alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31(n)

CERTIFICATIONS

 
I, Gary J. Taylor, certify that:  
1.
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of System Energy Resources, Inc.;  
2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  
3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  
4.
The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:   
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;   
b)  Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;   
c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and   
d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and  
5.
The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):   
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and   
b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

 

		/s/ Gary J. Taylor
Exhibit 32(k)

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

I, Roderick K. West, Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer of Entergy New Orleans, Inc. (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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2007 (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 Company as of the dates and for the periods presented in the Report.







|/s/ Roderick K. WestRoderick K. West
Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer of
Entergy New Orleans, Inc.
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:	February 28, 2008
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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

In connection with the filing with Securities and Exchange Commission of the
Annual Report of Hemagen Diagnostics, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the period ending
September 30, 2005, (the "Report"), I, Deborah F. Ricci, Chief Financial 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 to the best of my
knowledge:

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

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


/s/ Deborah F. Ricci
-------------------------------------
Deborah F. Ricci
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)

December 23, 2005
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3148 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the treatment 

of Department of Defense health coverage as minimal essential coverage. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 22 (legislative day, MARCH 19), 2010 

Mr. WEBB introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

for the treatment of Department of Defense health coverage as minimal essential coverage. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

4 HEALTH COVERAGE AS MINIMAL ESSENTIAL 

5 COVERAGE. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 5000A(f)(1) of the Inter7 nal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by section 1501(b) 

8 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is 

9 amended— 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3148 IS

1 (1) by striking clause (iv) and inserting the fol2 lowing new clause: 

3 ‘‘(iv) medical coverage under chapter 

4 55 of title 10, United States Code, includ5 ing coverage under the TRICARE pro6 gram;’’; 

7 (2) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of clause (v); 

8 (3) by striking the period at the end of clause 

9 (vi) and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

10 (4) by inserting after clause (vi) the following 

11 new clause: 

12 ‘‘(vii) the Nonappropriated Fund 

13 Health Benefits Program of the Depart14 ment of Defense, established under section 

15 349 of the National Defense Authorization 

16 Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 

17 103–337; 10 U.S.C. 1587 note).’’. 

18 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

19 this section shall take effect as if included in section 

20 1501(b) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

21 and shall be executed immediately after the amendments 

22 made by such section 1501(b). 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
#### REID v. C. H. CRONIN, Inc., et al.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

March 9, 1954.

*338Carlton A. Walls, New York City, for plaintiff.

Thomas F. Keane, New York City, for C. H. Cronin, Inc.

SUGARMAN, District Judge.

Plaintiff in a suit for injuries allegedly sustained by him because of the negligence of two corporate defendants, served a notice to take the deposition of one of the defendants upon oral examination of its president. The defendant’s president, according to the moving affidavit, “was duly served with a subpoena duces tecum directing that he appear at the time of said examination and produce” certain documents and records. By counsel’s stipulation, a person other than defendant’s president appeared and was examined.

Objection was made by defendant’s counsel to questions dealing with the plaintiff’s counsel’s demand addressed to the deponent during the examination for the production of said documents and records for examination by him. Plaintiff now seeks an order to compel the production of the disputed documents and records for that purpose. This branch of the motion is denied.

As is pointed out in 5 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d Ed., 1730, and in 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d Ed., 1051, the production of documents and records of a *party*is governed by Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 34, 28 U.S.C.A., and that rule should have been followed in this instance. Fed. Rules Civ.Proc. rule 45(d) (1) may only be employed on a deposition for the production of documents for examination when they are in the possession of a witness.

When a subpoena is served on a *party*requiring him to produce documents at his deposition they may be used for purposes other than the adversary’s perusal, such as, to refresh deponent’s recollection or to establish their existence, etc. Here plaintiff sought their production that he might examine them. For such purpose he must resort to Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 34.

Plaintiff further asks a direction that Francis L. Cronin, president of defendant and all of that defendant's employees present on the job when and where plaintiff was injured be produced for examination as demanded in plaintiff’s notice. This branch of plaintiff’s motion is denied as to all except Francis L. Cronin, defendant’s president, because *339“a party cannot be compelled to produce his employees for examination upon notice to take deposition”. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d Ed., 1051, and cases cited in note 4 thereof. However, under Rule 26(b), plaintiff may examine Francis L. Cronin as to “the identity and location of persons having knowledge of relevant facts”, see 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d Ed., 1075.

The foregoing is so ordered and the examination of Francis L. Cronin or any substitute deponent upon whom counsel may agree, to the extent hereinabove indicated, will proceed at a time and place mutually agreeable to the parties.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>          5
<LEGEND>          
 The schedule contains summary financial information
 extracted from the consolidated balance sheets and 
 consolidated statements of operations and is qualified 
 in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                      22,185
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                               72,871
<ALLOWANCES>                                 3,039
<INVENTORY>                                  1,791
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           142,650
<PP&E>                                      29,657
<DEPRECIATION>                              18,623
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             384,158
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      197,509
<BONDS>                                    119,686
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                       185
<OTHER-SE>                                  66,855
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               384,158
<SALES>                                    222,076
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           222,076
<CGS>                                      195,523
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              195,523
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,882
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           9,730
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (23,015)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   514
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (23,529)
<DISCONTINUED>                              (6,000)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               (29,529)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.27)
        



</TABLE>
#### Dock A. Cope, Appellant, v Aatif Barakaat et al., Defendants, and Olabanji Awosika et al., Respondents.

Submitted February 21, 2012;

decided May 3, 2012

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that part of the Appellate Division order that affirmed the May 2010 Supreme Court order, denied; motion for leave to appeal otherwise dismissed upon the ground that the remaining portion of the Appellate Division order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
ver 11/7/2011

**INTERAGENCY FIRE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT**

FIELD INPUT FOR REVISION

**Submit to**:  Fire Program Management Qualifications Subcommittee (FPQS) agency representative:  

· Dave Koch, BIA  David.Koch@bia.gov

· Jeff Arnberger, BLM  jarnberg@blm.gov

· Kevin Conn, FWS  Kevin_Conn@fws.gov

· Mark Koontz, NPS  mark_koontz@nps.gov

· Evans Kuo, USFS  ekuo@fs.fed.us

**Change Management Protocol**

1. **Entity Requesting:** Indicate the Agency requesting the change or issue to be addressed.

2. **Entity Representative Contact Information:** Please provide the name, home unit, telephone number, and email address of the person initiating the change request so that the subcommittee may make contact for additional information, if necessary.

3. **Description of the Issue:**  Describe the issue your proposal is intended to address or solve. Provide the background of how the issue came up.  

4. **Description of the Proposal:**  Describe the proposal in sufficient detail, identify expected outcomes, and address changes necessary for implementation.  Provide alternatives.

5. **Submission Process**:  

1. The change request or issue will be submitted to the appropriate FPQS subcommittee representative.

2. The FPQS representative will get agency concurrence (including both HR and Fire) prior to submission to the FPQS subcommittee.

3. If the change request is validated by the FPQS subcommittee representative, it will be forwarded to the subcommittee for action.

4. The FPQS subcommittee representative will notify the author of the change request of the status and/or action taken within 60 days following receipt of request. 

5. If the request results in a change, the decision will be communicated to the appropriate audience and documented as appropriate. 

6. **Subcommittee Vetting and Approval Process:**

Based on the specific issue raised, the subcommittee will forward a recommendation for change to the appropriate authority for consideration and approval.  These authorities may include entities such as OWDC, NWCG, Agency/Dept. HR, OPM, etc... 

The Chair of the subcommittee will notify the committee of change requests and schedule meetings or conference calls as necessary.
#### Gussie SCHWARTZ, Plaintiff, v. The TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

United States District Court, S. D. New York.

Dec. 27, 1954.

, William A. Hyman, New York City, for plaintiff.

Galli & Locker, New York City, John G. Donovan, New York City, of counsel, for defendant.

DAWSON, District Judge.

Defendant moves under Rule 34, 28 U. S.C.A., to inspect and copy the hospital record and physician’s records with respect to plaintiff’s decedent.

Plaintiff opposes the motion on the grounds that:

> “(1) The hospital record is part of the attorney's work-product and

> (2) It does not have possession, custody, or control of the physician’s records.”

Plaintiff’s counsel affirms that he has photostatic copies of the hospital record, but that neither he nor plaintiff possesses copies of the physician’s records.

Defendant, pursuant to Rule 26, has already taken the depositions of the hospital and the physician concerned, and inspected the documents which it now seeks to copy. It would appear from the papers submitted on the motion that, plaintiff’s counsel was present at the, taking of depositions and no objection was raised to the inspection of the documents in question on the ground that they are privileged. See N.Y.C.P.A. § 352. Therefore, any objection to the production of the documents sought here on the ground that they were privileged was waived by plaintiff when it allowed defendant to inspect them at the time of the taking of the depositions referred to above. See Munzer v. Swedish American Line, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1940, 35 F.Supp. 493.

The hospital records sought are privileged communications within the scope of § 352 of the New York C.P.A. and may not be obtained by defendant without the permission of plaintiff. See Munzer v. State of New York, Ct.Cl.1943, 41 N.Y.S.2d 98. Therefore, while it is true that the copy of the hospital records in the hands of plaintiff’s attorney may be part of the attorney’s work-product and, under the doctrine of Hickman v. Taylor, 1947, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451, not obtainable, plaintiff does exercise control over the records because she, by either granting or withholding her consent, may determine who shall have access to the records.

Plaintiff shall, therefore, grant permission to the hospital and to the physician to allow defendant to examine and copy the records.

Motion granted in accordance with this memorandum. So ordered.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.B

                            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 for the period
ending June 30, 2002, of El Paso Tennessee Pipeline Co. (the "Company") as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, H. Brent Austin, Chief Financial Officer, certify (i) that the Report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) that the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.


                                                 /s/ H. Brent Austin
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 H. Brent Austin
                                                 Chief Financial Officer

                                                 August 14, 2002
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 20, 2024.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, September 20, 2024

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A25A0166. WINDWARD CAMPUS OWNER, LLC v. GOOD NIGHT MEDICAL, LLC et 

al.

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW 

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion be hereby GRANTED, and 

jurisdiction is released back to the trial court upon receipt of this order.
##### 



AMENDMENT NO. 6 TO THE
CHS INC.
SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN
  1.
    
    Section 4.6 of the Plan is amended to read in full as follows:Section 4.6. Time and Form of Participants Benefit.
 Payment of Benefit
 Grandfathered Participants




---



##### 



(c) 409A Compliance; 409A Grandfathered Participants . (i.e. i.e.,
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CHS Inc.
 CHS INC.By

/s/
John D JohnsonIts
    President and CEO STATE OF MINNESOTA
    
    
    ))
    
    
    SS.COUNTY OF DAKOTA
    
    
    )
  /s/ NANCI L. LILJANotary(SEAL)
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Jeffery JORDAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-11326.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Nov. 1, 2006.

Phillip C. Umphres, Susan B. Cowger, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District *415of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Charles Kenneth Bloeser, Bloeser Law Office, Oklahoma City, OK, for Defendants Appellant.

Before BARKSDALE, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM: *

Kenneth Jordan appeals his sentence imposed prior to *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), under the assumption that the Sentencing Guidelines were mandatory. Jordan first raised the objection on appeal, and we review for plain error. *United States v. Mares,*402 F.3d 511, 516 (5th Cir.2005). Because Jordan has not pointed to anything in the record indicating that the trial judge would have sentenced him differently under an advisory sentencing regime, he cannot show plain error under *Mares. Id.*at 522. We therefore AFFIRM.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
exh_4-1.htm

leas1.jpg leas2.jpg
    lea3.jpg lease4.jpg signature1.jpg signature2.jpg signa3.jpg signa4.jpg
    signature6.jpg KM3174 figure1.jpg fig2.jpg figure2.jpg figure3.jpg lea1.jpg
    lea2.jpg lea.jpg lea4.jpg
#### ABN AMRO Bank, N.V., et al., Appellants, et al., Plaintiffs, v MBIA Inc. et al., Respondents.

Submitted May 2, 2011;

decided May 5, 2011

Motion by Patrick J. Borchers et al. for leave to appear amici curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed.
**Exhibit 23.2**

**Consent of Independent Auditors**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements (Nos.333-143232 and 333-143233) on Form S-8 of our report dated November 28, 2008 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs relating to (1) that accounting principles generally accepted in Japanvary in certain significant respects from accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America as discussed in Note 13 and (2) that the audits also comprehended the translation of Japanese yen amounts into U.S. dollaramounts and such translation has been made in conformity with the basis stated in Note 1), relating to the consolidated financial statements of AIM SERVICES Co., Ltd. and subsidiaries appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of ARAMARKCorporation and subsidiaries for the year ended October 3, 2008. 

/s/ DELOITTE TOUCHE TOHMATSU 

Tokyo, Japan 

December 11, 2008