alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32

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


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Caprock Canyon  Investments,
Inc.,  on Form 10- QSB for the  period  ending  June 30,  2003 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "REPORT"),  the
undersigned, B. Stephen Bailey, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting
Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that to the best of my
knowledge and belief:

         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: April 19, 2004

/s/ B. Stephen Bailey
B. Stephen Bailey
President
(Principal Executive & Accounting Officer)


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
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.
Regulatory Evaluation

Complete when issuing a supplemental NPRM, revision, or supersedure.

D No Change from existing AD action I

Docket No. FAA-2010-2Z& 0 2-z..~ Directorate lderifier: 2009-NM-252-AD

Estimated Costs: (Include costs (or the entire AD, no/just the ch(/IIgd)

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft,

I Action engine, propeller, appliance)

(e.g., Inspection, Work-hours Labor Parts rot'] Co,,, Number of Total Cost

replacement) (include access, cost Cost (labor + U.S. tor U.s.

testing, and (@$85/ parts) Registered Fleet

clos;-up) hour) Produds

-1 51,760. I

22 $]1,838 ~13,.$9g",O 110 $ 0

!Il'

-

c~ "J ",) $ 0

. {.r", '~ [LOt! $ 0

~;'. (jil i:j "LtJG , 0

I

The known number of oro ducts in comoliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U,S. fleet: !G8 Is Not

I

In

Tablel,495,

I 780

Costs covered under warranty $0

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to ekPlail1 anything in the Estimated Costs table that

was assumed or might lIot be obvious. 171isfield call also be used to explaill warranty costs):

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a "significant ~regulatory action",? (.

,

I

*Explanation:

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD slgnificant? ,~,

YEs'D NOI2J

YEs'D NOI2J

*Explanation:

Regulatory Flexibility Act: I

Will the AD have a significant economIc tmpaet on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for

either a Yes or No answer. ,~

YES D NO I2J

Explanation:
Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation m Alaska. Is it appr9priate to include specific requirements for

aircraft operated lTI Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? '.

YES'D NO I2J

*Explanation:
C 

2019 Reinsurance Data 

National Totals By Fund 

As of 010/2023 

Fund Gross Liability Gross Premium Gross Indemnity Retained Liability * 

A 11,199,482,628 1,410,148,643 1,947,881,057 2,094,303,256 

100,252,391,426 8,752,552,994 8,643,113,715 93,681,519,773 

Total 111,451,874,054 10,162,701,637 10,590,994,772 95,775,823,029 

Footnotes: * Includes 6.5% Net Book Quota Share. 

Retained Premium * Retaine

263,697,794 

8,170,179,460 8,433,877,254 

Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32

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


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Cedar Grove Marketing, Inc.,
on Form  10-QSB  for the  period  ending  December  31,  2001 as filed  with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned, B. Stephen Bailey, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting
Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that to the best of my
knowledge and belief:

         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: April 19, 2004

/s/ B. Stephen Bailey
B. Stephen Bailey
President
(Principal Executive & Accounting Officer)


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
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.
#### John W. Patrick *v.*Robert Jack, Admr.

*Evidence—account booJcs.*Evidence that the account hooks of a deceased person were the only hooks kept hy him, is equivalent to proof that they are books of original entry; and where it is further proved that settlements had been made by them with others, and they had been found correct, this is a substantial compliance with the statute, and they are admissible in evidence.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Marion county; the Hon. Amos Watts, Judge, presiding.

Mr. John B. Kagy, for the appellant.

Mr. Justice Scott

delivered the opinion of the Court:

On the trial before the justice of the peace, plaintiff, as administrator, recovered a judgment for §20, from which defendant prosecuted an appeal to the circuit court. A trial *de novo*was had in the latter court, when defendant recovered a judgment for §1.07 against plaintiff, to be paid in due course of administration.

*82The controversy has relation to mutual accounts between defendant and plaintiff’s intestate. The court before whom the trial was had examined the books kept by defendant and decedent, and found a small balance due defendant, and with that conclusion we see no reason to be dissatisfied.

While the evidence as to the books kept by decedent is not, perhaps, as full as the statute, if construed strictly, would seem to require, we think the proof is sufficient to warrant the action of the court in admitting them in evidence. It is shown they were the books of decedent, and the *‘■'••only boohs*” kept by him. That is equivalent to proof they were books of *“*original entry.” Evidence they were the “ only books ” kept by deceased in his business, is sufficient proof of that fact. Any other conclusion would be an absurdity. It is also proven settlements had been made by them with numerous persons, and the books had been found correct. That is the substance of what the statute requires to make the books competent evidence.

But, in addition to all this proof, it further appears, when the books were shown to defendant by plaintiff, before any contention arose between the parties, he made no objection to them. When all the testimony is considered together, it is sufficient to justify the action of the court in admitting the books in evidence.

Ho material error appearing in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*
§ 1304.301 Utilities. Upon application to and approval by TVA, utility lines (electric, water-intake lines, etc.) may be placed within the flowage easement area as follows: ( a ) Power lines, poles, electrical panels, and wiring shall be installed: ( 1 ) In a way that would not be hazardous to the public or interfere with TVA operations; and
( 2 ) In compliance with all State and local electrical codes (satisfactory evidence of compliance to be provided to TVA upon request).
( b ) Electrical service shall be installed with an electrical disconnect that is located above the 500-year floodplain or the flood risk profile, whichever is higher, and is accessible during flood events.
( c ) TVA's issuance of a permit does not mean that TVA has determined the facilities are safe for any purpose or that TVA has any duty to make such a determination.
§ 3a.51 Designation of security officers. ( a ) The Director, Office of Administrative Operations (OAO) is designated as Top Secret Control Officer and Security Officer for classified material for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The Director, OAO, will designate alternate Top Secret Control Officers and alternated Security Officers, who will be authorized, subject to such limitations as may be imposed by the Director, to perform the duties for which the Top Secret Control Officer and Security Officer is responsible. As used hereinafter, the terms Top Secret Control Officer and Security Officer shall be interpreted as including the alternate Top Secret Control Officers and Security Officers. The FERC Security Officer is authorized and directed to insure the proper application of the provisions of Executive Order 11652 and of this part.
( b ) Regional Engineers are designated as Regional Security Officers for the purpose of carrying out the functions assigned herein.
( c ) The Director, OAO, will appoint in writing appropriately cleared staff members to act as couriers for transmittal, as necessary, for classified information or material.
[Order 470, 38 FR 5161, Feb. 26, 1973, as amended by Order 756, 77 FR 4893, Feb. 1, 2012]
HELP YOUR CHILDREN GROW.

Spend time together to show you care about your child’s 

health, wellness, and success.

Young people are more likely to listen when they know you’re on their side. 

Explain why you don’t want your child to drink or use other drugs—not just 

because you say so, but because you want your child to be happy and safe. 

For tips on how—and when—to begin the conversation, visit: 

www.underagedrinking.samhsa.gov

SMA-18-5084FLY
### §9525. Minimizing disruptions to existing MBDA Business Center program

The Under Secretary shall ensure that each Federal assistance award made under the Business Centers program of the Agency, as is in effect on the day before November 15, 2021, is carried out in a manner that, to the greatest extent practicable, prevents disruption of any activity carried out under that award.

(Pub. L. 117–58, div. K, title I, §100115, Nov. 15, 2021, 135 Stat. 1455.)
§ 740.4 State water management planning program. ( a ) A State shall submit a description of its proposed State program with the State application, which shall: ( 1 ) Describe water and related land resources problems, needs and opportunities, and the priorities proposed for their resolution;
( 2 ) Specify the goals and objectives which reflect the water resources policy of the State and which address the major problems which are of concern to the State;
( 3 ) Describe the major elements of the State water management program, which should address but not be limited to: ( i ) The integration of water quantity and water quality planning and management;
( ii ) The protection and management of instream values;
( iii ) The protection and management of groundwater supplies;
( iv ) The integration of ground and surface water planning and management; and
( v ) Water conservation.
( 4 ) Identify Federal, State, or local government, or public or private organizations that will participate and a general description of how they are involved in the management planning process;
( 5 ) If provisions are made for pass-through of funds, describe the *process* by which recipients will be selected, and the purpose of the pass-through; and
( 6 ) List existing or proposed administrative, legal and/or institutional arrangements to be used in coordinating intrastate, interstate and regional water resources planning activities involving State, local and/or the Federal Government with the proposed water management planning program of the State to assure that all such activities are considered in program implementation.
§ 16.24 Prohibitions against filing applications for new license, nonpower license, exemption, or subsequent license. ( a ) *Licenses subject to sections 14 and 15 of the Federal Power Act.* ( 1 ) An existing licensee with a license subject to sections 14 and 15 of the Federal Power Act that informs the Commission that it does not intend to file an application for new license, nonpower license, or exemption for a project, as required by § 16.6, may not file an application for new license, nonpower license, or exemption for the project, either individually or in conjunction with an entity or entities that are not currently licensees of the project.
( 2 ) An existing licensee with a license subject to sections 14 and 15 of the Federal Power Act that fails to file an application for new license, nonpower license, or exemption for a project at least 24 months before the expiration of the existing license for the project may not file an application for new license, nonpower license, or exemption for the project, either individually or in conjunction with an entity or entities that are not currently licensees of the project.
( b ) *Licenses not subject to sections 14 and 15 of the Federal Power Act.* ( 1 ) An existing licensee with a license not subject to sections 14 and 15 of the Federal Power Act that informs the Commission that it does not intend to file an application for subsequent license or exemption for a project, as required by § 16.6, may not file an application for subsequent license or exemption for the project, either individually or in conjunction with an entity or entities that are not currently licensees of the project.
( 2 ) An existing licensee with a license not subject to sections 14 and 15 of the Federal Power Act that fails to file an application for subsequent license or exemption for a project by the deadlines specified in § 16.20(c) may not file an application for subsequent license or exemption for the project, either individually or in conjunction with an entity or entities that are not currently licensees of the project.
Exhibit 32.b



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 Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc N. Teal, Principal Financial Officer of the general partner of the general partner of the Partnership's general partner, C&M Management Inc., 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 my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)-15 or 15(d)-15 of the Securities and 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.



|Date:             |  |                            
|----------------- |  | ---------------------------
|November 14, 2008 |  | /s/ Marc N. Teal           
|                  |  |                            
|                  |  | Marc N. Teal               
|                  |  | Principal Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other

document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 35.46 Definitions. As used in this subpart: ( a ) *Market Participant* means an entity that qualifies as a Market Participant under § 35.34.
( b ) *Organized Wholesale Electric Market* includes an independent system operator and a regional transmission organization.
( c ) *Regional Transmission Organization* means an entity that qualifies as a Regional Transmission Organization under 18 CFR 35.34.
( d ) *Independent System Operator* means an entity operating a transmission system and found by the Commission to be an Independent System Operator.
EXHIBIT 23


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








We have issued our reports dated April 14, 2011, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and the related financial statement schedule, included in the Annual Report of MFRI, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended January 31, 2011. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in Registration Statements on Forms S-3 (File No. 333-139432, effective December 18, 2006, File No. 333-21951, effective August 13, 1997, File No. 333-44787, effective January 23, 1998) and on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-08767, effective July 25, 1996, File No. 333-121526, effective December 22, 2004, and File No. 333-130517, effective December 20, 2005) of MFRI, Inc. and Subsidiaries.














Chicago, Illinois


April 14, 2011
Wool v. Menard, No. 241-4-17 Wncv (Teachout, J., Dec. 15, 2017). 

[The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is unofficial. It has been reformatted from the original. The accuracy of the text and the 

accompanying data included in the Vermont trial court opinion database is not guaranteed.]

STATE OF VERMONT

SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION

Washington Unit Docket No. 241-4-17 Wncv

KIRK WOOL

Plaintiff

v.

LISA MENARD

Defendant

DECISION

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, filed September 11, 2017

Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss, filed November 13, 2017

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the Defendant Commissioner of the Vermont 

Department of Corrections, filed this suit to challenge the Vermont Department of Corrections’ 

use of an assessment device in his classification and/or programming. He claims that the device 

was intentionally used to produce a fraudulent result to justify prolonging his incarceration or 

preventing parole.

Defendant filed the above-referenced Motion to Dismiss in which she argued several

legal bases for dismissal, and memos were filed. Prior to any decision on Defendant’s Motion, 

Plaintiff then filed the above-referenced Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice.

Plaintiff asserts that he raised this claim in an earlier filed suit in Washington Superior 

Court. That case evidently was removed to federal court where it eventually was dismissed. It is 

unclear whether any state claims remained following dismissal, but proceedings did not then 

resume in the state case. 

Plaintiff then filed this new case, raising the same issue: fraudulent use of the assessment 

device. Plaintiff now seeks to voluntarily dismiss this case without prejudice. He notes that he 

has the same claim also pending in yet another case that was filed in Chittenden Superior Court 

in 2014 and remains pending.

Defendant argued many bases for dismissal in her Motion, but she has not argued that the 

earlier filed Washington case or federal dismissal decision have any preclusive effect on this 

case. She also has not sought dismissal on the basis that there is apparently duplicative litigation 

that has been underway in Chittenden Superior Court at all relevant times. 

She also has not objected to the request for dismissal without prejudice. Because 

Defendant has not opposed Plaintiff’s Motion, it is granted. The court takes no position on 

whether this voluntary dismissal may or may not have any prejudicial effect on any other 
2

litigation. 

Dismissal of this case without prejudice renders Defendant’s Motion moot. 

Accordingly,

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice is granted, and

2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is moot.

Dated at Montpelier, Vermont this ____ day of December 2017.

_____________________________

Mary Miles Teachout

Superior Judge
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 78 

To ensure a complete analysis of the potential impacts of rules on small 

entities. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 10, 2019 

Mr. RUBIO (for himself and Ms. ERNST) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To ensure a complete analysis of the potential impacts of 

rules on small entities. 

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 ‘‘Hearing Small Busi5 nesses Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF COVERED AGENCIES UNDER THE 

7 REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT. 

8 Section 609 of title 5, United States Code, is amend9 ed— 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 78 IS

1 (1) in subsection (b), in the matter preceding 

2 paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘an initial regulatory 

3 flexibility analysis which a covered agency is re4 quired to conduct by this chapter’’ and inserting ‘‘a 

5 proposed rule or interim final rule for which a cov6 ered agency is required to conduct an initial regu7 latory flexibility analysis by this chapter’’; and 

8 (2) in subsection (d)— 

9 (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘and’’ at 

10 the end; 

11 (B) in paragraph (3), by striking the pe12 riod at the end and inserting a semicolon; and 

13 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

14 ‘‘(4) the United States Fish and Wildlife Serv15 ice; and 

16 ‘‘(5) the Internal Revenue Service.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
§ 1304.209 Land-based structures/alterations. ( a ) Except for steps, pathways, boat launching ramps, marine railways located in the access corridor, bank stabilization along the shoreline, and other uses described in this subpart, no permanent structures, fills or grading shall be allowed on TVA land.
( b ) Portable items such as picnic tables and hammocks may be placed on TVA land; permanent land-based structures and facilities such as picnic pavilions, gazebos, satellite antennas, septic tanks, and septic drainfields shall not be allowed on TVA land.
( c ) Utility lines (electric, water-intake lines, etc.) may be placed within the access corridor as follows: ( 1 ) Power lines, poles, electrical panel, and wiring must be installed: ( i ) In a way that would not be hazardous to the public or interfere with TVA operations;
( ii ) Solely to serve water-use facilities, and
( iii ) In compliance with all State and local electrical codes (satisfactory evidence of compliance to be provided to TVA upon request).
( 2 ) Electrical service must be installed with an electrical disconnect that is: ( i ) Located above the 500-year floodplain or the flood risk profile, whichever is higher, and
( ii ) Is accessible during flood events.
( 3 ) TVA's issuance of a permit does not mean that TVA has determined the facilities are safe for any purpose or that TVA has any duty to make such a determination.
( d ) Fences crossing TVA residential access shoreland may be considered only where outstanding agricultural rights or fencing rights exist and the land is used for agricultural purposes. Fences must have a built-in means for easy pedestrian passage by the public and they must be clearly marked.