alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1

Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of Central European Distribution Corporation (the Company), hereby
certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:



| | (a) | the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



/s/ William V. CareyWilliam V. CareyChairman, President and Chief Executive OfficerAugust 8, 2007
(2)

 (3)

NO. 07-12-0206-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL B

	OCTOBER 31, 2012

	______________________________

	UNIQUE McKINNEY,

			Appellant

	v.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

			Appellee

_______________________________

	FROM THE 167th DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY;

	NO. BK12118 PG16653; HON. MIKE LYNCH, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

	ABATEMENT AND REMAND

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

Unique McKinney, appellant, appeals her conviction for evading arrest, enhanced.  Appellant timely perfected her appeal. The clerk’s record was filed on June 28, 2012, and the reporter’s records on May 30 and July 25, 2012.  Appellant’s brief was due on August 24, 2012.  On August 31, 2012, appellant’s counsel was notified by letter that the brief was overdue and that unless appellant’s brief was filed on or before September 10, 2012, the appeal would be abated.  On September 10, 2012, this court received a motion for extension of time to file the brief, which was granted to September 24, 2012.  On October 2, 2012, a second extension of time was requested to file the brief, which was granted to October 15, 2012, with the admonition that no further extensions would be granted.  Instead of receiving appellant’s brief, this court received a third extension motion, asking for an additional thirty days to file his brief.

Accordingly, we abate this appeal and remand the cause to the 167th District Court of Travis County (trial court) for further proceedings.  Upon remand, the trial court shall determine the following:

1.  whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal; 

    	2.  whether appellant is indigent;

3.  whether appellant has been denied the effective assistance of counsel due to counsel’s failure to file a timely appellate brief; and,

4.  why a timely appellate brief has not been filed on behalf of appellant.

The trial court is also directed to enter such orders necessary to address the aforementioned questions.  So too shall it include its findings on those matters in a supplemental record and cause that record to be filed with this court by November 30, 2012.  If it is determined that appellant is indigent and has been denied the effective assistance of counsel, the trial court may appoint her new counsel; the name, address and phone number of any new counsel appointed shall be included in the aforementioned findings.  Should further time be needed to perform these tasks, then same must be requested before November 30, 2012.  

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4741 Introduced in House (IH)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 4741

      To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit 401(k) 
      contributions which would otherwise be limited by employer 
            contributions to employee stock ownership plans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 8, 1998

  Mr. Crane 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 permit 401(k) 
      contributions which would otherwise be limited by employer 
            contributions to employee stock ownership plans.

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

SECTION 1. 401(K) CONTRIBUTIONS PERMITTED WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE BE 
              LIMITED BY EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS TO EMPLOYEE STOCK 
              OWNERSHIP PLANS.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (c) of section 415 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to limitation for defined contribution 
plans) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(8) 401(k) contributions permitted which would otherwise 
        be limited by employer contributions to employee stock 
        ownership plans.--Employer contributions to an employee stock 
        ownership plan (as described in section 4975(e)(7)) shall not 
        be taken into account in determining whether any other amount 
        exceeds the limitations imposed by this section with respect to 
        contributions to qualified cash or deferred arrangements under 
        section 401(k).''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to years beginning after December 31, 1998.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 4.1


 


Advisors Asset Management, Inc.

18925 Base Camp Road

Monument, Colorado 80132


April 27, 2021


 


Advisors Disciplined Trust 2067


c/o The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee


240 Greenwich Street, 22W Floor


New York, NY 10286


 


Re: Advisors Disciplined Trust 2067 (the “Fund”)


Ladies and Gentlemen:


We have examined the Registration
Statement File No. 333-252132 for the above captioned Fund. We hereby consent to the use in the Registration Statement of the references
to Advisors Asset Management, Inc. as evaluator.


You are hereby authorized
to file a copy of this letter with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 	 
	 	Advisors Asset Management, Inc.
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By	/s/ ALEX R. MEITZNER
	 	 	Alex R. Meitzner
	 	 	Senior Vice President
**Exhibit 23**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered PublicAccounting Firm**

 

We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No.’s33-80435, 333-38883,333-56493 and 333-84871) of ITT Educational Services, Inc. of our report dated March 14,2005 relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedule,management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, whichappears in this Form 10-K.

 

 
| /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|
| PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP     |
| Indianapolis, Indiana          |
| March 14, 2005            |

 

----
```

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Directors
FalconStor Software, Inc.:

We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference in the  registration  statements
(numbers  333-69834  and  33-83574)  filed on Form S-8, and in the  registration
statement (number 333-69830) filed on Form S-3, of FalconStor Software,  Inc. of
our reports  dated March 10,  2005,  with  respect to the  consolidated  balance
sheets of FalconStor Software, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2004 and
2003,  and the related  consolidated  statements  of  operations,  stockholders'
equity  and  comprehensive  loss,  and cash  flows  for each of the years in the
three-year  period  ended  December  31, 2004,  management's  assessment  of the
effectiveness  of internal  control over financial  reporting as of December 31,
2004 and the  effectiveness of internal  control over financial  reporting as of
December 31, 2004,  which reports  appear in the December 31, 2004 annual report
on Form 10-K of FalconStor Software, Inc.

                                                /s/  KPMG LLP

Melville, New York
March 10, 2005
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     ( THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
FERRELLGAS, L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES BALANCE SHEET ON JULY 31, 1996, AND
THE STATEMENT OF EARNINGS ENDING JULY 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATMENTS)
</LEGEND>

<CIK>0000922359
<NAME>                                   FERRELLGAS, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                                        1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS

       



<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUL-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 AUG-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUL-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         13,769
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  71,287
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,169
<INVENTORY>                                    41,395
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               131,764
<PP&E>                                         596,107
<DEPRECIATION>                                 192,375
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 650,398
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          111,615
<BONDS>                                        279,112
<COMMON>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                     247,269
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   650,398
<SALES>                                        522,446
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               653,640
<CGS>                                          356,314
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  577,913
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             33,822
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                28,764
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            28,764
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (975)
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   27,789
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        
                                  
<PAGE>


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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                          JUL-02-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       5,311
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                               65,944
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (171)
<INVENTORY>                                 48,017
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           120,829
<PP&E>                                     162,192
<DEPRECIATION>                              73,070
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             212,669
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       36,071
<BONDS>                                     99,425
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                  57,406
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               212,669
<SALES>                                     63,199
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            63,199
<CGS>                                       53,925
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               56,893
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,687
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,619
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,285
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,334
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                639
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,973
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2661 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2661

To clarify the effects of revocation of a visa, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 15, 2004

 Mr. Grassley (for himself and Mr. Chambliss) introduced the following 
    bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To clarify the effects of revocation of a visa, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. VISA REVOCATION.

    (a) Limitation on Review.--Section 221(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1201(i)) is amended by adding at the end the 
following: ``There shall be no means of administrative or judicial 
review of a revocation under this subsection, and no court or other 
person otherwise shall have jurisdiction to consider any claim 
challenging the validity of such a revocation.''.
    (b) Classes of Deportable Aliens.--Section 237(a)(1)(B) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(B)) is amended by 
striking ``United States is'' and inserting the following: ``United 
States, or whose visa (or other documentation authorizing admission 
into the United States) has been revoked under section 221(i), is''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply to 
revocations under section 221(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
made before, on, or after such date.
                                 <all>
```
#### Murphy & Hayden *v.*English & Murphy et al.

Judgment at Same Term Answer Filed, without Citation or Appearance.

It is error to render judgment against a defendant on a cross petition, during the same term it was filed, without citation or appearance, or a waiver of it not appearing in the record.

APPEAL FROM LINCOLN CIRCUIT COURT.

December 18, 1868.

*Bradley, for appellant.*

*Owsley, Burdett, for appellee.*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Robertson :

Whatever may have been the pretermitted proof on the answer and cross-petition of the Shankses, it was premature and erroneous to render judgment prejudicial to the appellant, during the same term it was filed without citation or appearance or a waiver of it not appearing on the record.

Wherefore, the judgment of the circuit court is reversed, ' and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SUNTARI SRI; et al.,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-70673

Agency Nos. A095-176-943

 A095-177-925

 A095-177-926

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 21, 2012** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Suntari Sri and her family, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion

to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an

abuse of discretion, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008), and

FILED

MAR 02 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-70673

we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ motion to

reopen as untimely where the motion was filed over four years after the BIA’s final

order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to establish changed

circumstances in Indonesia to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit

for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Malty v.

Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The critical question is . . . whether

circumstances have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not

have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future

persecution.”).

We lack jurisdiction to review petitioners’ contention that the disfavored

group analysis applies to the changed circumstances exception to the time limit for

motions to reopen because the issue was not exhausted before the BIA. See

Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOHNNIE FLOYD.

June 27, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

David R. Schwartz - #009264

das@udallshumway.com

Attorney for Defendants Maricopa County Community

College District, Maricopa Skill Center and Lisa Hemming

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Schaun Owens,

Plaintiff,

v.

Maricopa County Community College 

District, Maricopa Skill Center, and Lisa 

Hemming, 

Defendants.

NO. CV-15-01769-PHX-SPL

STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF 

PROTECTIVE ORDER

Plaintiff and Defendants hereby stipulate that this Court may enter the Stipulated 

Protective Order submitted herewith. This action arises from employment by Plaintiff at a 

school whose students’ educational records may be or are private under FERPA, 20 U.S.C. 

§ 1232g and 34 C.F.R. § 99.30 et seq.. The case may also involve other potentially 

confidential records and the parties wish to facilitate disclosure and discovery of relevant 

records and information by entering into the Stipulated Protective Order.

1138 NORTH ALMA SCHOOL ROAD, SUITE 101

MESA, ARIZONA 85201

Telephone: 480.461.5300 | Fax: 480.833.9392

Case 2:15-cv-01769-SPL Document 14 Filed 01/04/16 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff has reviewed this Stipulation and the proposed Stipulated Protective Order 

and has authorized her e-signature on this Stipulation and has approved the form of the 

Stipulated Protective Order being submitted.

DATED: January 4, 2016.

UDALL SHUMWAY PLC

/s/ David R. Schwartz

David R. Schwartz

1138 North Alma School Road

Suite 101

Mesa, AZ 85201

Attorneys for Defendants 

/s/ David R. Schwartz for Shaun Owens

Schaun Owens

Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 4, 2016, I electronically filed the attached document 

using ECF for filing and transmitted the document as follows:

By e-mail and mail to:

Schaun Owens

11342 W. Buchanan Street

Avondale, AZ 85323

Plaintiff

/s/ Kimberly Kershner

Kimberly Kershner

4523225.1

109883-5

Case 2:15-cv-01769-SPL Document 14 Filed 01/04/16 Page 2 of 2
National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Mary W. Jackson Building NASA Headquarters

Washington, DC 20546-0001

 March 4, 2024

Reply to Attention of: General Law PracticeGroup

TO: 

FROM:

Distribution

Agency Counsel for Ethics

SUBJECT: Determination Regarding Attendance by NASA Employees at The 

Planetary Science Caucus Kick-off Event on March 5, 2024

The Planetary Society, a not-for-profit organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the 

Internal Revenue Service Code, will hold a reception on March 5, 2024, at the Library of 

Congress, Madison Bldg., Madison Hall, from 6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. This is a kick-off 

for the Congressional Planetary Science Caucus. Event will include displays from 

prominent space organizations – including Caltech, the Applied Physics Lab, and the 

American Astronomical Society – to showcase the diversity of the scientific community 

and exciting future for planetary exploration. The Planetary Society is in control of the 

planning, organizing, and issuing invitations for this event. 

Approximately 100-125 people are expected to attend the event. Attendees will have a 

diversity of views or interests and will include personnel from other federal agencies, 

representatives of the legislative branch, and representatives from academia and industry. 

The estimated cost of the event, including all food, beverages and items listed above, is 

approximately $15 per person. Attendance at this event will allow NASA attendees to 

exchange information regarding various NASA programs. I find that the event meets the 

requirements of a "widely attended gathering" as defined in 5 C.F.R. § 2635.204(g)(2).

I further determine that there is an Agency interest in having NASA personnel attend the 

event because it will provide an opportunity for the invited persons to exchange ideas 

and views pertaining to NASA's policies, programs and operations. NASA employees -

including NASA employees in non-career positions who are required to sign an ethics 

pledge under Executive Order 13989 - who do not have a significant role in a matter

affecting the interests of The Planetary Society may accept an invitation for free 

attendance for themselves and a guest to the event. In those circumstances, I find that the 

Agency' s interest in attendance outweighs any concern that the individual may be, or 

may appear to be, improperly influenced in the performance of their duties.

However, NASA employees who have a significant role in any pending matter affecting 

the interests of the sponsor, such as procurement duties, program management, or 

negotiating or administering a Space Act Agreement, should seek a separate 
 2

determination from their local NASA ethics counselor as to whether they may accept the 

invitation.

Adam F. Greenstone