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



Certifications of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer pursuantto 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(furnished but not filed)



In connection with this Annual Report of Great Northern Iron Ore Properties on Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I, Joseph S. Micallef, President of the Trustees and Chief Executive Officer of Great Northern Iron Ore Properties, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. 1350, that:



1.
     This Annual Report on Form 10-K of Great Northern Iron Ore Properties for the year endedDecember 31, 2009(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and2.
     The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Great Northern Iron Ore Properties.




Date:
     February 18, 2010
     
     By:
     /s/ Joseph S. MicallefJoseph S. Micallef, President of the Trustees, 
Chief Executive 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 Great Northern Iron Ore Properties and will be retained by Great Northern Iron Ore Properties and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

- - - - - -



In connection with this Annual Report of Great Northern Iron Ore Properties on Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I, Thomas A. Janochoski, Vice President & Secretary and Chief Financial Officer of Great Northern Iron Ore Properties, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. 1350, that:



1.
     This Annual Report on Form 10-K of Great Northern Iron Ore Properties for the year endedDecember 31, 2009(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and2.
     The information contained in this Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Great Northern Iron Ore Properties.




Date:
     February 18, 2010
     
     By:
     /s/ Thomas A. JanochoskiThomas A. Janochoski, Vice President & Secretary, Chief 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 Great Northern Iron Ore Properties and will be retained by Great Northern Iron Ore Properties and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





---
###### Editorial Note on Part 0

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 0 appear at 73 FR 73 FR 54947, Sept. 24, 2008.

#### § 0.196 Procedures for resolving disagreements concerning mail or case assignments.

When an assignment for the handling of mail or a case has been made through established procedures and the appropriate authorities in any organizational unit of the Department disagree concerning jurisdiction of the unit for handling the matter or matters assigned, the disagreement, together with a statement of the view of the unit or units involved, shall be referred to the Assistant Attorney General for Administration for determination. If the disagreement cannot be resolved, the matter shall be referred to the Deputy Attorney General for final disposition.

[Order No. 900-80, 45 FR 43703, June 30, 1980]
### §3415. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–66, title I, §1011(p), Dec. 21, 1995, 109 Stat. 710

Section, Pub. L. 97–98, title XV, §1506, Dec. 22, 1981, 95 Stat. 1332, directed Secretary to submit copies of special area reports to Congress.
HomeLatest FilingsPrevious Page

    - SEC Home  »
    - Search the Next-Generation EDGAR System  »
    - Company Search  »
    - Current Page

C/O OAK HILL ADVISORS, L.P.1 VANDERBILT, 16TH FLOORNEW YORK NY 10017         

C/O OAK HILL ADVISORS, L.P.1 VANDERBILT, 16TH FLOORNEW YORK NY 10017         212-326-1500

T. Rowe Price OHA Select Private Credit Fund CIK#: 0001901164 (see all company filings)
State location: NY | State of Inc.: **DE** | Fiscal Year End: 1231formerly: T. Rowe Price OHA Private Credit Fund (filings through 2023-03-16)Get **insider transactions** for this **issuer**.File Number: **812-15461**

||
||
Searched for **http://www.choosemyplate.gov/**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://www.choosemyplate.gov/**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS RULINGS

Release No. 6900/March 23, 2023

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

File No. 3-20801

In the Matter of

:

DF GROWTH REIT II, LLC : STAY ORDER

:

The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted this proceeding with an Order 

Temporarily Suspending Exemption Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Rule 

258 of Regulation A1 Thereunder and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing on March 16, 2022. 

Respondent DF Growth REIT II, LLC, requested a hearing, and, on March 31, 2022, the Commission 

ordered that the matter be heard by an Administrative Law Judge. On May 16, 2022, the proceeding 

was reassigned to the undersigned. The hearing is scheduled to commence on April 17, 2023. 

The Division of Enforcement and Respondent have jointly moved for a stay pursuant to 17 C.F.R. 

§ 201.161(c)(2), stating that they have reached an agreement in principle to a settlement. The parties 

request a 60-day stay to finalize settlement, but expect to comply with 17 C.F.R. § 201.161(c)(2). 

Good cause has been shown for the requested stay. Accordingly, the proceeding will be stayed, 

including all procedural dates, for 60 days, until May 22, 2023.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/S/ Carol Fox Foelak 

Carol Fox Foelak

Administrative Law Judge

 

1 Regulation A consists of Securities Act Rules: 17 C.F.R. §§ 230.251-263 (Rules 251-263).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. CHRISTOPHER ABEL NIETO,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 21

- 10152

D.C. No. 1:16

- cr
- 00475

- SOM

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Susan O ki Mollway, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 14, 2021 * *

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Christopher Abel Nieto appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Reviewing for a buse of discretion, see United

States v. Aruda , 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021) , we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

DEC 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 10152

Nieto contends that the district court abused its discretion because it failed to recognize its discretion to reduce his sentence to a l ower term of imprisonment , believing instead that it was limited to considering only whether Nieto should be immediately released. We disagree. The record reflects that the district court

determined

— after thoroughly consider ing Nieto’s medical conditions and the risk s posed by COVID

- 19 , his mitigating arguments, and the relevant 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors

—

that Nieto had not demonstrated extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting any reduction in his sentence. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A) (i)

. To the extent the court discussed whether Nieto was entitled to immediate release, it was properly responding to Nieto’s argument that the then

existing circumstances of the COVID

- 19 pandemic warranted a sentence reduction

to time served. The district cou rt applied the proper legal standard and its decision to deny relief was both reasonable and supported by the record. Accordingly, it did not abuse its discretion by denying Nieto’s motion. See United States v.

Robertson , 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 20 18) ( a district court abuses its

discretion only if its application of the correct legal rule was illogical, implausible, or without support in the record).

AFFIRMED.
### §717i. Periodic and special reports

#### (a) Form and contents of reports

Every natural-gas company shall file with the Commission such annual and other periodic or special reports as the Commission may by rules and regulations or order prescribe as necessary or appropriate to assist the Commission in the proper administration of this chapter. The Commission may prescribe the manner and form in which such reports shall be made, and require from such natural-gas companies specific answers to all questions upon which the Commission may need information. The Commission may require that such reports shall include, among other things, full information as to assets and liabilities, capitalization, investment and reduction thereof, gross receipts, interest due and paid, depreciation, amortization, and other reserves, cost of facilities, cost of maintenance and operation of facilities for the production, transportation, or sale of natural gas, cost of renewal and replacement of such facilities, transportation, delivery, use, and sale of natural gas. The Commission may require any such natural-gas company to make adequate provision for currently determining such costs and other facts. Such reports shall be made under oath unless the Commission otherwise specifies.

#### (b) Unlawful conduct

It shall be unlawful for any natural-gas company willfully to hinder, delay, or obstruct the making, filing, or keeping of any information, document, report, memorandum, record, or account required to be made, filed, or kept under this chapter or any rule, regulation, or order thereunder.

(June 21, 1938, ch. 556, §10, 52 Stat. 826.)
### SUBCHAPTER I—IMPLEMENTATION OF INTERIM AGREEMENT
[Cite as State ex rel. Norris v. Giavasis , 100 Ohio St.3d 371, 2003-Ohio-6609.]

[T HE S TATE EX REL .] N ORRIS , A PPELLANT , v . G IAVASIS , C LERK , ET AL ., A PPELLEES . [Cite as State ex rel. Norris v. Giavasis, 100 Ohio St.3d 371, 2003-Ohio-6609.] Mandamus — Writ sought to compel common pleas court clerk to remove entries from the court’s appearance docket — Court of appeals’ dismissal of complaint affirmed. (No. 2003-1478 — Submitted December 2, 2003 — Decided December 31, 2003.)

A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Stark County, No. 2003CA00268.

__________________ Per Curiam

. {¶1} On July 24, 2003, appellant, Robert Lee Norris, an inmate, filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for Stark County. Norris sought a writ of mandamus to compel appellees, Stark C ounty Common Pleas Court Clerk Phil G. Giavasis and Deputy Clerk A. Gifford, to remove from their records “the July 11, 2003 Appearance Docket and each of its entr ies” and to retain “the certified ‘June 25, 2002’ Appearance Docket.” The docket entries were of his criminal case stemming from a 1992 indictment. {¶2} Norris filed an affidavit that he claimed listed his prior “civil actions and criminal appeals within the preceding (5) five years pursuant to [R.C.] 2969.25.” The affidavit, however, did not c ontain a “brief description of the nature” of each civil action or appeal and the outcome of each civil action and appeal. R.C. 2969.25(A)(1) and (4). And although Norris requested a waiver of the filing fees assessed by the court of appeals based on his claimed indigency, his affidavit of indigency did not cont ain the statement required by R.C.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 2969.25(C)(1) setting forth the balance in hi s inmate account “for each of the preceding six months, as certified by the institutional cashier.” {¶3} On August 1, 2003, the court of appeals sua sponte dismissed Norris’s complaint. {¶4} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. “The requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are mandatory, and failure to comply with them subjects an inmate’s action to dismissal.” State ex rel. White v. Bechtel , 99 Ohio St.3d 11, 2003-Ohio-2262, 788 N.E.2d 634, ¶ 5. Norris failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A) and 2969.25(C)(1). State ex rel. Kimbro v. Glavas , 97 Ohio St.3d 197, 2002-Ohio-5808, 777 N.E.2d 257, ¶ 2; White , 99 Ohio St.3d 11, 2003- Ohio-2262, 788 N.E.2d 634, ¶ 2, 5. Judgment affirmed.

M OYER , C.J., R ESNICK , F.E. S WEENEY , P FEIFER , L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’C ONNOR and O’D ONNELL , JJ., concur.

__________________ Robert Lee Norris, pro se.

__________________
### §180. Repealed. Dec. 16, 1930, ch. 14, §1, 46 Stat. 1028

Section, act Mar. 4, 1911, ch. 285, §1, 36 Stat. 1421, made provision for the proceeds of leases and other revenues to be covered into the Treasury.
Overappropriated Surface Water of N

Mapping Section

Designated by the Department of Natural Resources on S

This map represents the areas described in the Order issued by the Department of Natural Resources 

on September 15, 2004 designating the surface water resources within the Platte River Basin above

 the Kearney Canal Diversion, the North Platte River Basin including Pumpkinseed Creek and the

South Platte River Basin including Lodgepole Creek as overappropriated.

GARDEN

MORRILL

SIOUX

BOX BUTTE SHERIDAN

GRANT HOOKER

CHERRY

SCOTTS BLUFF

BANNER

KIMBALL CHEYENNE

DEUEL

ARTHUR

KEITH

PERKINS

CHASE

McPHERSON 

HAYES 

North Platte River Basin

South Platte River Basin 

North Platte NRD

Upper Niobrara White NRD

South Platte NRD

Upper Republican NRD Middle Rep

Twin Platte NRD

Upper Loup NRD

Pu

mpkinseed

Creek

North

Platte

River

Lodgepole

Creek

Lake McConaughy

0 20 40 60 80 

5 10 15

R46W R45W R44W R43W R42W R50W R49W R48W R47W R53W R52W R51W R56W R55W R54W R59W R58W R57W

R39W R38W R37W R36W R35W R34W R33W R32W R41W R40W R31W 

T12N T13N T14N T15N T16N T17N T18N T19N T20N T21N T22N T23N T24N T25N T26N T27N T28N

T11N

South

Platte

River

Overappropriated Surface WaterNatural Resources District (NRD) BoundariesCounty BoundariesTownship Boundaries
§ 40.2 Mandatory Reliability Standards. ( a ) Each applicable user, owner or operator of the Bulk-Power System must comply with Commission-approved Reliability Standards developed by the Electric Reliability Organization.
( b ) A proposed modification to a Reliability Standard proposed to become effective pursuant to § 39.5 of this Chapter will not be effective until approved by the Commission.
### §3707. United States release from liability

The United States shall not be liable for any debts, defaults, acts, or omissions of the Foundation nor shall the full faith and credit of the United States extend to any obligation of the Foundation.

(Pub. L. 98–244, §8, Mar. 26, 1984, 98 Stat. 110.)
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 2 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 2

Disapproving the President's proposal to take an action relating to the 
     application of certain sanctions with respect to the Russian 
                              Federation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 4, 2019

 Mr. Schumer introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
  twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Disapproving the President's proposal to take an action relating to the 
     application of certain sanctions with respect to the Russian 
                              Federation.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves of 
the action relating to the application of sanctions imposed with 
respect to the Russian Federation proposed by the President in the 
report submitted to Congress under section 216(a)(1) of the Russia 
Sanctions Review Act of 2017 on December 19, 2018, relating to 
terminating sanctions imposed on En+ Group plc (``En+''), UC Rusal plc 
(``Rusal''), and JSC EuroSibEnergo (``ESE'').
                                 <all>
```
HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 10160 1986
#### New York Telephone Company v. New York City Tunnel Authority.

Present — Martin, P. J., Untermyer, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements of The Smithfield Companies,
Inc. for the nine months ended December 31, 1998, and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such Unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       7,258,651
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,720,050
<ALLOWANCES>                                    82,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,119,483
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,167,559
<PP&E>                                       8,381,250
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,489,676
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,210,535
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,472,263
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,488,492
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,249,780
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,210,535
<SALES>                                     17,900,575
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            17,955,690
<CGS>                                       11,569,034
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               16,091,588
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,056,503
<INCOME-TAX>                                   679,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,377,503
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,377,503
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .58
        

</TABLE>
exh1039frankelrichardame







ROCKET FUEL   MANAGEMENT RETENTION AGREEMENT      AMENDMENT NO. ONE      This Amendment No. One (the “Amendment”) to Management Retention Agreement amends the   Management Retention Agreement (the “Agreement”) made and entered into by and between Richard   Frankel (the “Executive”) and Rocket Fuel Inc. (the “Company”), effective as of May 6, 2015.  All   capitalized terms in this Amendment shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement unless   otherwise defined in this Amendment.       WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 1.9 and 2.2 of the Agreement, the Executive provided written notice to   the Company of acts or omissions constituting the grounds for “Good Reason” for termination within   sixty (60) days of the Company changing his role from President of the Company to Executive Vice   President of the Company (the “Role Change”);      WHEREAS, the Company’s Cure Period, as defined in Section 1.9 of the Agreement, expired on January   12, 2016;      WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to extend the period of time after the end of the Cure   Period during which Executive may tender his resignation for Good Cause, as a result of the Role   Change, from thirty (30) days to one hundred twenty (120) days.      Accordingly, the parties agree as follows:      1. Solely in connection with the Role Change, the first phrase of Section 1.9 of the Agreement shall   be amended to read as follows:      “1.9 “Good Reason” means, the Executive’s resignation within one hundred twenty   (120) days following the end of the Cure Period (as defined below) following the   occurrence of one or more of the following without the Executive’s express written   consent:”      2. Solely in connection with the Role Change, any benefits payable to the Executive under   Section 2.2 of the Agreement shall be paid in full no later than December 31, 2016.      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment on the respective   dates set forth below.  The effective date of the Amendment shall be the later of the dates set forth   below.      COMPANY ROCKET FUEL INC.       By:          Title:  Chief Executive Officer      Date:            EXECUTIVE RICHARD FRANKEL       By:          Title:  Executive Vice President     Date:         DocuSign Envelope ID: 19401802-4B6C-437B-B813-CED0BC5E7A96   1/25/2016   1/25/2016
### From: Adams, Kevin (OSD 

### Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 9:52AM 

### To: supvleimgruber@co.imperial.ca.us; Cheryl Walker (Cheryi.Walker@Rabobank.com); El Centro Mayor, Jon Edney Cc: Brad Rawson (brad.rawson@skywest.com); Carrier, SkyWest, Michael Thompson; Tim Sieber (tsieber@seaportair.com); Carrier, Sovereign Air, Bob Karns; Devany, Dennis (OST) 

### Subject: Request for Comment regarding Proposals ofSkyWest, SeaPort, and Sovereign at El Centro/Imperial, California Hi All, Attached above are copies ofthe three timely-filed proposals for Essential AirService (EAS) at El Centro/Imperial, California. We are currently reviewing those proposals. These proposals are directlyfrom the carrier and are reflected in the Docket, which you mayaccess through Regulations.gov at DOT-OST-2008-0299, along with other pertinent information on this proceeding. Community comments are a critically important element in ourcarrier selection decision. We askthatyou get backto us, preferably by email, no laterthan November6, 2012. We will docketthis email, as well as any replies. In brief, lookatthe proposals, and ifyou have any questions, call any ofthe three carriers or me, and get back to us by the deadline. Best, Kevin Adams 202-366-1047

1