alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Introduction

# Chicken

# Turkey

# Beef

# Pork

# Eggs

# Ready-to-Eat

# NARMS

# Siluriformes

# Residue

# Others
|   | (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                Registrant. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/Neal                Ludeke                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Neal                LudekeChief                Financial Officer of Richman TaxCredit                Properties Inc., general partner ofRichman                Tax Credit Properties L.P., generalpartner                of the RegistrantAugust                13, 2008 |

----
Exhibit 32.2
                                                                    ------------

                            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 The National Bank of Indianapolis
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Debra L. Ross, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


/s/ Debra L. Ross
-----------------------
Debra L. Ross
Chief Financial Officer
March 24, 2005


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 and not for any other purpose, and is subject to the knowledge
standard contained in 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER


AND CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER


PURSUANT TO SECTION
906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002




In
connection with the Annual Report of Symbollon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Paul C. Desjourdy, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




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.




Date:
March 31, 2008     /s/ Paul C.
Desjourdy


Paul C.
Desjourdy


Chief
Executive Officer and


Chief
#### Darnell J. NELSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Timothy F. GEITHNER, Secretary of the Treasury Department,* Defendant-Appellee.

No. 09-35940.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 14, 2010.**

Filed Jan. 7, 2011.

See also 2009 WL 927805.

*50Darnell J. Nelson, Seattle, WA, pro se.

Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Marion Jamieson Mittet, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for DefendanL-Appellee.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*

 Timothy F. Geithner has been substituted for his predecessor, Henry Paulson, as Secretary of the Treasury under Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Darnell J. Nelson, an attorney formerly employed by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his employment action alleging race, sex, age, and disability discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, and failure to accommodate. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Vasquez v. Cnty. of Los Angeles,*349 F.3d 634, 639 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the discrimination and retaliation claims because Nelson failed to raise a triable issue that the IRS’s proffered nondiscriminatory reasons for its adverse employment actions, such as his poor performance evaluation, failure to receive a raise, placement on a performance improvement plan, and termination, were pretextual. *See id.*at 640-42, 646.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the hostile work environment claim because Nelson failed to raise a triable issue that he was subjected to any conduct because of his membership in a protected class. *See id.*at 642.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Nelson’s accommodation claim because he failed to raise a triable issue as to whether he was entitled to an accommodation for his alleged disability or whether the IRS failed to accommodate his alleged disability. *See Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co.,*302 F.3d 1080, 1089 (9th Cir.2002) (an employer is not required to provide the accommodation that the employee requests or prefers, but need only provide a reasonable accommodation).

We do not consider Nelson’s contentions raised for the first time in his reply brief. *See Eberle v. City of Anaheim,*901 F.2d 814, 818 (9th Cir.1990).

Nelson’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Hossam Noshy FELTES, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-70089.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 20, 2007 *.

Filed Feb. 26, 2007.

James L. Rosenberg, Esq., Law Offices of James L. Rosenberg, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Kristin A. Cabral, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, TASHIMA and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Respondent’s unopposed motion for summary disposition is granted because *641the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. *See United States v. Hooton,*693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
QUARTERLY  REPORT 10-Q AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY  REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000829092
<NAME>                        MARRIOTT RESIDENCE INN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLAR
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-11-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.00
<CASH>                                         5,895
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,795
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3,974
<PP&E>                                         202,492
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (63,598)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 151,558
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          24,989
<BONDS>                                        116,061
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     10,508
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   151,558
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               25,055
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               11,172
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             8,641
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                5,242
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   5,242
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

*********************************************

TO THE 349TH DISTRICT COURT OF ANDERSON COUNTY, GREETING:

Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 5th

day of November, 2014, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

WILLIAM WALLACE FREY, Appellant

NO. 12-14-00322-CV; Trial Court No. 349-7327

By per curiam opinion.

RAYMOND HENDRIX, ET AL, Appellees

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

“THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, 

it is the opinion of this court that this appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that this appeal be, 

and the same is, hereby dismissed as frivolous; and that this decision be certified to the court 

below for observance.”

WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals 

for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District of Texas in this behalf, and in all things have it duly 

recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN, Chief Justice of our Court 

of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of 

Tyler, this the 11th day of March, 2015.

CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK

By: _______________________________

Chief Deputy Clerk
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 23, 2009

s0615 

# Order

June 23, 2009

137944

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137944 COA: 284417 Oakland CC: 89-090921-FC MONTY L. MATTHEWS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 3, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered , and it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

GEORGE RANDALL ADAMS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 235 WAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 5th day of March, 2024

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
#### PAUL GREENAN *v.*SUZANNE GREENAN

*Samuel V. SchoonmakerlV,*in support of the petition.

Decided May 26, 2010

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court (AC 31493) is denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2628 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2628

                For the relief of Marlene Anita Hudson.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 13, 1993

  Ms. Norton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                For the relief of Marlene Anita Hudson.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) the Secretary 
of the Treasury shall, out of any money in the Treasury of the United 
States not otherwise appropriated, pay to Marlene Anita Hudson of 
Washington, District of Columbia, a lump-sum payment in the amount of 
$38,400.
    (b) It shall be unlawful for any amount in excess of 10 percent of 
the lump-sum payment designated in subsection (a) to be paid to or 
received by any agent or attorney in consideration for services 
rendered in connection with such lump-sum payment. Any person who 
violates the preceding sentence shall be fined not more than $1,000.
    (c) The amount payable under this Act shall be in addition to any 
other amount which (if this Act had not been enacted) would otherwise 
be payable under any other provision of law based on the death of James 
A. Hudson.

                                 <all>
```
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 266

To amend the Black Lung Benefits Act to provide that when benefits are

paid for at least two years after an initial determination of eligibility

for such benefits the benefits will not be required to be repaid upon

a final determination of ineligibility for benefits, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. MCCLOSKEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Education and Labor

A BILL

To amend the Black Lung Benefits Act to provide that

when benefits are paid for at least two years after an

initial determination of eligibility for such benefits the

benefits will not be required to be repaid upon a final

determination of ineligibility for benefits, 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 ‘‘Black Lung Benefits

5 Equity Act’’.
2

•HR 266 IH

1 SEC. 2. BENEFIT REPAYMENT.

2 Part C of the Black Lung Benefits Act is amended

3 by adding at the end the following:

4 ‘‘SEC. 436. (a) In the administration of the benefits

5 payable under this part, if a claimant receives benefits

6 under this part for at least two years before final adjudica7 tion of the claim for benefits is made and if the final adju8 dication is that the claimant is ineligible for benefits, the

9 payment of such benefits to the claimant shall not be con10 sidered an overpayment of benefits and the claimant shall

11 not be legally responsible for the return of such benefits.

12 ‘‘(b) If, before the date of the enactment of this sec13 tion, a claimant received benefits under this part for at

14 least two years before a final adjudication of the claim

15 for benefits was made, the claimant will not be required

16 to repay such benefits. If, before the date of the enactment

17 of this section, a claimant who received benefits under this

18 part for at least two years before final adjudication of the

19 claim for benefits was made was required under regula20 tions of the Secretary to repay the benefits as an overpay21 ment of benefits, the Secretary shall refund to the claim22 ant the amount repaid by the claimant.’’.

Æ
#### FEDWAY ASSOCIATES, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TAXATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division

Argued June 5, 1995

Decided June 23, 1995.

*204Before Judges PETRELLA, HAVEY and BROCHIN.

*Harold Leib,*attorney, argued the cause for appellant *(Mr. Leib*and *Elisa Leib,*on the brief).

*Marlene G. Brown,*Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent *(Deborah T. Poritz,*Attorney General, attorney; *Joseph L. Yannotti*Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; *Ms. Brown,*on the brief).

PER CURIAM.

The Tax Court concluded in a written opinion, *Fedway Associates, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation,*14 *N.J.Tax*71 (Tax 1994), that Fedway Associates, Inc. (Fedway) is not entitled to a use tax exemption under the Urban Enterprise Zones Act *(N.J.S.A.*52:27H-61 to -97), for purchases of tangible personal property made for its employee *incentive*and marketing programs. Specifically, the Tax Court concluded that these purchases, which included such items as corkscrews, napkins, calendars, golf bags, and home electronic equipment, did not carry an entitlement to a use tax exemption under *N.J.S.A.*52:27H-79.

One of Fedway’s two locations for its wholesale distribution of wines and alcoholic spirits business is in the Kearny urban enterprise zone. Fedway purchases items of tangible personal property at this location to provide incentives to its sales staff and as promotionals to its customers, through its sales staff.1 Because its Kearny location is in an urban enterprise zone Fedway paid no sales or use tax on these items, claiming exemption under *N.J.S.A.*52:27H-79.

The Division of Taxation audited Fedway’s purchases between October 1, 1986 and September 30, 1989, and concluded that *205Fedway was not entitled to the use tax exemption. It issued a final determination that Fedway owed use tax in the amount of $93,736.98, plus interest of $47,818.28 to August 20, 1991, for a total amount of $141,555.26.

Fedway argues on appeal that the Tax Court misinterpreted the applicable Urban Enterprise Zones Act provisions concerning its purchases for its employee incentive program. It also argues that the judge misinterpreted the act’s provisions concerning its purchases for its give-away employee incentive program. Fedway claims entitlement to the use tax exemption because the purchases at issue are the type contemplated by the Legislature when it created urban enterprise zones.

The findings and conclusions of the Tax Court judge are adequately supported by the record.

We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Lasser in his written opinion reported at 14 *N.J.Tax*71.

1

 We do not refer at length to the facts because they are fully set forth in the Tax Court opinion.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2440 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 Union Calendar No. 176

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2440

                  [Report No. 103-239, Parts I and II]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

    To amend the Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 to authorize 
  appropriations for fiscal years 1994, 1995, and 1996, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            November 3, 1993

 Reported from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, committed to the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and ordered to 
                               be printed

                                                 Union Calendar No. 176
103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2440

                  [Report No. 103-239, Parts I and II]

    To amend the Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 to authorize 
  appropriations for fiscal years 1994, 1995, and 1996, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 16, 1993

  Mr. Oberstar (for himself and Mr. Clinger) introduced the following 
bill; which was referred jointly to the Committees on Public Works and 
                 Transportation and Energy and Commerce

                           September 14, 1993

     Reported from the Committee on Public Works and Transportation

                            November 3, 1993

 Reported from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, committed to the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and ordered to 
                               be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 to authorize 
  appropriations for fiscal years 1994, 1995, and 1996, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Independent Safety Board Act 
Amendments of 1993''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    Section 309(a) of the Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 (49 
U.S.C. App. 1907(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
sentence: ``There are authorized to be appropriated for the purposes of 
this Act not to exceed $37,580,000 for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 1994, $44,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, 
and $45,100,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996; such 
sums to remain available until expended.''.
```
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements on Form S-8
(Nos. 333-09873, 333-82357, 333-106129, 333-129447 and 333-130336) and Registration Statements on Form S-3
(Nos. 333-163246, 333-162720, 333-04298, 333-87774, 333-106207 and 333-12181) of our reports dated March 31, 2010,
relating to the financial statements of Evergreen Energy Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company"),(which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph regarding
substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern) and the effectiveness of Company's internal control over financial reporting(which report expresses an adverse opinion on
the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting because of a material weakness), appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Evergreen
Energy Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2009.

/s/
Deloitte & Touche LLP
Denver, Colorado
March 31, 2010

---



QuickLinks