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


OFFICERS’
CERTIFICATIONS


Certification
of Chief Executive Officer







Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, the undersigned officer of Douglas Emmett, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby
certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:






(i)
            the
      accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period
      ended March 31, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements
      of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
and






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







Date:  May
      8, 2009
            By:
            /s/
      JORDAN L. KAPLANJordan
      L. KaplanPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer







A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.






The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
JASON INCORPORATED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT DECEMBER 25, 1998, AND
CONSOLIDATED INCOME STATEMENT FOR THE TWELVE MONTH PERIOD ENDED
DECEMBER 25, 1998. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000813471
<NAME> JASON INCORPORATED
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-25-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-25-1998
<CASH>                                           30676
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    46558
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                      46368
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                133997
<PP&E>                                          172965
<DEPRECIATION>                                   80268
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  299181
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            88905
<BONDS>                                          62849<F2>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         35556
<OTHER-SE>                                       88387
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    299181
<SALES>                                         390853
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                390853
<CGS>                                           303568
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   303568
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                6661
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  22912
<INCOME-TAX>                                      8937
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              13975
<DISCONTINUED>                                    1278
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     15253
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .75<F3>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .72
<FN>
<F1>COMPANY PRESENTS RECEIVABLES ON A NET BASIS IN COMPLIANCE
WITH ARTICLE 10 REGULATION S-X.
<F2>INCLUDES ALL NON-CURRENT PORTION OF DEBT OBLIGATIONS.
<F3>THE EPS UNDER THE EPS PRIMARY TAG REPRESENTS BASIC EARNINGS PER
SHARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING
STANDARD NO. 128 EARNINGS PER SHARE.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

          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 Annual Report of Greyhound Lines, Inc. and Subsidiaries
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer and Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby 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 their 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 result of operations
            of the Company.


 /s/ Craig R. Lentzsch
----------------------------------

Craig R.Lentzsch, President and Chief Executive Officer
March 28, 2003


/s/ Jeffrey W. Sanders
-----------------------------------
Jeffrey W. Sanders, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
March 28, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000812072
<NAME>                        PLM EQUIPMENT GROWTH FUND II
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         2,538
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  775
<ALLOWANCES>                                   57
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         24,727
<DEPRECIATION>                                 20,483
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 7,535
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     6,552
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   7,535
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               7,878
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               5,033
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (58)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                4,207
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            4,207
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   4,207
<EPS-BASIC>                                    .53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .53



</TABLE>
ELECTRONIC RECORD

ISC -/S

357-/5

ZS2-/SCOA# 01-13-00640-CR OFFENSE: 22.02 (Aggravated Assault)

Dustin Wayne Glenn v. The State

STYLE: ofTexas COUNTY: Galveston

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM TRIAL COURT: 405th District Court

DATE: 02/26/2015 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 12CR2237

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS in-/*

Dustin Wayne Glenn v. The State of

STYLE: Texas .

APPEllj^MT^ :Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

DATE:_ 06kjkr

JUDGE: 'd<iLOL*^

CCA#:

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

PC:

DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1278 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow first responders 

to continue to exclude service-connected disability pension payments after 

reaching the age of retirement. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 2, 2019 

Mr. DAINES (for himself, Mr. CASEY, Mr. COONS, and Mr. TESTER) 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 allow first 

responders to continue to exclude service-connected disability pension payments after reaching the age of retirement. 

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 ‘‘Putting First Respond5 ers First Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 1278 IS

1 SEC. 2. CONTINUED EXCLUSION OF FIRST RESPONDER 

2 SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITY PAYMENTS 

3 AFTER AGE OF RETIREMENT. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 104 of the Internal Rev5 enue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating subsection 

6 (d) as subsection (e) and by inserting after subsection (c) 

7 the following new subsection: 

8 ‘‘(d) SPECIAL RULE FOR FIRST RESPONDER SERV9 ICE-CONNECTED DISABILITY PAYMENTS AFTER AGE OF

10 RETIREMENT.— 

11 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of an individual 

12 who receives a service-connected disability excludible 

13 amount, gross income shall not include such amount 

14 of any retirement pension or annuity which— 

15 ‘‘(A) is received by such individual with re16 spect to the service to which the service-con17 nected disability excludible amount relates, 

18 ‘‘(B) is determined by reference to the in19 dividual’s age, length of service, or contribu20 tions, and 

21 ‘‘(C) does not exceed the service-connected 

22 disability excludable amount (determined on an 

23 annualized basis under such regulations or 

24 other guidance as the Secretary may prescribe). 

25 ‘‘(2) SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITY EXCLUD26 IBLE AMOUNT.—For purposes of this subsection, the 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•S 1278 IS

1 term ‘service-connected disability excludible amount’ 

2 means an amount received by an individual which 

3 ceases upon reaching retirement age and is not in4 cludible in gross income under subsection (a)(1) by 

5 reason of a service-connected disability as a law en6 forcement officer (as such term is defined in section 

7 1204 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 

8 Streets Act of 1968), an employee in fire protection 

9 activities (as such term is defined in section 3(y) of 

10 the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938), or an indi11 vidual who provides out-of-hospital emergency med12 ical care (including emergency medical technician, 

13 paramedic, or first responder).’’. 

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

15 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

16 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
#### BURKE v. WESTERN NEWSPAPER UNION.

Civ. A. No. 3629.

United States District Court D. Massachusetts.

June 15, 1945.

Thomas M. Burke, Boston, Mass., Harry Sesnovich, Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.

Dane *&*Howe, Boston, Mass., George W. Howe, Boston, Mass., for defendant.

HEALEY, District Judge.

The crucial allegation in Paragraph 4 is “that plaintiff, by his conduct, has induced the defendant to believe that he did not work overtime, * * The defendant’s contention is that the plaintiff is thus estopped. If the plaintiff did, in fact, deceitfully induce the defendant to believe that he did not work overtime, then the plaintiff would be estopped from claiming any overtime. Mortenson v. Western Light & Telephone Co., D.C., 42 F.Supp. 319. See also George Lawley & Son Corporation v. South, 1 Cir., 140 F.2d 439, 443, 151 A.L.R. 1081.

Paragraphs 6 and 8 in reality state a compulsory counterclaim under Rule 13(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S. C.A., based on the allegations of Paragraph 4, and will be treated as such, although designated as a defense. Rule 8(c).

The plaintiff’s motion is, therefore, denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                         379,803
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,065,578
<ALLOWANCES>                                   283,214
<INVENTORY>                                  8,459,601
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            18,125,046
<PP&E>                                      43,208,967
<DEPRECIATION>                              16,970,241
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              42,733,575
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,696,194
<BONDS>                                     12,906,586
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     8,070,120
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,486,675
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                42,733,575
<SALES>                                     62,123,961
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            62,123,961
<CGS>                                       38,415,637
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               38,415,637
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            16,283,052
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,733,511
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,774,710
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,142,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,632,710
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,632,710
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .94
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .90
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.01





CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







I, Michael Neufeld, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Pegasi Energy Resources Corporation on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Pegasi Energy Resources Corporation.





By:

/s/    MICHAEL NEUFELDDate: May 14, 2010

Name:

Michael NeufeldTitle:

Chief Executive Officer




I, Richard Lindermanis, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Pegasi Energy Resources Corporation on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Pegasi Energy Resources Corporation.





By:

/s/    RICHARD LINDERMANISDate: May 14, 2010

Name:

Richard LindermanisTitle:

Chief Financial Officer
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-12-00806-CR

John Henry Carter, Jr., Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 391ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-11-0386-SA, HONORABLE MARTIN (BROCK) JONES, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant John Henry Carter, Jr. pled guilty to burglary of a habitation, evading

arrest in a motor vehicle with a prior conviction, and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, but pled

not guilty to aggravated robbery. The trial court found him guilty of all offenses, and fixed an

aggregate punishment at 40 yearsin prison and 730 daysin a state jail facility. Appellant appealsfrom

the conviction for aggravated robbery. Appellant’s appointed attorney has filed a brief concluding

that the appeal is frivolous and without merit.

Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable

grounds to be advanced. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); Anders, 386 U.S. at 743-44;

High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811-13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684,

684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).
Appellant’s attorney sent appellant a copy of the brief and advised him that he had the right to

examine the record and file a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Jackson v. State, 485

S.W.2d 553, 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). No pro se brief has been filed.

Having reviewed the evidence presented to the court and the procedures that were

observed, nothing in the record might arguably support the appeal. We agree with counsel that the

appeal is frivolous and without merit. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the

judgment of conviction.1

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Rose and Goodwin

Affirmed

Filed: August 13, 2013

Do Not Publish

No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of 1

his case by the court of criminal appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for

discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See generally Tex. R. App. P.

68-79 (governing proceedingsin theTexasCourt ofCriminal Appeals). Any petition for discretionary

review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the date this Court

overrules the last timely motion for rehearing filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. The petition must be

filed with this Court, after which it will be forwarded to the court of criminal appeals along with the

rest of the filings in the cause. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3, 68.7. Any petition for discretionary review

should comply with rules 68.4 and 68.5 of the rules of appellate procedure. See Tex. R. App. P.

68.4, 68.5.

2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,394]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on February 26, 2009 in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers at Insert Molding Technologies, Inc., Warren, Pennsylvania. The workers at the subject facility produce molded plastic parts.

The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed in Washington, DC, this 5th day of June 2009.

Richard Church,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

 [FR Doc. E9-15743 Filed 7-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
# Table 1600. earners
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6343

MARSHALL LEE BROWN, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

SUSAN WHITE, Superintendent, Alexander Correctional 

Institution,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Frank D. Whitney,

Chief District Judge. (5:15-cv-00009-FDW)

Submitted: July 21, 2015 Decided: July 23, 2015

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marshall Lee Brown, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Marshall Lee Brown, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief 

on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating 

that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate 

both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that 

the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Brown has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED