alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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, 2008 (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 27, 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         587,468
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   74,108
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               704,596
<PP&E>                                       2,980,723
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,873,574
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,936,783
<BONDS>                                      3,600,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (4,681,048)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,873,574
<SALES>                                      3,023,365
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,023,365
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,559,458
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               435,874      
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             209,253
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,145,319
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,145,319  
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,145,319  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7464

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

KUNTA KENTA REDD, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Wilmington. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (7:08-cr-00043-D-1) 

Submitted: December 19, 2017 Decided: December 22, 2017

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Kunta Kenta Redd, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon James, Scott Andrew Lemmon, 

Timothy Severo, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, 

North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Kunta Kenta Redd appeals the district court’s order denying his post-judgment 

motion seeking appointment of counsel. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues 

raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Redd’s informal brief 

does not challenge the bases for the district court’s disposition, Redd has forfeited 

appellate review of the court’s order. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 

n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in 

the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 114 (Tuesday, June 16, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 28476]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14092]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Docket ID: DOD-2009-OS-0081]


Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DoD.

ACTION: Notice to delete a System of Records.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary of Defense is deleting NSLRB 01 
system of records notice in its existing inventory of record systems 
subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.

DATES: This proposed action will be effective without further notice on 
July 16, 2009 unless comments are received which result in a contrary 
determination.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Privacy Act Officer, Office of Freedom 
of Information, Washington Headquarters Services, 1155 Defense 
Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Cindy Allard at (703) 588-6830.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office of the Secretary of Defense 
systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 
552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are 
available from the address above.
    The Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to delete one 
system of records notice from its inventory of record systems subject 
to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The proposed 
deletion is not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act 
of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a 
new or altered system report.

    Dated: June 4, 2009.
Morgan E. Frazier,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

Deletion:
NSLRB 01
    The National Security Labor Relations Board (NSLRB) (February 22, 
2006, 71 FR 9102).

Reason:
    The Office of the Secretary of Defense never implemented this 
portion of the National Security Personnel System (NSPS) and no 
collection of records was ever made.

[FR Doc. E9-14092 Filed 6-15-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 5, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-40923

 

HUBERT T. GARLAND,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

LARRY OLIVAREZ, SHERIFF; UNKNOWN NURSE;

JOHN DOE #1; JOHN DOE #2; JOHN DOE #3;

JOHN DOE #4; DOE #4; DOE #5; DOE #6; DOE

#7; DOE #8; DOE #9,

Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-00-CV-299

--------------------

Before DUHÉ, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Hubert T. Garland (Garland) appeals the dismissal of his

civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Garland

argues that the magistrate judge abused her discretion in

dismissing his complaint for want of prosecution due to his

failure to attend an evidentiary hearing. 
No. 03-40923

-2-

This court must determine the basis of its jurisdiction, on

its own motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660

(5th Cir. 1987). The timely filing of a notice of appeal is

mandatory and jurisdictional. Smith v. Smith, 145 F.3d 335, 339

(5th Cir. 1998). Garland filed his notice of appeal well after

the thirty-day period for timely filing of notice. FED. R. APP.

P. 4(a)(1)(A). He filed no motion for extension of time. FED.

R. APP. P. 4(a)(5). Even if this court construed Garland’s notice

of appeal to be a motion to reopen the time to file an appeal,

the motion would be untimely. Garland’s motion was not filed

within 180 days after the entry of judgment or within seven days

of his learning of the entry of judgment. FED. R. APP. P.

4(a)(6)(A). Consequently, this court lacks jurisdiction over any

challenge to the magistrate’s judgment dismissing his complaint. 

APPEAL DISMISSED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

R ONALD CURRY , A ppellant ,
v. Case No. 5D 22

- 2008 LT Case No. 2010

- CF

- 009187

- D

- O STATE O F FLORIDA ,

Appellee

. ________________________________/ Opin i on filed October 21, 2022 3. 800 Appeal from t he Circuit Court for Or ange County , Luis Fer nando Calder on , Judge. Ronal d Curry, Orlando, pro se. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and L. Charlene Matthews, Assistant Attorney General, Dayt ona Beach, for Appellee. P ER CURIAM. The a ppellant , Ronald Curry, continues to raise the same claim of

er r or , which has been considered on the merits, disposed of by the trial court, and reviewed in this court on multiple occasions. The continuous attempts2 by this appellant to revisit this issue are frivolous and an abuse of this court's
p rocess. As such, the a ppellant is cautioned that any further pro se pleadings filed in this court asserting the claim raised in this case and regarding the sentence imposed in Orange County Circuit Case No. 2010

- CF

- 009187 -DO may result in Spencer sanctions being imposed. See State v. Spencer , 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 19 99).
APPELLANT WARNED

.

C OHEN , SASSO and WOZNIAK , JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 113 (Monday, June 15, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 28156]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13954]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FARM CREDIT SYSTEM INSURANCE CORPORATION

12 CFR Part 1410

RIN 3055-AA10


Premiums

AGENCY: Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation.

ACTION: Notice of effective date.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation (FCSIC) issued a 
direct final rule with opportunity for comment on April 15, 2009 (74 FR 
17371) amending its premium regulations under 12 CFR part 1410 to 
reflect the amendments of the Farm Credit Act of 1971 that were made by 
the enactment of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. The 
purpose of the amended rule is to clarify the premium regulations and 
eliminate provisions of the premium regulations that are obsolete or 
inconsistent with the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended. The 
opportunity for comment expired on May 15, 2009. The FCSIC received no 
comments and therefore, the direct final rule becomes effective without 
change. In accordance with 12 U.S.C. 2252, the effective date of the 
rule is 30 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register 
during which either or both Houses of Congress are in session. Based on 
the records of the sessions of Congress, the effective date of the 
regulations is June 9, 2009.

DATES: Effective Date: The regulation amending 12 CFR part 1410 
published on April 15, 2009 (74 FR 17371) is effective June 9, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James M. Morris, General Counsel, Farm 
Credit System Insurance Corporation, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, VA 
22102, 703-883-4380, TTY 703-883-4390, Fax 703-790-9088.

Roland E. Smith,
Secretary to the Board, Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation.
[FR Doc. E9-13954 Filed 6-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6710-01-P
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Sakhorn Khamsiry , Appellant

No. 06

- 23

- 00217

- CR v.

The State of Texas , Appellee Appeal from the 451st Judicial District

Court of Kendall County, Texas (Tr. Ct.

No. 9134 ). Memorand um Opinion delivered by Justice van Cleef

, Chief

Justice Stevens and Justice Rambin participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the appeal should be dismissed

for want of jurisdiction . Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We further order that the appellant, Sakhorn Khamsiry , pay all costs incurred by reason

of this appeal.

RENDE RED NOVEMBER 16, 2023
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
SCOTT E. STEVENS
CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE AUDITED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF EARNINGS AND THE AUDITED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
OF THE REGISTRANT FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.  AMOUNTS ARE IN
THOUSAND OF DOLLARS EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          31,017
<SECURITIES>                                     9,773
<RECEIVABLES>                                  200,300
<ALLOWANCES>                                    12,327
<INVENTORY>                                     53,063
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               328,458
<PP&E>                                         382,255
<DEPRECIATION>                                 237,405
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 554,159
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          122,034
<BONDS>                                         11,857
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        24,178
<OTHER-SE>                                     358,307
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   554,159
<SALES>                                        740,363
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               755,274
<CGS>                                          442,837
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  442,837
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               155,362
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,964
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,959
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                155,116
<INCOME-TAX>                                    58,089
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             97,027
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    97,027
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.82
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.82
        

</TABLE>
# United Stat es Court of A ppeals For the First C ircuit

No. 03-2035

MS. M., as parent and next friend of K.M., a minor,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v. PORTLAND SCHOOL COMMITTEE, Defendant, Appellee.

ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on March 9, 2004 is amended as follows: On page 8, line 2, "March 13, 2001" should be replaced with "March 13, 2002"
#### VBH Luxury, Incorporated, Plaintiff, v 940 Madison Associates LLC, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Excelsior Insurance Company, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant, et al., Third-Party Defendant.

Submitted March 26, 2012;

decided May 31, 2012

Motion for reargument denied with $100 costs and necessary reproduction disbursements *[see*18 NY3d 899 (2012)].
#### Robert J. GILL, Plaintiff, v. Julius STOLOW and Harry Stolow, co-partners, doing business under the firm name and style of J. & H. Stolow, Defendants.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

June 24, 1955.

See also 16 F.R.D. 9.

Milbank, Tweed, Hope & Hadley, New York City, for plaintiff.

Joseph F. Minutólo, New York City, for defendants.

DIMOCK, District Judge.

Defendants move for an order forbidding the taking of the deposition of defendant Harry Stolow, notice of which has been served by plaintiff. On September 11, 1952, defendants made a similar motion for an order forbidding the taking of the deposition of defendant Harry Stolow. That motion was denied by Judge Conger by order dated October 6, 1952. Defendants expressly concede that the situation remains the same except that plaintiff has had full and complete examinations of other witnesses *324and has waived the right to examine defendant Harry Stolow.

It would be an extraordinary case where examination of other witnesses would take the place of the examination of a party. This is certainly not that extraordinary case.

The claim of waiver seems to be based upon the fact that defendant Harry Stolow has been continuously in Europe since Judge Conger’s order and that plaintiff has taken no affirmative steps in a formal way toward securing his examination until the service of a notice dated May 31, 1955. In the meantime, plaintiff’s counsel has offered to have defendant Harry Stolow’s deposition taken upon oral questions in Europe, plaintiff to pay his attorney’s expense in connection therewith. There has been no waiver.

The motion is denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7489

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

CRISHONE CRYSTAL JOHNSON, 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. James P. Jones, Chief 

District Judge. (5:96-cr-30022-jpj-1) 

Submitted: October 20, 2008 Decided: November 4, 2008 

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Crishone Crystal Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Sharon Burnham, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 Crishone Crystal Johnson appeals a district court 

order denying her motion for a sentence reduction under 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the record and the 

district court opinion and affirm for the reasons cited by the 

district court. See United States v. Johnson, No. 5:96-cr30022-jpj-1 (W.D. Va. July 21, 2008). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 40863 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Latimer Laban Baker,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:19

- CR

- 33

- 1

Before **King, Costa,** and **Ho,** Circuit Judges

. **Per Curiam :**  *

The attorney appointed to represent Latimer Laban Baker has moved
for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Baker has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 16, 2021
Lyle W. C ayce Clerk Case: 20-40863 Document: 00516095548 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/16/2021No. 20

- 40863

2 and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.

Our review reveals a clerical error in the judgment. The district court found at sentencing that Baker did not have the ability to pay a fine and orally pronounced that it was waiving the fine in Baker’s case. The written judgment, however, imposes a $100 fine.
Accordingly, counsel’s motion for l eave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the **APPEAL IS**
**DISMISSED**

. See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2

. This matter is **REMANDED** for the limited purpose of correcting the clerical error in the judgment. See **Fed.**
**R. Crim. P.**  36

. Case: 20-40863 Document: 00516095548 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/16/2021
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3339 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a reduced rate 

of excise tax on beer produced domestically by certain small producers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 11, 2010 

Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. WYDEN, and Ms. SNOWE) 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 

a reduced rate of excise tax on beer produced domestically by certain small producers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REDUCED RATE OF EXCISE TAX ON BEER PRO4 DUCED DOMESTICALLY BY CERTAIN SMALL 

5 PRODUCERS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 5051(a) 

7 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— 

8 (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and 

9 (C) as subparagraphs (C) and (D), respectively, and 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3339 IS

1 (2) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting 

2 the following new subparagraphs: 

3 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a brew4 er who produces not more than 6,000,000 bar5 rels of beer during the calendar year, the per 

6 barrel rate of tax imposed by this section shall 

7 be— 

8 ‘‘(i) $3.50 on the first 60,000 quali9 fied barrels of production, and 

10 ‘‘(ii) $16 on the first 1,940,000 quali11 fied barrels of production to which clause 

12 (i) does not apply. 

13 ‘‘(B) QUALIFIED BARRELS OF PRODUC14 TION.—For purposes of this paragraph, the 

15 term ‘qualified barrels of production’ means, 

16 with respect to any brewer for any calendar 

17 year, the number of barrels of beer which are 

18 removed in such year for consumption or sale 

19 and which have been brewed or produced by 

20 such brewer at qualified breweries in the United 

21 States.’’. 

22 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

23 (1) Subparagraph (C) of section 5051(a)(2) of 

24 such Code, as redesignated by this section, is 

25 amended— 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3339 IS

1 (A) by striking ‘‘2,000,000 barrel quan2 tity’’ and inserting ‘‘6,000,000 barrel quantity’’, 

3 and 

4 (B) by striking ‘‘60,000 barrel quantity’’ 

5 and inserting ‘‘60,000 and 1,940,000 barrel 

6 quantities’’. 

7 (2) Subparagraph (D) of such section, as so re8 designated, is amended by striking ‘‘2,000,000 bar9 rels’’ and inserting ‘‘6,000,000 barrels’’. 

10 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

11 this section shall apply to beer removed during calendar 

12 years beginning after the date of the enactment of this 

13 Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS