alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<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 on Form 10-Q/A of MRO Software, Inc.,
(the "Company") for the quarter ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of
the undersigned President & Chief Executive Officer, and Executive Vice
President of Finance & Administration, CFO & Treasurer of the Company,
certifies, to the best knowledge and belief of the signatory, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:


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

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



/s/ Norman E. Drapeau, Jr.              /s/ Peter J. Rice
-------------------------------------   ----------------------------------------
Norman E. Drapeau, Jr.                  Peter J. Rice
President & Chief Executive Officer     Executive Vice President, Finance &
Date: February 11, 2005                 Administration, CFO & Treasurer
                                        Date: February 11, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1564 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1564

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide additional 
           protection to estuaries of national significance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 19, 2007

Mr. Bishop of New York (for himself, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Baird, Mr. Payne, 
Ms. Shea-Porter, and Mr. Courtney) introduced the following bill; which 
   was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide additional 
           protection to estuaries of national significance.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``National Estuary Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. ESTUARY OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE.

    Section 101(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
U.S.C. 1251(a)) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating paragraphs (6) and (7) as paragraphs 
        (7) and (8) respectively; and
            (2) inserting the following after paragraph (5):
            ``(6) it is the national policy that given the 
        environmental risk that a floating storage regasification unit 
        poses to an estuary, the construction or use of such a unit in 
        an estuary of national significance be prohibited.''.

SEC. 3. NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM.

    Section 320(g) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
U.S.C. 1330(g)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(4) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
        this subsection, an applicant for a grant shall certify to the 
        Administrator that the applicant will not construct or use a 
        floating storage regasification unit on an estuary of national 
        significance. Such certification shall remain in effect subject 
        to paragraph (5).
            ``(5) Agency or court order.--A grant recipient under this 
        subsection may construct or use a floating storage 
        regasification unit on an estuary of national significance only 
        if the recipient is ordered to do so by a Federal agency or 
        court that has authority to issue such orders.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### POLARIS ENGINEERING, INC. v. PELICAN REFINING COMPANY, LLC.

No. 2011-CC-0005.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 18, 2011.

In re James River Insurance Company; Maryland Casualty Company; —Defendants); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 2006-2137; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 10-01354.

Denied.
#### Mrs. T. M. Blakeley v. J. C. Wimberley.

(No. 2891.)

Appeal from Fort Bend County.

Pearson & Balloü and J. D. Bryant, counsel for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

Will-son, J.

§ 64e *Verified account; verification must be made at time of bringing*suit, *etc.; case stated.*Appellee sued appellant in justice’s court upon an account for lumber amounting to $188.20, and in said court judgment was rendered for appellant. On appeal by appellee to the county court, and on a trial *de novo*without a jury, appellee recovered judgment for the amount of said account and interest. In the county court, and immediately before the trial, appellee verified his said account under article 2266, Revised Statutes, and, over objections of *101appellant, said verified account was read, received and treated as evidence in the cause, the judge holding that it constituted *prima facie*evidence, and that appellant, not having filed any counter-affidavit denying that said, account was just or true, could not be permitted to deny the same. We are of the opinion that, under the facts as presented by appellant’s bill of exception, the ruling and judgment of the court are erroneous. We do not think that the verification of the account at the time and in the manner stated entitled it to be treated and considered as evidence. We think the statute contemplates that the account shall be verified at the time it is sued upon to entitle it to be so considered, or at least that it be verified, by way of amendment, within a reasonable time before tire trial. Appellant alleges matters which constitute a meritorious defense, and has been denied, improperly, we think, the right of establishing such defense.

March 15, 1890.

Reversed and remanded.
#### S. P. R’y Co. v. Johnson & Wimbish.

(No. 2772.)

Appeal from De Witt County.

Stockdale & Proctor, counsel for appellant. ■

Ely & Davidson, counsel for appellees.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 45. *Strike on railroad; liability of railroad company for delay, etc., in case of; case stated.*Appellees sued the railroad company for damages in the depreciation in value of a lot of sheep shipped over appellant’s line of road, and the loss by death of some of said sheep, . and the extra expense incurred in feeding said sheep while delayed at Eosenberg Junction, a station *en route,*all of said damages being occasioned by the negligence of the defendant company, its agents'and employees. In answer to the suit the defendant company pleaded a general denial, and specially that the delay which occasioned the damages complained of was brought about by a “strike” of employees upon the next succeeding connecting line of railroad, over which defendant had and could exercise no control; that said strike suspended all operation of and running of trains upon said connecting line. Plaintiffs demurred to said answer, and, the demurrer being sustained, defendant refused to further amend, and the case was tried and resulted in a judgment for plaintiffs (appellees).

The main preliminary question on this appeal is the correctness of the ruling of the court below in sustaining plaintiffs’ demurrer and striking out defendants’ answer *70Setting up the “strike” as a defense. It was error to sustain said demurrer. The defendants may show in defense that they could not deliver the freight in a shorter time, “owing to interference with the operation of the road by strikers and their confederates.” [Railway Co. v. Tisdale, 74 Tex. 8; Railway Co. v. Levi, 3 Civil Cas. Ct. App., § 441.]

January 15, 1890.

Reversed and remanded.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1430 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate the diversity 

immigrant program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 9, 2007 

Mr. GOODLATTE (for himself, Ms. HERSETH, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. SAM

JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. GALLEGLY, Mr. ISSA, Mr. LINDER, Mr. KING

of Iowa, Mr. KLINE of Minnesota, Mr. CANTOR, Mr. DAVID DAVIS of 

Tennessee, Mr. AKIN, Mr. WELDON of Florida, Mr. GINGREY, Mr. 

CONAWAY, Mr. SHADEGG, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. GOODE, 

Mr. BOUCHER, Mr. KUHL of New York, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, and 

Mr. DEFAZIO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate 

the diversity immigrant program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as— 

5 (1) the ‘‘Security and Fairness Enhancement 

6 for America Act of 2007’’; or 

7 (2) the ‘‘SAFE for America Act’’. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1430 IH

1 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF DIVERSITY IMMIGRANT PRO2 GRAM. 

3 (a) WORLDWIDE LEVEL OF DIVERSITY IMMI4 GRANTS.—Section 201 of the Immigration and Nation5 ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151) is amended— 

6 (1) in subsection (a)— 

7 (A) by inserting ‘‘and’’ at the end of para8 graph (1); 

9 (B) by striking ‘‘; and’’ at the end of para10 graph (2) and inserting a period; and 

11 (C) by striking paragraph (3); and 

12 (2) by striking subsection (e). 

13 (b) ALLOCATION OF DIVERSITY IMMIGRANT VISAS.— 

14 Section 203 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1153) is amended— 

15 (1) by striking subsection (c); 

16 (2) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘(a), (b), or 

17 (c),’’ and inserting ‘‘(a) or (b),’’; 

18 (3) in subsection (e), by striking paragraph (2) 

19 and redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2); 

20 (4) in subsection (f), by striking ‘‘(a), (b), or 

21 (c)’’ and inserting ‘‘(a) or (b)’’; and 

22 (5) in subsection (g), by striking ‘‘(a), (b), and 

23 (c)’’ and inserting ‘‘(a) and (b)’’. 

24 (c) PROCEDURE FOR GRANTING IMMIGRANT STA25 TUS.—Section 204 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) is amend26 ed— 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
3 

•HR 1430 IH

1 (1) by striking subsection (a)(1)(I); and 

2 (2) in subsection (e), by striking ‘‘(a), (b), or 

3 (c)’’ and inserting ‘‘(a) or (b)’’. 

4 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

5 this section shall take effect on October 1, 2007. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-20,263-17

EX PARTE WILLIAM BOYD PIERCE, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. F-2003-0377-C-WHC 7 IN THE 211TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM DENTON COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Applicant was convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to sixty years’ imprisonment. The

Second Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Pierce v. State, No. 02-03-00517-CR (Tex.

App.—Fort Worth Aug. 12, 2004) (not designated for publication). Applicant filed this application

for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this

Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.

We have previously dismissed five subsequent applications in this cause. See TEX. CODE

CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 4. It is obvious from the record that Applicant continues to raise grounds

that were previously rejected on the merits or that should have been raised in previous applications. 
2

We hold that Applicant has abused the writ and filed a frivolous lawsuit. See Ex parte Jones, 97

S.W.3d 586 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); TEX. GOV’T CODE § 498.0045(a-1). Should Applicant file

future habeas applications in this cause, we will not consider the merits of his applications unless

he shows that the factual or legal basis of his grounds was unavailable in a previously filed

application. This application is dismissed. 

Copies of this ordershall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and the Board of Pardons and Paroles.

Filed: June 15, 2022

Do not publish
News United States Air Force
 New commander takes reigns of US Japan, 5th AFPublished Oct. 6, 2016
                        
                        By Capt. Joseph Reney
                        
                        
                        U.S. Forces, Japan
                **YOKOTA AIR BASE, Japan (AFNS) --**
                Lt. Gen. Jerry P. Martinez assumed command of U.S. Forces Japan and 5th Air Force during a ceremony here Oct. 6.Martinez was the director of operations for Air Mobility Command at Scott Air Force Base, Illinois. He is a command pilot with more than 4,000 hours in the C-17A Globemaster III, C-5B Galaxy, C-141B Starlifter and KC-135R Stratotanker.Martinez assumed command following the departure of Lt. Gen. John L. Dolan, who left USFJ in August to become the director for operations for the Joint Staff in Washington, D.C.Adm. Harry B. Harris, the U.S. Pacific Command commander, was one of the presiding officers for the ceremony and spoke about the critical role of the U.S. and Japanese alliance.“Defense Secretary Ash Carter has identified five strategic, and very real, global challenges to U.S. security that drive our defense planning and budgeting – North Korea, China, Russia, the Islamic State or ISIL, and Iran,” the admiral said. “And guess what? Four of these challenges are resident in this neighborhood.“So we must consider every possible step to defend the U.S. homeland and defend our allies,” he continued. “That’s why I continue to emphasize trilateral cooperation between Japan, South Korea and the United States. And that’s why all nations must continue to rally the international community to loudly condemn North Korea’s aberrational behavior and be prepared to counter this challenge.”During his speech after the assumption of command, Martinez directed his remarks to the Airmen, Soldiers, Sailors and Marines under his command."Whether you are in U.S. Forces Japan or 5th Air Force know that I will pledge something that I pledge every time that I have been in command; and that is that I will do my best to take care of you and your families," Martinez said. "I will do my best to keep this alliance as strong as it can possibly be."5th AF 



Yokota AB 



change of command
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                      Consent of Independent Accountants

     We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated September
21, 1999, except for Note 17, as to which the date is October 25, 1999, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule included in the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Blue Rhino Corporation for the year ended July 31,
1999, and in the following:

     .    Form S-8 (No. 333-80909) pertaining to the Company's Amended and
     Restated Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors.

     .    Form S-8 (No. 333-80907) pertaining to the Company's 1994 Stock
     Incentive Plan.

     .    Form S-8 (No. 333-80911) pertaining to the Company's 1998 Stock
     Incentive Plan.


                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
                                          -------------------------
Winston-Salem, North Carolina
October 28, 1999
FOURTH AMENDMENT TO CREDIT AGREEMENT



 EXHIBIT 10.40 
  
 FOURTH AMENDMENT TO CREDIT AGREEMENT 
  
 This Fourth Amendment to Credit Agreement is made as of this 3rd day of November, 2003, by and between Cape Cod Bank and Trust Company, NA (“Lender”), a National Association, with offices at 2 Barlows Landing Road, Pocasset, Massachusetts 02559 and Benthos, Inc. (“Borrower”),
a Massachusetts corporation with its principal place at 49 Edgerton Drive, North Falmouth, Massachusetts 02556. 
  
 RECITALS: 
  
 A.
Borrower and Lender entered into a certain Credit Agreement dated August 18, 1999, as amended by a First Amendment to Credit Agreement and Amendment to Revolving Note and Term Note dated March 23, 2001, as further amended by a Second Amendment to
Credit Agreement dated December 12, 2001, and as further amended by a Third Amendment to Credit Agreement dated January 29, 2003 (the “Credit Agreement”) regarding: (i) a Commercial Variable Rate Revolving or Draw Note dated August 18,
1999, as amended by an Amendment dated December 8, 2000, a Second Amendment dated March 23, 2001, a Third Amendment dated July 9, 2001, a Fourth Amendment dated December 12, 2001, and a Fifth Amendment dated January 29, 2003 (the “Revolving
Note”), (ii) a Commercial Variable Rate Promissory Note August 18, 1999, as amended by an Amendment dated October 17, 2000, a Second Amendment dated March 23, 2001 and a Third Amendment dated December 12, 2001 (the “Term Note”), and
(iii) other instruments and agreements executed in conjunction therewith; 







 B. Borrower and Lender now desire to further amend the Credit Agreement and to further amend the Term Note as set
forth herein and in a separate amendment of even date herewith to said Term Note. 
  
 AGREEMENTS: 
  
 Now, therefore, in consideration of
the foregoing and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Lender and the Borrower hereby agree as follows: 
  
 1. Capitalized terms used herein shall have the meaning given to them in the Credit Agreement unless separately defined herein.

  
 2. Section 3.04(a) of the Credit Agreement is hereby deleted and
replaced with the following paragraph: 
  
 “Section
3.04 Amortization of Term Loan: 
  

	 	(a)	 	The borrower shall make monthly payments of principal and interest on the Term Loan in accordance with the provisions of the Term Note” 

  
 3. Except as provided herein, the Credit Agreement, as previously amended, shall remain
unchanged. The Credit Agreement as previously amended and as further amended hereby is hereby ratified and confirmed. 
  

	 Witness:
	 	 BENTHOS, INC.

			
	 \s\ Pamela J. Falotico

	 	 By:
	 	 \s\ Ronald L. Marsiglio


	 	 	 Name:
	 	 Ronald L. Marsiglio

	 	 	 Title:
	 	 Chief Executive Officer and President

		
	 Witness:
	 	 CAPE COD BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, NA

			
	 \s\ Stephen Sooy

	 	 By:
	 	 \s\ Timothy F. Kelleher III


	 	 	 Name:
	 	 Timothy F. Kelleher III

	 	 	 Title:
	 	 Senior Vice President


  

 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         117,129
<SECURITIES>                                     9,513
<RECEIVABLES>                                   42,871
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     21,471
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               226,398
<PP&E>                                          51,236
<DEPRECIATION>                                  25,784
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 288,505
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           46,645
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       198,181
<OTHER-SE>                                    (48,966)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   288,505
<SALES>                                        165,230
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               165,230
<CGS>                                           72,253
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   72,253
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                56,472
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,602
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 34,903
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,907
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             23,079
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    23,079
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.61
        


</TABLE>
#### STATE ex rel. Gregory RICE v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-2087.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 16, 2011.

In re Rice, Gregory; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. E, No. 350-858; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-0965.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; *State ex rel. Glover v. State,*93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.
#### Shirley BUSH, n/k/a Shirley Walker, Appellant, v. O. David BUSH, Appellee.

No. 2D09-4829.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 27, 2011.

*1102Shirley Bush, pro se.

0. David Bush, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Shirley Bush appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of her marriage to O. David Bush, claiming errors in the amount of alimony the trial court awarded her and the equitable distribution scheme. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

This marriage was the parties’ second marriage to each other and it was of substantial duration. The parties had two grown children and, at the time of separation, were each quickly approaching retirement age. During the marriage they had enjoyed a modest lifestyle during which time they had accumulated a moderate amount of assets and liabilities. Besides owning several homes, their main source of income was the family business, a debris and disaster cleanup operation in which Mr. Bush was the prime mover. They each also had small incomes from government sources.

The trial court had awarded Mrs. Bush no temporary alimony but in the final judgment did award her $35,000 in lump sum alimony and nominal permanent alimony. And the trial court made an admirable attempt at splitting the marital assets equally. Mrs. Bush claims that, given her alleged disabilities and the lengthy term of this marriage, the alimony awarded to her is insufficient. But, in the parties’ circumstances, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s award of alimony to her.

We conclude, however, that the trial court erred in one respect in the equitable distribution scheme. One of the marital assets was an account that was valued at approximately $143,000, the account the parties referred to as “the Rabat account.” The trial court had awarded no temporary alimony to Mrs. Bush, explaining in the final judgment that she had spent the money in this account for her needs during the pendency of the dissolution proceedings. The trial court awarded this account to Mrs. Bush in the final judgment despite the fact that it was depleted by that time. This was error. *See Plichta v. Plichta,*899 So.2d 1283, 1286 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (“It was error for the trial court to include these depleted marital assets in the equitable distribution scheme because the Husband used this sum during the pendency of the dissolution proceedings, and no misconduct was asserted.”). Here, the trial court made no finding that Mrs. Bush had committed misconduct in depleting the Rabat account in this way.

We therefore affirm the alimony portion of final judgment of dissolution but reverse *1103the portion dealing with equitable distribution. On remand, the trial court shall reconsider the equitable distribution in light of the depletion of the Rabat account.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

CASANUEVA, KHOUZAM, and CRENSHAW, JJ, Concur.