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


**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Atlas America Public #15-2006 (B) L.P.
      (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      I, Freddie M. Kotek, Chief Executive Officer of the Managing General Partner,
      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
              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
              Partnership.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




By:
            /s/
                Freddie M. KotekName:
            Freddie
                M. KotekTitle:
            Chief
                Executive Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate:
            August
                14, 2006
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1180

THOMAS WILLIAM JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SPRINT INTERNATIONAL, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District Judge. (CA-95-1017-A) Submitted: September 20, 1996 Decided: October 2, 1996 Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas William Jones, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Michels, Jr., MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE, McLean, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order granting theemployer's motion for summary judgment in this Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claim under 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101-12117 (West 1995). After a hearing, the district court granted Appellee's motion for summary judgment. Jones v. Sprint International , No. CA95-1017-A (E.D. Va. Jan. 5, 1996). Notwithstanding his employer's reasonable accommodations, therecord reveals that Appellant failed to perform his job as legitimately expected due to his excessive absenteeism. The record isuncontroverted that Appellant's attendance was a necessary component of his job and that although Appellant was given several opportunities to remedy his unacceptable attendance, he failed to do so. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Appellee employer finding that Appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. See Ennis v. National Ass'n of Business & Educ. Radio, Inc. , 53 F.3d 55, 57-58 (4th Cir. 1995) (holding that the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792 (1973), scheme used in Title VII cases applies to ADAclaims; to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, a plaintiff must show at the time of discharge he was performing his job at a level that met his employer's legitimate expectations). 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
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3554 

To direct the Federal Trade Commission to promulgate rules prohibiting 

deceptive advertising of abortion services, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 30, 2010 

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

referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To direct the Federal Trade Commission to promulgate rules 

prohibiting deceptive advertising of abortion services, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stop Deceptive Adver5 tising for Women’s Services Act of 2010’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON DECEPTIVE ADVERTISING OF 

7 ABORTION SERVICES. 

8 (a) CONDUCT PROHIBITED.—Not later than 180 

9 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Fed10 eral Trade Commission shall promulgate rules to prohibit, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3554 IS

1 as an unfair and deceptive act or practice, any person 

2 from advertising with the intent to deceptively create the 

3 impression that such person is a provider of abortion serv4 ices if such person does not provide abortion services. 

5 (b) ENFORCEMENT.—The Federal Trade Commis6 sion shall enforce the rules promulgated under subsection 

7 (a) as if a violation of such rules were a violation of section 

8 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 

9 45(a)(1)). The Commission shall enforce such rules in the 

10 same manner and by the same means, powers, and duties 

11 as though all applicable terms and provisions of the Fed12 eral Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) were 

13 incorporated into and made a part of this section. 

14 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

15 (1) ABORTION SERVICES.—The term ‘‘abortion 

16 services’’ means providing surgical and non-surgical 

17 procedures to terminate a pregnancy, or providing 

18 referrals for such procedures. 

19 (2) ADVERTISE.—The term ‘‘advertise’’ means 

20 offering of goods or services to the public, regardless 

21 of whether such goods or services are offered for 

22 payment or result in a profit. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3554 IS

1 (3) PERSON.—The term ‘‘person’’ has the 

2 meaning given such term in section 551 of title 5, 

3 United States Code. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
NO: 01-15-00083-CV

 

IN THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS

 

REYNALDO ROBLEDO, Appellant

VS.

IDALIA M. ROBLEDO., Appellee

 

MOTION TO WITHDRAW NOTICE OF APPEAL

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

REYNALDO ROBLEDO, appellant in this cause, files this motion to withdraw

his notice of appeal that was filed on January 21, 2015 and in support of such motion

shows:

On December 23, 2014, the trial court signed a final judgment in cause number

2013-03363 in the 312TH DISTRICT COURT of Harris County, Texas.

On January 21, 2015, appellant timely filed a motion for new trial.

On February 9th , 2015, after the notice of appeal was filed, the trial court granted,

in part and within its plenary power, appellant’s timely filed motion for new trial. 

On June 9th and June 11th , of 2015, the trial court tried the issue of periodic child

support, as per the specific issue on which the new trial was granted. The Court further

made its rendition on June 11th , 2015 and has set the entry of its new judgment for July

21, 2015.

The District Clerk has listed the status of said case as on appeal and wishes to have the

ACCEPTED

01-15-00083-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

7/10/2015 8:41:01 AM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 7/10/2015 8:41:01 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
appeal dismissed, before it enters the final judgment. Your appellant is in agreement. 

Appellant does not wish to appeal the trial court’s new final judgment. 

WHEREFORE, appellant prays the court grant this motion and order the dismissal

of his appeal in this cause.

Respectfully submitted,

__/S/_JOSE CANTU, JR.____

Jose Cantu, Jr..

Attorney for Appellant

SBN: 03767400

3801 Barnett St.

Houston, Texas 77012-3019

(713) 645-0303 (office)

(713) 645-1117 (facsimile)

APPELLANT’S CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

The undersigned attorney for the appellant certifies that as of July 9th, 2015, there

is no opposing counsel, but has notified opposing counsel in the trial court of his

intentions to which she does not object. 

 ____/S?__JOSE CANTU, JR._____

 Jose Cantu, Jr..

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned attorney for the appellant certifies that a copy of this motion to

withdraw notice of appeal and re-designate the status of the parties was served on the
following counsel for all parties to the trial court’s judgment on the 9th day of July,

2015, as follows:

Ms. Kathleen M. Vossler, Attorney at Law

2209 Union St.

Houston, Texas 7707

Attorney for Idalia M. Robledo

By: facsimile to (713) 868-1445 

___/S/_JOSE CANTU, JR.____

Jose Cantu, Jr..
97-286.

#### Linton v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.

In Habeas Corpus. *Sua sponte,*cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Raymond L. Young, Respondent, v Deborah Young, Appellant, et al., Respondent.

Submitted May 7, 2012;

decided June 27, 2012

*942Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order denying reargument or leave to appeal, dismissed upon the ground that such order does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-15386

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 2:13-cv-00670-SPC-CM

TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT, 

ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, 

 Plaintiffs-Appellees,

RSUI INDEMNITY COMPANY,

 Intervenor Plaintiff,

versus

ATTORNEY’S TITLE INSURANCE FUND, INC.,

SECTION 10 JOINT VENTURE, LLP,

SKY PROPERTY VENTURE, LLC, 

CAS GROUP, INC.,

 Defendants-Appellants,

FLORIDA TITLE, CO., et al.,

 Defendants,

STEPHAN, COLE & ASSOCIATES, LLC., et al.,

Case: 16-15386 Date Filed: 08/01/2018 Page: 1 of 2 
 Respondents.

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(August 1, 2018)

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, BRANCH, Circuit Judge, and GAYLES,*

District Judge.

PER CURIAM: 

For the reasons we explained at oral argument, the judgment of the district 

court is due to be affirmed under our recent Zucker decision, which establishes that 

the financial services exclusion provisions apply to exclude coverage. See Zucker 

for BankUnited Fin. Corp. v. U.S. Specialty Ins. Co., 856 F.3d 1343, 1350–51

(11th Cir. 2017). Although we appreciate counsel’s efforts to distinguish Zucker, 

we are not persuaded. Given our decision that coverage does not apply, we need 

not address the other issues. 

To the extent that the argument of Attorney’s Title Insurance Fund and 

Florida Title Company that they should not have been in the lawsuit has any 

remaining relevance for costs or other reasons, we reject that argument. 

AFFIRMED.

 * Honorable Darrin P. Gayles, United States District Judge for the Southern District of 

Florida, sitting by designation.

Case: 16-15386 Date Filed: 08/01/2018 Page: 2 of 2
No. 4930.

(Court of Appeal, Parish of Orleans.)

#### HERMAN LOEB vs. REISS & CO.

Solomon Wolff for plaintiff and appellant.

Dinkelspiel, Hart & Davey for defendant and appellee.

*319April 4, 1910.

ST. PAUL, J.

This is a suit on an open account and presents only questions of fact. After a careful examination of the record as a whole, we are of opinion that the judgment appealed from does substantial justice between the parties.

To disturb that judgment might necessitate the reopening of several issues in the case, only to require another five years of litigation and a mass of detail testimony on both sides. And the conviction is firm on our part that •the result would not be changed very materially in the end, but in the meanwhile substantial injury might result to one or both parties.

Interest respublicae ut finis litium.

Judgment affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       20,728
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                11,128
<ALLOWANCES>                                  4,021
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             37,495
<PP&E>                                       87,900
<DEPRECIATION>                               49,473
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              983,633
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       209,686
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                        698
<OTHER-SE>                                  434,726
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                983,633
<SALES>                                     133,830
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            151,585
<CGS>                                        66,979
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               237,302
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            (17,176)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            5,322
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (73,863)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (73,863)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                (73,863)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (1.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (1.13)


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ennis E. Ruffin, Appellant.

Submitted May 20, 2013;

decided May 30, 2013

Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.
Exhibit 10.3


 


Amendment Number 4

(dated May 21, 2013)

to the

Scholastic Corporation

1997 Outside Directors Stock Option Plan

(Amended and Restated as of May 25, 1999)


 


1. The following amendments
are made effective as of May 21, 2013 to the Scholastic Corporation 1997 Outside Directors Stock Option Plan (Amended and Restated
as of May 25, 1999) (“Plan”):


 


(a) Section 3 of the
Plan is amended by adding the following new paragraph at the end thereof:


 


“The Plan administrator may provide in a
Stock Option Agreement or otherwise that any Option outstanding on the last business day of the term of such Option (“Automatic
Exercise Date”) that has a “Specified Minimum Value” shall be automatically and without further action by the Outside
Director (or in the event of the Outside Director’s death, the Outside Director’s personal representative or estate) be exercised
on the Automatic Exercise Date. Payment of the exercise price of such Option may be made pursuant to such procedures as may be
approved by the Plan administrator from time to time. For purposes of this Section 3, the term “Specified Minimum Value”
means that the Fair Market Value per share of Common Stock exceeds the exercise price of a share subject to an expiring Option
by at least $0.50 cents per share or such other amount as the Plan administrator shall determine from time to time. The Plan administrator
may elect to discontinue the automatic exercise of Options pursuant to this Section 3 at any time upon notice to an Outside Director.
The automatic exercise of an Option pursuant to this Section 3 shall apply only to an Option award that has been timely accepted
by an Outside Director under procedures specified by the Plan administrator from time to time.”


 


(b) The Plan administrator may offer to
an Outside Director to amend any Stock Option Agreements outstanding on the date of this Amendment to incorporate the automatic
exercise provisions of Section 3.


 


2. Except as specifically
amended by the foregoing, the Plan remains in full force and effect in accordance with the terms thereof prior to such amendment.


 


3. The foregoing
amendment was duly approved by resolution of the Board of Directors of Scholastic Corporation at its meeting held on May 21, 2013
and shall become effective on May 21, 2013.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000851724
<NAME> GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED PARTNERSHIP II-G
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,571,348
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  702,372
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,273,720
<PP&E>                                      26,225,106
<DEPRECIATION>                              20,561,132
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,093,412
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          140,612
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,895,888
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,093,412
<SALES>                                      2,517,489
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,864,205
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,363,292
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,499,087)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,499,087)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,499,087)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (4.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 07/10/2015 8:17:40 AM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 182 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 182

 Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Ways and Means 
                 in the One Hundred Sixteenth Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 7, 2019

     Mr. Neal (for himself and Mr. Brady) submitted the following 
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Ways and Means 
                 in the One Hundred Sixteenth Congress.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

    For the expenses of the Committee on Ways and Means (hereafter in 
this resolution referred to as the ``Committee''), including the 
expenses of all staff salaries, there shall be paid, out of the 
applicable accounts of the House of Representatives for committee 
salaries and expenses, not more than $20,634,454 for the One Hundred 
Sixteenth Congress.

SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

    Of the amount specified in section 1--
            (1) not more than $10,119,889 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2019, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2020; and
            (2) not more than $10,514,565 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2020, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2021.

SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

    Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers authorized 
by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, and approved 
in the manner directed by the Committee on House Administration.

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

    Amounts made available under this resolution shall be expended in 
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House 
Administration.
                                 <all>
```