alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 12.2  CERTIFICATION  I, Michael Bolingbroke, certify that:  1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Manchester United plc;  2.Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4.The Companys other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have:  a.Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b.Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;  c.Evaluated the effectiveness of the Companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  d.Disclosed in this report any change in the Companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over financial reporting; and  5.The Companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of the Companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  a.All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Companys ability to record, process, summarise and report financial information; and  b.Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Companys internal control over financial reporting.  Date: 24 October 2013  By:
/s/ Michael   BolingbrokeMichael   BolingbrokeChief Operating   Officer(Principal   Financial Officer)
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 August 18, 2010 

# Order

August 18, 2010

138577(113)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v SC: 138577 COA: 279017 Wayne CC: 05-003228-01 ALEXANDER ACEVAL, Defendant-Appellant.

___________________ __________________

On order of the Chief Jus tice, the motion for extension to August 9, 2010 of the time for filing the supplemental brief of plaintiff-appellee is considered and it is

GRANTED.
###### Editorial Note on Part 900

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 900 appear at 67 FR 34602, May 15, 2002.

#### § 900.42 What are the general financial management system standards that apply to an Indian tribe carrying out a self-determination contract?

An Indian tribe shall expend and account for contract funds in accordance with all applicable tribal laws, regulations, and procedures.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1925

CHARLES W. PENLAND, Sr.; MARY PENLAND, Wife,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

COUNTY OF SPARTANBURG, South Carolina; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; JERRY SAAD, Court Appointed Receiver; RMC OFFICE OF SPARTANBURG COUNTY, South Carolina; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (6:07-cv-03288-HMH)

Submitted: November 20, 2008 Decided: November 25, 2008

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles W. Penland, Sr., and Mary Penland, Appellants Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Charles W. Penland, Sr., and Mary Penland appeal the

district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the

magistrate judge and dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000)

complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. See Penland v. County of Spartanburg , No. 6:07-

cv-03288-HMH (D.S.C. Aug. 13, 2008). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
S. 1027

One Hundred Sixth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,

the twenty-fourth day of January, two thousand

An Act

To reauthorize the participation of the Bureau of Reclamation in the Deschutes

Resources Conservancy, 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 ‘‘Deschutes Resources Conservancy

Reauthorization Act of 2000’’.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PARTICIPATION OF BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

IN DESCHUTES RESOURCES CONSERVANCY.

Section 301 of the Oregon Resource Conservation Act of 1996

(division B of Public Law 104–208; 110 Stat. 3009–534) is

amended—

(1) in subsection (b)(3), by inserting before the period at the end the following: ‘‘, and up to a total amount of $2,000,000

during each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006’’; and

(2) in subsection (h), by inserting before the period at the end the following: ‘‘and $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years

2002 through 2006’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### § 48.111 How does a lessee pay the Bureau-operated school under a lease?

A lessee must pay consideration and any late payment charges due under the lease to the Bureau by certified check, money order, or electronic funds transfer made out to the Bureau and containing identifying information as provided for in the lease.
-  Home 
-  About 
-  Working with PHMSA 

# In This Section

                      -  Working with PHMSA 
                      -  PHMSA Business Opportunities 
                      -  Commercial Services Management Program 
                      -  Government Purchase Card 
                      -  Grants 
                      -  State Programs 
                      -  Small Business 
                      -  Fraud Alert 
                      -  Contact Us 

# PHMSA Funding Opportunities Brochure (PDF)

grants-brochure-2022-fn.pdf (397.51 KB)

PHMSA Funding Opportunities Brochure (PDF)

*DOT is committed to ensuring that information is available in appropriate alternative formats to meet the requirements of persons who have a disability. If you require an alternative version of files provided on this page, please contact          PHMSA-Accessibility@dot.gov.*
### [§1736. Repealed. Pub. L. 107–107, div. A, title X, §1048(e)(6)(A), Dec. 28, 2001, 115 Stat. 1227]

Section, added Pub. L. 101–510, div. A, title XII, §1202(a), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1649, related to applicability of the qualification requirements.
EXHIBIT 32.3

         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 Link Plus Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September
30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Patricia E. Jones,
Secretary/Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer), certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, that:

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

(2)  	The information contained in the Report fairly represents,
        in all material aspects, the financial condition and result
        of operations on the Company.



/s/ Patricia E. Jones
---------------------------------------
Patricia E. Jones, Secretary/Treasurer




<PAGE>
# C_2006228EN.01001501.xml

| 22.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/15

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4114 — Lottomatica/GTECH)

(2006/C 228/08)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 19 May 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in Italian and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4114. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4114. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex)

---
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Guidance Document Database 
-  Termination 

This page has not been translated. Please go to PBGC.gov's Spanish home page for more information available in Spanish.

Esta página no ha sido traducida. Por favor vaya a la página principal del sitio de español de PBGC para ver información disponible en español.

# Termination

                  -  Opinion Letter 90-03
Once irrevocable commitments are purchased, PBGC no longer guarantees the benefits.
-               document            
 

                  -  Opinion Letter 77-151
Not appropriate to charge against plan assets legal fees arising from plan termination.
-               document            
 

                  -  Opinion Letter 93-01
The obligation to pay premiums ceases when plan assets are distributed under priority categories 1- 6 without regard to whether there are residual assets.  
-               document            
 

                  -  Opinion Letter 75-31
A proposed plan distribution must be in compliance with § 4044 regardless of whether the IRS has issued a determination letter regarding a plan termination.  IRS cannot issue an exception to section 4044. 
-               document            
 

                  -  Opinion Letter 75-89
Conversion from a covered plan to an individual account plan is a termination.
-               document            
 

                  -  Opinion Letter 86-27
PBGC disapproves proposed plans that an employer wishes to adopt because they would effect an impermissible continuation of terminated plans for which guaranteed benefits are being paid.
-               document            
 

                  -  Opinion Letter 81-10
A plan that in practice met the criteria for tax qualification for five years prior to its termination date was covered under Title IV at plan termination.
-               document            
 

                  -  Opinion Letter 87-06
All affected parties may submit comments to PBGC on a proposed distress termination.
-               document            
 

                  -  Opinion Letter 80-22
Discusses the rules governing plan termination and notes that the employers may owe withdrawal liability. 
-               document            
 

                  -  Opinion Letter 81-20
The sale by a parent corporation with a division that maintains a pension plan with nonforfeitable benefits which are not funded of $1 million or more of an incorporated subsidiary, irrespective of its relative size, results in a reportable event.
-               document            
 

-  1 
-  2 
-  3 
-  4 
-  5 
-   Next  
-   Last
# C_2006317EN.01001901.xml

| 23.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 317/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 317/19

---

Latest publication of COM documents other than legislative proposals and legislative proposals adopted by the Commission

(2006/C 317/08)

OJ C 303, 13.12.2006

OJ C 303, 13.12.2006

History of previous publications:

| | OJ C 225, 19.9.2006 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 225, 19.9.2006

| | OJ C 184, 8.8.2006 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 184, 8.8.2006

| | OJ C 176, 28.7.2006 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 176, 28.7.2006

| | OJ C 151, 29.6.2006 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 151, 29.6.2006

| | OJ C 130, 3.6.2006 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 130, 3.6.2006

| | OJ C 122, 23.5.2006 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 122, 23.5.2006

---
125 

O-CL- 

-- 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY CPENE’kAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

fronoreble Jamee E. Klld& 

htor ‘r’reneportation Dlvlolon 

Railroad Conmlesion of Texar 

Austin, Term 

Dur SirI Oplnion~Co. 0-10~3 \. 

Ret ‘iheth&%r-nciti a’;person 

havi~~.,authority’to use 

State hi$?hways as hn 

Interstate co&on o~xrlcr 

Way a man ho 

permit and auth 

a contmon oarrio 

oial oorzoditp 

no. O-1518, that a 

rovislono ,ot krtlole Ollb, 

ot at the osme time operate 

ap~lioation for psrnission to use 

o do only intorotate businese, the 

power to detormlne need or oonvenOlnmlS8ion Om only deteX3IIine VihOthQr 

ommeroe in 3oua.t to be oarrled, considerz;erafrio thers?n, are ~such as will properly 

Snlth v. :iald ‘i’ranafcr dc Storeca 

of e&or disnlsscd)~ R. R. Conmh of ‘lbxas 

Co., 

hound Lima, Ino., 92 S. X. (2d) 296 (We 99 

This, however, would not affect the power of the 

State to grant or nlthhold an intrastate permit or oertifloa~e~ 

If a oomon oarrier doing only lntorstato buslsises in 

Texas is prohibited from holding a special oommbdlty petit, it ia 

by the provision or Saotion d (bb.) of the Motor Carrier Aot, eupre, 

Woh reeds ab followd~ 
4.26 

“500, 6.bb. Fo eppliontfon for pornit to oporais 

ns e contreot oerflclr shall bs erootad by the ComIsslon 

to any porocn’ oparatlng at a oo%mon oarrier an& holdlng 

a certlflcats of oonvenlsnoo and naoeaslty, nor shell 

eny application for oertifioats of oonvenienos and 

neoesolty be grentnd by ths Co~slseIon to any parson 

operating es a oontrect oerrlor nor shell any vehio&e 

bt oporatsd by any motor carrier with both a pbmlt and 

e csrtiricats.’ 

3eotion 6 (bb) prohibits a oommon carrier iron holdlnc( 

e ooatrect pemlt and problblts a oontraot carrier from holdlng a 

orrtirIoete of public oonvanienoe end naoosolty. Eeotlon 8 (bb) 

thbn providtr: 

Vor shall sny vehlole be opnrated by any motor 

oerrlar with both a pemlt and ,a ctrtlfloate.” 

Sinot.aa inttrstate oomon oarrler does not have to show 

commitnot and necessity In order to obtain pem&mIdn to do buslmcs in Texas, tho quo&ion then arises ae to whether. or not It ia 

prcvont~d from holding a npaolel comotlIty permit under the above 

quoted pert of iiectlon 6 (bb) . 

iihen the Le&ielature provided that the holder of a aertlficete oould not at ths se~e tImo hold a ptx’zlt, It sust have meant 

that e oonmon oarrler oould not at the mm time hold a oontreat permlt or a eptolal obrmodlty permit. If this ba not .tNa, then the 

provIsion IA quartion would hart no meaning. 

The Legislature undoubtedly ho4 a rtason for prohibiting 

l o o mo n osirrler rr3R opcretlog 88 a contract carrier or a Gp4Oiel 

oorzodity oarrier. ;tts intent lo plainly shown when the provIsIons 

or Seotlon 6 (bb) are oonstruad toctthsr. Shoe HO art unable to 

find any authority for the proposltlon that an Interotatt conmon 

csrricr Is to be treated differently rrom an lntmetate oomnon obrrler wlthln tha provision8 of Stotloa 6 (bb), we conoludc that 6n 

interstate common oarrler’oannot at the 04~4 time hold en lntrertato 

Dpcolal cfomaodltp permit. 

Youn very truly 

LBrP 

ApJ:~;:OVEDDEC 14, 1039 

ATTORNEY GENERAL CT ~
#### § 286.6 [Reserved]
Request for Information Octofilms, LLC (FAA-2015-3833) 

9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions (FAA) 

Dear Mr. Perritt: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. 

FAA−2015−3833). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your

petition.

Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 9:14 AM 

To: hperritt@gmail.com

z Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order 

8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove closedset filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date 

listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov. Once your

information has been submitted, please also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary 

information), as well as your comment tracking number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If

you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by January 4, 2016.

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-2999.

FAA Office of Rulemaking
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                      43,273,561
<SECURITIES>                                66,389,928
<RECEIVABLES>                                  411,999
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (224,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           110,805,030
<PP&E>                                      69,048,048
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,683,591)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             286,851,781
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       16,980,105
<BONDS>                                    180,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       160,778
<OTHER-SE>                                  87,611,313
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               286,851,781
<SALES>                                        520,956
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               520,956
<CGS>                                          928,988
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,250,361
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               794,978
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,979,661
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,263,280)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,263,280)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,263,280)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.33)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT  TO
SECTION  906  OF  THE  SARBANES-OXLEY  ACT  OF  2002
(18  U.S.C.  SECTION  1350)

In connection with the quarterly  filing of Meier Worldwide  Intermedia  Inc., a
Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended July 31,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission (the  "Report"),  I,
James  Meier,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the  Company,  certify,  pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.ss.1350), 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 Company.

June  10,  2005

By:/s/  James  Meier
   -----------------
   James  Meier,  President,  CEO  and  Chief  Accounting  Officer
from appellant's knowing acquiescence in existing conditions, 2and the 

State may suffer prejudice from the delay. See Hart v. State, 116 Nev. 

558, 563-64, 1 P.3d 969, 972 (2000). Therefore, the district court did not 

err in denying the motion to withdraw a guilty plea. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

Hardesty 

ek 3+‘ 

Parragui 

cc: Thomas L. Stockard, District Judge 

Robert E. Estes, Senior Judge 

Jose Luis Valencia, Jr. 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Churchill County District Attorney 

Churchill County Clerk 

2Appellant previously filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea in 

2009. Valencia v. State, Docket No. 55317 (Order of Affirmance, May 7, 

2010). He failed to demonstrate why the claims raised in his current 

motion could not have been raised in his previous motion. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2