 

government sought detention. Under Rule 32.1(a)(6), defendant 

bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing 

evidence that he will not flee and that he poses no danger to 

any other person or to the community. At the hearing, the court 

Case 1:07-cr-00122-PB Document 31 Filed 03/15/12 Page 1 of 3
2

summarized its findings orally from the bench. Those oral 

findings are incorporated herein. Based on the evidence 

presented at the hearing, and for the reasons stated on the 

record, defendant failed to meet his burden of persuading the 

court that he poses no danger to any other person or to the 

community. 

In sum, the court finds that defendant did not meet his

burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that his

release, even on strict conditions, would pose no danger to any 

other person or the community. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that 

the defendant be detained pending a final revocation hearing. 

The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney 

General or his designated representative for confinement in a 

corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from 

persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody 

pending appeal. The defendant shall be afforded a reasonable 

opportunity for private consultation with defense counsel. On 

order of a court of the United States or on request of an 

attorney for the government, the person in charge of the 

corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to the United 

Case 1:07-cr-00122-PB Document 31 Filed 03/15/12 Page 2 of 3
3

States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection 

with a court proceeding. 

SO ORDERED.

 

Landya B. McCafferty

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: March 16, 2012

 

cc: Andrew Winters, Esq.

Arnold H. Huftalen, Esq.

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:07-cr-00122-PB Document 31 Filed 03/15/12 Page 3 of 3
19

A.14. Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers, Selected Quarters 

Percent except as noted 

USDA Farm Production Region 

NE LS CB NP AP SE DL SP MN PA 

Proportion of farm loans 

outstanding, 2004 Q4 survey, 

region share of national 

total 2.8 9.4 27.7 17.4 8.9 4.6 4.7 8.6 5. 5 10.5 

Sample coverage, 2004 Q4 

survey, sample share of total 

regional loans 13.5 2.7 21.1 9.7 18.2 17.1 9.4 5.1 9.5 58.7 

Avg. loan size, 2004 Q2 survey 

(thousands of dollars) 32.1 39.0 45.2 20.4 130.8 3 1.0 76.4 41.3 21.9 52.6 

Survey date Weighted average interest rate during sample week 

1999: Q1 8.4 8.9 8.9 9 .1 8.2 9.0 9.6 9.1 9.0 7.5 

Q2 9.6 9.1 8.8 9.0 8.0 9.0 9.8 9.0 8.7 8.0 

Q3 10.2 8.9 8.7 9.3 8.2 8.9 10.0 8.8 9.0 8.5 

Q4 9.1 9.2 8.8 9.4 8.3 8.8 9.8 9.0 9.5 8.8 

2000: Q1 9.4 9.2 9.2 9.6 8.4 9.8 9.3 10.0 9.8 8.4 

Q2 10.7 9.5 9.7 9.7 9.1 9.1 10.5 10.0 10.1 9.5

Q3 10.5 10.30 10.0 10.3 9.7 9.2 10.5 10.0 10.6 9.7 

Q4 10.7 9.3 9.9 10.1 9.2 9.4 9.2 10.3 10.3 9.8

2001: Q1 9.3 9.1 9.4 9.7 8.4 7.8 9.5 9.0 9.8 8.8 

Q2 8.2 8.7 8.3 8.8 7.4 8.1 8.3 9.2 8.6 7.9 

Q3 8.3 9.8 7.9 8.2 6.3 7.6 8.7 8.8 7.8 7.2 

Q4 6.9 7.9 6.3 7.0 5.2 6.3 8.7 7.6 6.1 5.2 

(.23) (.78) (.38) (.29) (.36) (1.71) (.42) (.79 ) (.33) (.35) 

2002: Q1 6.9 7.8 6.7 7.2 5.2 5.5 7.3 7.4 6.8 4.9 

(.12) (.37) (.26) (.22) (.63) (1.14) (.39) (.45 ) (.26) (.25) 

Q2 6.8 7.4 6.4 7.2 5.0 5.9 7.6 7.5 6.5 5.1 

(.14) (.29) (.27) (.21) (.48) (1.03) (.23) (.34 ) (.36) (.26) 

Q3 6.0 6.9 4.8 5.6 4.4 4.9 6.6 5.3 5.6 4.3 

(.14) (.03) (.51) (.40) (.69) (.68) (.22) (.96) (.36) (.33) 

Q4 5.7 6.9 5.1 5.5 4.6 5.2 6.7 7.6 6.4 4.5 

(.35) (.45) (.47) (1.01) (.56) (.62) (.68) (.35 ) (.47) (.62) 

2003: Q1 5.3 7.0 5.6 5.7 4.4 5.6 6.7 7.4 6 .1 4.5 

(.15) (.26) (.31) (.73) (.65) (.63) (.54) (.66) (.35) (.40) 

Q2 6.0 6.7 5.3 6.5 4.6 6.1 7.3 5 .7 6.4 5.2 

(.29) (.17) (.37) (.34) (.71) (.63) (.45) (.71) (.36) (.50) 

Q3 6.0 6.9 4.7 5.6 4.5 4.8 6.7 5 .5 5.6 4.3 

(.15) (.04) (.49) (.39) (.73) (.69) (.27) (.99) (.35) (.26) 

Q4 6.5 6.5 4.0 5.1 4.6 5.2 6.7 7.5 5.4 4.2 

(.59) (.22) (.30) (.71) (.54) (.83) (.54) (.58) (.39) (.42) 

2004: Q1 5.8 7.0 5.2 5.7 4.3 5.9 6.4 6.3 5.7 3.8 

(.21) (.15) (.44) (.25) (.48) (.64) (.37) (.23) (.37) (.41) 

Q2 4.8 6.3 5.2 6.2 4.6 6.4 6.9 6.2 6.4 4.1 

(.19) (.05) (.66) (.32) (.45) (.31) (.57) (.19) (.40) (.24) 

Notes. NE is Northeast, LS is Lake States, CB is Cornbelt, NP is Northern Plains, AP is Appalach ia, SE is Southeast, DL is Delta 

States, SP is Southern Plains, MN is Mountain State s, and PA is Pacific. The numbers in parentheses ar e standard errors. They are 

calculated from 100 replications of a bootstrap pro cedure (resampling of banks) in each region.
1 Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 96-10962

Summary Calendar

VANESSA CLEMONS

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PROTECTIVE AND REGULATORY SERVICES, ET AL

Defendants,

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PROTECTIVE AND REGULATORY SERVICES

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(4:94-CV-695-E)

January 23, 1997 Before SMITH, DUHÉ and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

Clemons appeals the summary judgment dism issal of her claim

against her employer, Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory2 She appealed her dismissal through administrative procedures

with her employer which resulted in her reinstatement without loss

of pay or seniority.

2 Services, that her dismissal was racially motivated. 2 She brought

h er claims under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district

court ruled that Ap pellant had not created an issue of fact that

her dismissal was race related. Our review of the briefs and

record convince us that the district court did not err.

Even though we view the evidence and its reasonable

inferences in t he light most favorable to Appellant, she has

created no issue of fact as to her prima facie case. Her dismissal

was based on an alleged violation of work rules. Appellant admits

that she did violate the rules and produces no evidence sufficient

to create a fact issue that white employees who violated work rules

were treated differently than she.

As an alternative to creating a prima facie case as to the

termination itself, Appellant argues that prior disciplinary

actions aga inst her were the result of discriminatory action and

intent by her prior supervisor. That supervisor, however, had no

voice in Appell ant’s termination so this would normally be

irrelevant. However those prior actions were considered in the

termination so their motivation could be germane. While Appellant

argues that in these prior in cidents she was treated differently

than whites, she offers no credible and probative evidence of this.

AFFIRMED.3
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 annual report on Form 10-K of Value Line, Inc. (the
“Company”), for the period ended April 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jean Bernhard Buttner,
      Chairman & 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:





1)
            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)
            the
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Company.








Date:
      July 28, 2006


By: 
      /s/ Jean Bernhard Buttner


Jean
      Bernhard Buttner


Chairman
      & Chief Executive Officer
Lexter Kossie#700661 William McConnell Unit 

### 3001 SouthEmilyDrive Beeville, Texas 78102 

### April 26, 2015
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals P.O. BOX 12308, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711
RE: WRNOs. 10,978-01 thru 10,978-16 Tr.Ct.NOs. 679887-A thru 679887-K 

### 185thDistrict Court - Harris County 

# i0^%-0^07,03,0^^^^

•>r»« 

# W 292015

Dear Clerk: Recently Ihave been cited for abuse of the writ. In 

### order forme to show that the claims I intend to raise in my 

### subsequent writ are not barred bySec 4 I am requesting the docket sheet of all the writs mentioned above with a list of all of the claims presented in each of those application. With out a list of all of the claims I cannot show that the claims 

### I intend to raisehave not been raisedbefore in thoseprior applications. 

### Thankyou for any consideration given in this matter. Sincerely,

cc:File 

# u^^'fna^--^ Lext'li? Kennon Kossie
Michael Newdow, pro hac vice status pending 

PO Box 233345 

Sacramento, CA 95823 

(916) 427-6669 

Rosanna Fox, NH SBN: 17693 

O’Brien Law Firm, P.C. 

One Sundial Avenue, Fifth Floor 

Manchester, NH 03103 

(603) 627-3800 

________________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-356-JM 

THE FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION; 

JANE DOE AND PAT DOE, PARENTS; DOECHILD-1, DOECHILD-2 and 

DOECHILD-3, MINOR CHILDREN; 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; 

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; 

THE HANOVER SCHOOL DISTRICT (“HSD”); 

THE DRESDEN SCHOOL DISTRICT (“DSD”); 

SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT 70 (“SAU #70”); 

 Defendants. 

________________________________________________________________________ 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

________________________________________________________________________ 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that true and correct copies of : 

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Admit Pro Hac Vice; and 

Affidavit of Michael Newdow in Support of Motion to Admit Pro Hac Vice

Case 1:07-cv-00356-SM Document 4 Filed 11/26/07 Page 1 of 2
were served electronically by CM/ECF to counsel for the Federal defendants and were / will be 

mailed on this 26th day of November, 2007, to: 

 David Bradley 

 41 South Park Street 

 Hanover, NH 03755 

Mr. Bradley is counsel for the School District defendants. 

 /s/ – Michael Newdow

 Michael Newdow, Attorney at Law 

 PO Box 233345 

Sacramento CA 92823 

(916) 427-6669

Case 1:07-cv-00356-SM Document 4 Filed 11/26/07 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

**********************************

*

Pamela Taber-McCarthy *

*

 Petitioner *

*

 v. * Case Number 1:08-cv-96-PB

*

Ricky C. McCarthy *

*

 Respondent *

*

**********************************

PETITIONER’S OBJECTION TO RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO ALLOW SUBMISSION OF PARTIAL STATE RECORD

The petitioner, Pamela Taber-McCarthy, hereby objects to Respondent’s 

Motion to Allow Submission of Partial State Record. The grounds for this motion 

are set forth more particularly below.

1. Without citing to any legal authority whatsoever, Respondent seeks leave to 

cherry-pick the state court record and file only those portions of the state 

court record that Respondent deems “relevant.” See Motion to Allow at ¶¶ 

3, 4, 5.

2. Respondent’s motion flies in the face of the plain language of the removal 

statute. The statute provides that the entire case is what is removed. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1446(b); see also Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. V & M 

Management, Inc., 929 F.2d 830, 834 (1991) (“Once a case is properly 

Case 1:08-cv-00096-PB Document 7 Filed 04/05/08 Page 1 of 3
2

removed, a district court has jurisdiction over the entire case, whether or 

not the basis for removal, i.e., the federal claim, thereafter remains.”)

3. The statute also prohibits any further action by the Hillsborough County 

Superior Court “unless and until the case is remanded.” See 28 U.S.C. § 

1446(c). What is to happen to the so-called “irrelevant” portions of this 

divorce, see Motion to Allow at ¶ 3, while just the so-called “relevant” 

portion is heard in this Court? There would be no means to judicially 

enforce the remainder of the state court’s Decree of Divorce.

4. For the reasons stated above, Respondent’s Motion to Allow should be 

denied.

5. No supporting memorandum accompanies this motion because the relevant 

legal authorities are contained in this motion.

WHEREFORE, the petitioner, Pamela Taber-McCarthy, respectfully 

requests that the Court:

A. Deny Respondent’s motion; and 

B. Grant such other and further relief as justice and equity require.

Case 1:08-cv-00096-PB Document 7 Filed 04/05/08 Page 2 of 3
3

Respectfully submitted,

Pamela Taber-McCarthy,

By her Attorney

MOSCA LAW OFFICE

/s/ Edward C. Mosca 

27 Webster Street

Manchester, NH 03104

(603) 628-3695

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on April 5, 2008 I served the foregoing by ECF on 

Kevin Bucholz, Esquire. Counsel of record for Respondent, and by handdelivering a copy to Law Office of Kathleen Sternenberg, 27 Webster Street, 

Manchester, NH 03104, counsel for Petitioner.

/s/ Edward C. Mosca 

Edward C. Mosca

Case 1:08-cv-00096-PB Document 7 Filed 04/05/08 Page 3 of 3
**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 theQuarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of BPZ Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) forthe quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Manuel Pablo Zuniga -Pflucker, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to andsolely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge andbelief, that:

 

(1)          The Report fully complies with the requirements of sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Manuel Pablo Zuniga - Pflucker*    | * * |
|-----------------------------------------|----------|
| Manuel Pablo Zuniga - Pflucker          |
| President & Chief Executive Officer |
| August 15, 2005                         |

 

----
**Exhibit 23****Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements ofLafarge North America Inc. (formerly Lafarge Corporation):(i) Registration Statement on Form S-8, File No. 2-92414, (ii) Registration Statement on Form S-8, File No. 33-9813, (iii) Registration Statement on Form S-8, File No. 33-20865, (iv) Registration Statement on Form S-3, File No. 33-32644 (which alsoconstitutes Post-Effective Amendment No. 6 to RegistrationStatement on Form S-1, File No. 2-82548), (v) Registration Statement on Form S-8, File No. 33-32645, (vi) Registration Statement on Form S-3, File No. 33-46093 (which alsoconstitutes Post-Effective Amendment No. 7 of RegistrationStatement on Form S-1, File No. 2-82548), (vii) Registration Statement on Form S-8, File No. 33-51873, (viii) Registration Statement on Form S-8, File No. 333-65897, (ix) Registration Statement on Form S-3, File No. 333-57333, (x) Registration Statement on Form S-8, File No. 333-110656, (xi) Registration Statement on Form S-8, File No. 333-124407, and (xii) Registration Statement on Form S-8, File No. 333-124409.of our reports dated February 6, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financial statements andschedule of Lafarge North America Inc., Lafarge North America Inc. management’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting of Lafarge North America Inc., included in this Form 10-K for theyear ended December 31, 2005./s/ Ernst & Young LLPMcLean, VA