alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32(h)

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

I, Daniel F. Packer, 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, 2005 (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/ Daniel F. Packer 		Daniel F. Packer
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of
Entergy New Orleans, Inc.
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:	March 9, 2006
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3622 

To require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to 

finalize a proposed rule to amend the spill prevention, control, and 

countermeasure rule to tailor and streamline the requirements for the 

dairy industry, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 21, 2010 

Mr. JOHANNS (for himself and Mr. SCHUMER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

A BILL 

To require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to finalize a proposed rule to amend the 

spill prevention, control, and countermeasure rule to tailor and streamline the requirements for the dairy industry, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REQUIREMENT. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 30 days after the 

5 date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the 

6 Environmental Protection Agency shall finalize the pro7 posed rule entitled ‘‘Oil Pollution Prevention; Spill PrevenVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:56 Jul 22, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3622.IS S3622

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3622 IS

1 tion, Control, and Countermeasure Rule Requirements— 

2 Amendments’’ (74 Fed. Reg. 2461 (January 15, 2009)) 

3 to exempt certain milk containers and associated piping 

4 and appurtenance from the Spill Prevention, Control, and 

5 Countermeasure program. 

6 (b) FORBEARANCE.—Until the effective date of the 

7 rule finalized under subsection (a), the Administrator of 

8 the Environmental Protection Agency may not take regu9 latory action against dairy and dairy product producers, 

10 processors, handlers, and distributors under the oil pollu11 tion prevention regulation in part 112 of title 40, Code 

12 of Federal Regulations, related to the exemptions in the 

13 proposed rule described in subsection (a). 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of Robert Cabeza, Appellant, v New York City Police Department, Respondent.

Submitted March 18, 2013;

decided April 30, 2013

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
#### JONES v. MILLER et al.

No. 2168.

District Court, W. D. Pennsylvania.

Sept. 14, 1942.

Carl E. dock and Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.

Miller & Nesbitt and Oliver K. Eaton, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendants.

McVICAR, District Judge.

This action is before us now on defendants’ motion under Rule 12(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, to dismiss, on the ground that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

At the oral argument, defendants’ attorney argued two reasons in support of the motion, the principal reason being res judicata. Under Rule 8(c) res judicata is deemed an affirmative defense. The complaint in this action avers facts meagerly which defendants rely upon as res judicata, but these facts are not sufficiently averred so that the Court can determine whether the same constitutes res judicata or not. I am of the opinion that the facts in this case should be more fully developed before the questions involved are passed upon by this Court; and for the reason that the Court cannot say under Rule 12(b) that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the motion to dismiss should be refused.
**Exhibit 15**
LETTER IN LIEU OF CONSENT FOR REVIEW REPORT
March 14, 2005
Nextel Communications, Inc.2001 Edmund Halley DriveReston, Virginia
We have made a review, in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting OversightBoard (United States), of the unaudited interim financial information of Nextel Communications,Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) for the periods ended March 31, 2004 and 2003, as indicatedin our report dated May 6, 2004, (March 14, 2005, as to the effects of the restatement discussed inNote 1); because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.
We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your Quarterly Report on Form10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, is incorporated by reference in Post-Effective AmendmentNo. 1 to Registration Statement No. 33-91716 on Form S-8 to Form S-4 of Nextel Communications,Inc., Registration Statement No. 333-06521 of Nextel Communications, Inc. on Form S-8,Registration Statement No. 333-06523 of Nextel Communications, Inc. on Form S-8, Post-EffectiveAmendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 333-26369 on Form S-8 to Form S-4 of NextelCommunications, Inc., Registration Statement No. 333-42537 of Nextel Communications, Inc. on FormS-8, Registration Statement and Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No.333-53429 of Nextel Communications, Inc. on Form S-8, Registration Statement 333-1290 of NextelCommunications, Inc. on Form S-4, Registration Statement No. 333-104076 of Nextel Communications,Inc. on Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 333-113003 of Nextel Communications, Inc. on Form S-8,and Registration Statement No. 333-116123 of Nextel Communications, Inc. on Form S-8.
We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Actof 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared or certified by anaccountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and11 of that Act.
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
McLean, VA
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Pamela Hanson, Appellant.

Submitted August 5, 2013;

decided August 22, 2013

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Lynn WL. Fa-hey, Esq., Appellate Advocates, 2 Rector Street, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
1 The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United St ates District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10-3249

___________ Karolyn A. Handke, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. McBride, Lock & Associates; Charles * H. McBride; Robert J. Lock, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: February 4, 2011 Filed: June 17, 2011

___________ Before MELLOY, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Karolyn Handke appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal for failure to exhaust her discrimination complaint against her former employer. After careful de novo review, see Coons v. Mineta , 410 F.3d 1036, 1039 (8th Cir. 2005), we affirm. We agree with the district court that Handke’s lawsuit was untimely filed more than 90 days after she received a right-to-sue letter on her June 2009 charge, which alleged her discharge was motivated by discrimination. Handke could not cure her untimeliness by filing-2- a second charge based on the same adverse employment action. SeeSpears v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr. & Human Res. , 210 F.3d 850, 853 & n.2 (8th Cir. 2000); Williams v. Little Rock Mun. Water Works , 21 F.3d 218, 222 (8th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
#### In the Matter of Charles Goodacre, Appellant, v Raymond Kelly, as the Police Commissioner of the City of New York, and as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Police Pensions Fund, Article II, et al., Respondents.

Submitted April 1, 2013;

decided May 2, 2013

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied with $100 costs and necessary reproduction disbursements *[see*20 NY3d 860 (2013)].
[992 NE2d 1085, 970 NYS2d 742]

#### In the Matter of Jean Lang, Appellant, v Raymond Kelly, as the Police Commissioner of the City of New York and as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund, Article II, et al., Respondents.

Decided June 25, 2013

*973APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Jean Lang,*appellant pro se.

*Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel,*New York City *(Keith M. Snow*of counsel), for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed with costs, and the certified question not answered on the ground that it is unnecessary.

In March 2008, petitioner tripped over computer wires that for several months had been strung on the floor across a locker room doorway in her precinct. In a 6-6 decision, respondent Board of Trustees denied her application for accidental disability retirement benefits *(Matter of City of New York v Schoeck,*294 NY 559, 568 [1945] [tie vote of the Board of Trustees will be resolved against applicant]).

We agree with the Appellate Division that the Board of Trustees could find on this record that petitioner’s 2010 statement, which claimed that tape ordinarily secured the wires to the floor but was no longer present on the date she fell, was not credible. Because the record does not establish as a matter of law that petitioner’s injury resulted from an incident that was “sudden, fortuitous . . . unexpected [or] out of the ordinary,” the Board’s determination must be upheld *(Matter of McCambridge v McGuire,*62 NY2d 563, 568 [1984]; *Matter of Lichtenstein v Board of Trustees of Police Pension Fund of Police Dept. of City of N.Y., Art. II,*57 NY2d 1010, 1012 [1982]).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Rivera concur; Judge Abdus-Salaam taking no part.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, and certified question not answered on the ground that it is unnecessary, in a memorandum.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

June 23, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 135761 & (25)(26)(27) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 135761 COA: 277784 Muskegon CC: 01-046044-FC ANDREW OWENS, a/k/a, ANDREW MOSLEY Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 14, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to re lief under MCR 6.508(D). The motions for hearings and a new trial are DENIED.

d0616 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 23, 2008

Clerk
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3488 

To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to make technical corrections 

to the segment designations for the Chetco River, Oregon. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 15, 2010 

Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. MERKLEY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to make technical 

corrections to the segment designations for the Chetco 

River, Oregon. 

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 the ‘‘Chetco River Protec5 tion Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO THE WILD AND SCE7 NIC RIVERS ACT. 

8 Section 3(a)(69) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

9 (16 U.S.C. 1274(a)(69)) is amended— 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3488 IS

1 (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), 

2 and (C) as clauses (i), (ii), and (iii), respectively, 

3 and indenting appropriately; 

4 (2) in the matter preceding clause (i) (as so re5 designated), by striking ‘‘The 44.5-mile’’ and insert6 ing the following: 

7 ‘‘(A) DESIGNATIONS.—The 44.5-mile’’; 

8 (3) in clause (i) (as so redesignated)— 

9 (A) by striking ‘‘25.5-mile’’ and inserting 

10 ‘‘27.5-mile’’; and 

11 (B) by striking ‘‘Boulder Creek at the 

12 Kalmiopsis Wilderness boundary’’ and inserting 

13 ‘‘Mislatnah Creek’’; 

14 (4) in clause (ii) (as so redesignated)— 

15 (A) by striking ‘‘8’’ and inserting ‘‘7.5’’; 

16 and 

17 (B) by striking ‘‘Boulder Creek to Steel 

18 Bridge’’ and inserting ‘‘Mislatnah Creek to 

19 Eagle Creek’’; 

20 (5) in clause (iii) (as so redesignated)— 

21 (A) by striking ‘‘11’’ and inserting ‘‘9.5’’; 

22 and 

23 (B) by striking ‘‘Steel Bridge’’ and insert24 ing ‘‘Eagle Creek’’; and 

25 (6) by adding at the end the following: 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3488 IS

1 ‘‘(B) WITHDRAWAL.—Subject to valid 

2 rights, the Federal land within the boundaries 

3 of the river segments designated by subpara4 graph (A), is withdrawn from all forms of— 

5 ‘‘(i) entry, appropriation, or disposal 

6 under the public land laws; 

7 ‘‘(ii) location, entry, and patent under 

8 the mining laws; and 

9 ‘‘(iii) disposition under all laws per10 taining to mineral and geothermal leasing 

11 or mineral materials.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-10644 Conference Calendar

RAYMOND CHARLES EARLY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus STATE OF TEXAS; JANICE WARDER, District Court Judge; DALLAS COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; JOHN VANCE, District Attorney; WILLIAM J. FAY, Attorney; DALLAS COUNTY, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:97-CV-2813-T

- - - - - - - - - - December 10, 1998 Before DAVIS, DeMOSS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Raymond Charles Early, Texas prisoner # 801583, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (iii). Early argues that the district court erred in dismissing his § 1983 action against Judge Janice Warder; John Vance, the Dallas County District Attorney; and Williams J. Fay, his trial attorney. He argues that due to the defendants’ negligence orNo. 98-10644 -2- deliberate indifference, he remained incarcerated for ten days in excess of his 180-day sentence. Early has not identified any error in the district court’s dismissal. Early v. State of
Texas , No. 3:97-CV-2813-T (N.D. Tex. April 17, 1998). Early’s appeal is without arguable merit. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, Early’s appeal is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Early is advised that the district court’s dismissal of his § 1983 action as frivolous and the dismissal of his appeal as frivolous each constitute a “strike” under the “three-strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          154249
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                154249
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  265921
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               10
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                      265743
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    265921
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  8356
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    26542
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (18186)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (18186)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (18186)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1>Not presented, as all shares of common stock are held by
a sole shareholder.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 28663]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14078]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Notice of Lincoln County Resource Advisory Committee Meeting

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community 
Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-393) the Kootenai National 
Forest's Lincoln County Resource Advisory Committee will meet on 
Wednesday, June 17, 2009 at 6 p.m. at the Forest Supervisor's Office in 
Libby, Montana for a business meeting. The meeting is open to the 
public.

DATES: June 17, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Forest Supervisor's Office, 31374 U.S. Hwy 2, Libby, 
Montana.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janette Turk, Committee Coordinator, 
Kootenai National Forest at (406) 283-7764, or e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4f253b3a3d240f293c61292a2b613a3c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="066c7273746d46607528606362287375">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda will include a vote on all 2009 
project proposals from the Rexford, Fortine, Three Rivers, and Libby 
Ranger Districts and receiving public comment. If the meeting date or 
location is changed, notice will be posted in the local newspapers, 
including the Daily Interlake based in Kalispell, Montana.

    Dated: June 9, 2009.
Paul Bradford,
Forest Supervisor.
 [FR Doc. E9-14078 Filed 6-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT 24

 

 

 

**POWERS OF ATTORNEY**

 

 

 

 

78

----

 

**Powers of Attorney**

 

**KNOWALLMENBYTHESEPRESENTS,**that each person whose signature appears below constitutes and appoints Gary W. Miller and Craig C. Morfas, or either of them, his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents, with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name,            place and stead, in any and all capacities noted below to sign the Baldwin & Lyons, Inc. Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, and any and all amendments thereto, required to be filed pursuant to the requirements of Sections 12(g), 13, or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, granting unto each of said attorneys-in-fact and agents, full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and            necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that each of said attorneys-in-fact and agents, or his substitute, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

|   | **Signature and Title** | **Dated:** |
|--------|-------------------------|------------|

| /s/ Gary W. Miller | February 10, 2009 |
|--------------------|-------------------|

Gary W. Miller, Chairman

of the Board and CEO

(Principal Executive Officer)

 

| /s/ G. Patrick Corydon | February 10, 2009 |
|------------------------|-------------------|

G. Patrick Corydon, Executive Vice

President (Finance) and CFO

(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

 

| /s/ Joseph DeVito | February 10, 2009 |
|-------------------|-------------------|

 

| /s/ Stuart D. Bilton | February 10, 2009 |
|----------------------|-------------------|

 

| /s/ Otto N. Frenzel, IV | February 10, 2009 |
|-------------------------|-------------------|

 

| /s/ John M. O’Mara | February 10, 2009 |
|--------------------------|-------------------|

 

| /s/ Thomas H. Patrick | February 10, 2009 |
|-----------------------|-------------------|

 

| /s/ John Pigott | February 10, 2009 |
|-----------------|-------------------|

79

----

**Powers of Attorney (continued)**

 

| /s/ Kenneth D. Sacks | February 10, 2009 |
|----------------------|-------------------|

 

| /s/ Nathan Shapiro | February 10, 2009 |
|--------------------|-------------------|

 

| /s/ Norton Shapiro | February 10, 2009 |
|--------------------|-------------------|

 

| /s/ Robert Shapiro | February 10, 2009 |
|--------------------|-------------------|

| /s/ Steven A. Shapiro | February 10, 2009 |
|-----------------------|-------------------|

 
| /s/ John D. Weil | February 10, 2009 |
|------------------|-------------------|

John D. Weil, Director

80

----
Consent of Independent Accountants



We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements  on  Form  S-8  (Registration  Nos.  33-89712,   33-60454,  33-55752,
333-00721,  333-21925, 333-59881, 333-59883, 333-59885, 333-81493, 333-81495 and
Amendment No. 1 to Registration  Statement No. 2-84451), and in the Registration
Statements  on Form  S-3  (Registration  Nos.  33-89710,  333-00719,  333-06317,
333-21923,  333-31335,  333-34159, 333-46095 and 333-70535) of Base Ten Systems,
Inc.  and  Subsidiaries,  of our  report  dated  April 3, 2000  relating  to the
financial statements, which appears in this Form 10-K.


PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
--------------------------
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Florham Park, New Jersey
April 11, 2000