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

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Excelsior Venture Partners III, LLC (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 30, 2008 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                                      
|------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: June 16, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ DAVID R. BAILIN                  
|                    |  |  |  |     |  | David R. Bailin                      
|                    |  |  |  |     |  | Co-Chief Executive Officer           
|                    |  |  | 
|Date: June 16, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ RAGHAV V. NANDAGOPAL             
|                    |  |  |  |     |  | Raghav V. Nandagopal                 
|                    |  |  |  |     |  | Co-Chief Executive Officer           
|                    |  |  | 
|Date: June 16, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ STEVEN L. SUSS                   
|                    |  |  |  |     |  | Steven L. Suss                       
|                    |  |  |  |     |  | Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer

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



30
§ 645.20 How many applications for an Upward Bound award may an eligible applicant submit? ( a ) An applicant may submit more than one application as long as each application describes a project that serves a different target area or target school, or another designated different population.
( b ) For each grant competition, the Secretary designates, in the Federal Register notice inviting applications and other published application materials for the competition, the different populations for which an eligible entity may submit a separate application.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-13, 1221e-3)
[75 FR 65786, Oct. 26, 2010]
§ 303.225 Prohibition against supplanting; indirect costs. ( a ) Each application must provide satisfactory assurance that the Federal funds made available under section 643 of the Act to the State: ( 1 ) Will not be commingled with State funds; and
( 2 ) Will be used so as to supplement the level of State and local funds expended for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families and in no case to supplant those State and local funds.
( b ) To meet the requirement in paragraph (a) of this section, the total amount of State and local funds budgeted for expenditures in the current fiscal year for early intervention services for children eligible under this part and their families must be at least equal to the total amount of State and local funds actually expended for early intervention services for these children and their families in the most recent preceding fiscal year for which the information is available. Allowance may be made for— ( 1 ) A decrease in the number of infants and toddlers who are eligible to receive early intervention services under this part; and
( 2 ) ) Unusually large amounts of funds expended for such long-term purposes as the acquisition of equipment and the construction of facilities.
( c ) *Requirement regarding indirect costs.* ( 1 ) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, a lead agency under this part may not charge indirect costs to its part C grant.
( 2 ) If approved by the lead agency's cognizant Federal agency or by the Secretary, the lead agency must charge indirect costs through either— ( i ) A restricted indirect cost rate that meets the requirements in 34 CFR 76.560 through 76.569; or
( ii ) A cost allocation plan that meets the non-supplanting requirements in paragraph (b) of this section and 34 CFR part 76 of EDGAR.
( 3 ) In charging indirect costs under paragraph (c)(2)(i) and (c)(2)(ii) of this section, the lead agency may not charge rent, occupancy, or space maintenance costs directly to the part C grant, unless those costs are specifically approved in advance by the Secretary.
(Approved by Office of Management and Budget under control number 1820-0550) (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1437(b)(5))
Jefferson 

County 

Lewis & Clark U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

County Bureau of Land Management 

Malta
 

Field Office
 

Missoula 

Field Office 

Lewistown Butte Field Office Field Office
 

Miles City Helena
 

Butte Field Office
 Draft RMP/EIS 

Field

Office
 Billings 

Field Office 

Dillon Map 39: Visual Resource

Field Office Management (VRM) Designations 

Broadwater Under Alternative D 

Miles County 0 400 

Townsend 

Anaconda 

Deer Lodge 

Butte County 

Silver Bow
 

County
 

Gallatin 

County 

Livingston Bozeman 

City
 Interstate
 US Route
 MT Route
 

I - Class 1 

Park

II -- Class 2 County III - Class 3
 

IV - Class 4
 

County Boundry
 

Field Office Boundry
 

Map shows proposed Visual Resource Management Class designations under Alternative B. This alternative proposes: 31,500 acres in Class I which allows no visible change, 1,300 acres in Class II which allows visible change that does not attract attention, 142,900 acres in Class III which allows change that attracts attention, but does not dominate, and 126,300 acres in Class IV which allows change that is dominant but minimized or mitigated as much as possible. Miles 

0 40 

Map Scale 1:510,000 

Map generated by the Butte Field Office in February 2007 

Albers Equal Area, NAD83 Projection 

This map is intended for display purposes. No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data, or for purposes not intended by BLM. This map may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital means and information may be updated without notification.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Alexandria Division

In re: )

)

DARRIN Z. BURTON, ) Case No. 19-12225-BFK

) Chapter 13

)

)

Debtor. )

ORDER DISMISSING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On August 8, 2019, the Court held a hearing on its Order to Show Cause why the case 

should not be dismissed with prejudice for up to one year. Docket No. 17. The Debtor, the 

Debtor’s counsel, Earl J. Oberbauer, Esquire, and Chapter 13 Trustee, Thomas P. Gorman, 

Esquire, were present at the hearing. For the reasons stated on the record, it is

ORDERED:

1. The Court’s Order to Show Cause (Docket No. 12) is satisfied.

2. This case will proceed in its normal course. 

3. The Clerk will mail a copy of this Order, or provide electronic notice of its entry, 

to the parties below.

Date: _____________________ ___________________________________

Brian F. Kenney

Alexandria, Virginia United States Bankruptcy Judge

Aug 12 2019 /s/ Brian F. Kenney

Entered on Docket: August 13, 2019

Case 19-12225-BFK Doc 19 Filed 08/13/19 Entered 08/13/19 08:38:43 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 2
2

Copies to:

Darrin Z Burton 

18 Mill Springs Rd 

Fredericksburg, VA 22406-6000

Chapter 13 Debtor

Earl J. Oberbauer, Jr. 

9329 Battle St. 

Manassas, VA 20110 

(703)368-7679

Counsel for Debtor

Thomas P. Gorman 

300 N. Washington St. Ste. 400 

Alexandria, VA 22314

Chapter 13 Trustee

Case 19-12225-BFK Doc 19 Filed 08/13/19 Entered 08/13/19 08:38:43 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 2
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-3797

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Justin R. Bicket

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Nebraska - Omaha

____________

 Submitted: November 4, 2014

Filed: November 6, 2014

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Justin Bicket, who was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm

after a jury trial, see United States v. Bicket, 497 Fed. Appx. 679 (8th Cir. 2013) (per
curiam), appeals the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion

1

without an evidentiary hearing. In his motion, Bicket claimed that his trial counsel

provided ineffective assistance by failing to move to dismiss the indictment on

speedy-trial grounds, and by failing to communicate a government plea offer.

Following de novo review, we conclude the denial of relief was proper. The

record establishes that Bicket’s counsel sought continuances to prepare for trial, that

Bicket waived his speedy-trial rights, and that counsel’s decision not to seek

dismissal of the indictment did not amount to deficient performance. See Thomas v.

United States, 737 F.3d 1202, 1206, 1209 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review;

decision whether to move to dismiss for speedy trial violation is tactical decision of

trial strategy), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 2323 (2014). Further, Bicket’s attestations in

support of his second ineffective-assistance claim--that his counsel “never” informed

him of a plea offer--were contradicted by the record, including by his testimony at his

sentencing hearing that he was aware of a specific eve-of-trial plea offer. The denial

of relief without an evidentiary hearing was thus not an abuse of discretion. See

Winters v. United States, 716 F.3d 1098, 1103 (8th Cir.) (§ 2255 motion may be

dismissed without hearing if movant’s allegations, accepted astrue, would not entitle

him to relief; or if allegations cannot be accepted as true because they are

contradicted by record, are inherently incredible, or are conclusions rather than

statements of fact), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 447 (2013).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of 1

Nebraska.

-2-
# Hollan d& Knigh t

80 0 17thStreet , NW , SuitellO O | Washington , D C 2000 6 | T202.955.300 0 j F 202.955.556 4 Hollan d & Knigh t LL P | www.hklaw.co m Anit a M . Mosne r (202)419-260 4 anita.mosner@hklaw.co m Augus t 22 , 201 3 BYELECTRONI C MAI L Mr . Rober

t Finamor e Divisio n Chief , Foreig n Ai rCarrie rLicensin g Divisio n U.S . Departmen t o fTransportatio n 120 0 Ne wJerse yAvenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 0 Re : Applicatio n o fAi rGeorgia n fo rStatement s o fAuthorizatio n (Docke t Nos . OST-2000 - 7012: OST-2000-7771 : OST-2013-0156 ) Dea rMr . Finamore : ByApplicatio n date d Augus t 19 , 2013 , Ai rGeorgia n Limite d ("Ai rGeorgian" ) applie d fo r Statement s o fAuthorizatio n tha t woul d enabl e i t t o expan d it s codesharin g relationshi p wit h Ai r Canada , an d t o carryth e UA * designato rcod e o n certai n o f th e transborde rflight s i t operate s o n behal fo fAi rCanada . I n it s Application , Ai rGeorgia n requeste d expedite d relie f s o tha t i t maycommenc e codesharin g ove rth e requeste d routing s a s soo n a s possible . Accordingly , Ai rGeorgia n ha s polle d al l intereste d parties , an d n o part yha s objecte d t o th e Application . Fo rthi s reason , Ai r Georgia n respectfull yrequest s tha t th e Departmen t promptl ygran t th e requeste d authority . Respectfull ySubmitted , Holland^ . Knight , LL P

Anit a M . Mosne r Attorne yfo rAi rGeorgia n

Atlant a | Bosto n | Chicag o | For t Lauderdal e | Jacksonvill e | Lakelan d | Lo s Angele s | Miam i | Ne wYor k | Norther n Virgini a | Orland o Portlan d | Sa n Francisc o | Tallahasse e | Tamp a | Washington , D. C | Wes t Pal m Beac h
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 7,522

 9,598

 10,702

 12,977

 13,871

 13,102

 13,241

 13,633

 13,500

 10,478

 8,683

 8,983

 10,280

 10,320

 11,428

 11,368

 9,336

 9,196

 8,568

 8,802

 8,937

 8,438

 7,236

 5,964

 5,391

 6,451

 8,884

 5,166

 5,177

 6,147

 7,007

 2,156

 1,847

 1,727

 2,533

 2,291

 2,713

 2,304

 2,350

 4,194

 4,684

 2,679

 2,323

 2,389

 2,755

 2,041

 1,059

 273

 304

 366

 287

 371

 395

 390

 361

 341

 454

 1,553

 316

 271

 211

 230

 4,287

 5,077

 5,478

 6,484

 7,357

 7,273

 6,905

 7,663

 8,116

 7,271

 5,765

 5,389

 5,406

 5,618

 5,808

 5,568

 4,578

 4,008

 3,684

 3,462

 3,595

 3,449

 3,117

 2,773

 2,669

 3,255

 4,588

 2,325

 2,191

 2,288

 2,394

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

DECEMBER 2006 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: January 4, 2007

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

COLLINSVILLE BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                            2,147
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                      31,626
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                152,954
<PP&E>                                           46,005
<DEPRECIATION>                                   34,888
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                1,201,884
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           154,938
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                       3,000
<COMMON>                                          7,619
<OTHER-SE>                                       32,673
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    201,884
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                404,056
<CGS>                                           113,269
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   163,654
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                290,044
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                4,463
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (69,188)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   0
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (33,493)
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (102,681)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.011)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.006)
        



</TABLE>
## Faulk, Scott (OST) From: 

### Sent: To: 

### Subject: Aloha, Pa'oneakai Lee-Namakaeha <kauikeolani_2004@hotmail.com> Wednesday, April 23, 2014 11:02 PM EAS (OST) In Support of MAKANI KAI for the EAS

As a resident of Kalaupapa I am STILL in continued support of Makani Kai forthe EAS in Kalaupapa! Thankyou foryour consideration! Mahala,**~:·.** ' Pa'one Sent from my iPhone

· •.l ...

1
#### STATE ex rel BENDUSCH, Respondent, v. BREEDING, Appellant.

(266 N. W. 882.)

(File No. 7901.

Opinion filed May 12, 1936.)

*C. H. McCay,*of 'Salem, and *Wm. S. Glanzer,*of Bridgewater, for Appellant.

*J. C. Graber,*of Freeman, and *Wm. I. Metzger,*of Olivet, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM.

From a judgment in a proceeding under the Uniform Illegitimacy Act (chapter 295, Laws 1923,)' determining 'him to be the father of a child born to relator and requiring him to make certain payments for the support of said child, and from a denial of his application for a new trial, defendant has appealed to this court.

As conceded by appellant in his brief, the only substantial question presented is the sufficiency of the evidence. To recite *417such evidence at length and discuss it in detail would not be helpful. We have studied the record with care, and we are not able to say that the evidence clearly preponderates against the findings of the learned trial judge. We believe the evidence is sufficient to support such findings, and it follows, therefore, that the judgment and order appealed from must be, and they are, affirmed.

All the Judges concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1418
In Re: HENRY T. SANDERS, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (8:06-cv-01528-DKC) Submitted: August 23, 2007 Decided: August 28, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry T. Sanders, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Henry T. Sanders petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking relief from this court. We conclude that Sanders is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal, In re United Steelworkers , 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979), and this court does not have jurisdiction to either grant mandamus relief against state officials, Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg County , 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969), or review final state court orders, District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983). The relief sought by Sanders is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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. PETITION DENIED
FINAL 

Environmental Impact Statement 

for the Lost Creek Uranium In-Situ Recovery Project, 

Sweetwater County, Wyoming 

Volume II

July 2012 

BLM Publication Index Number: BLM/WY/PL-12/019+1330 

DOI Control Number: FES 12-31 

B

L

M 

,

Wyoming High Desert District 

– Rawlins Field Office 
BLM Publication Index Number: BLM/WY/PL-12/019+1330 

DOI Control Number: FES 12-31 

Mission Statement 

The BLM’s multiple-use mission, set forth in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 

1976, mandates that we manage public land resources for a variety of uses, such as energy 

development, livestock grazing, recreation, and timber harvesting, while protecting a wide 

array of natural, cultural, and historical resources.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 CenterPoint Energy Houston
Electric, LLC (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31,
2003 (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof, I, Gary L. Whitlock, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:

         1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



/s/ Gary L. Whitlock
----------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Whitlock
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
March 12, 2004
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      EXHIBIT 15





C.H. Heist Corp.
Clearwater, Florida

Gentlemen:

With respect to the registration statements No. 33-48497 and 333-26007, we
acknowledge our awareness of the incorporation of our reports dated April 24,
1998, July 24, 1998 and October 23, 1998 related to our reviews of interim
financial information.

Pursuant to rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933 (the Act), such reports
are not considered part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an
accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning
of sections 7 and 11 of the Act.



                                          Very truly yours,


                                          KPMG LLP



Buffalo, New York
March 12, 1999
#### John E. Coles, Respondent, v. Max Manes and Others, Defendants, Impleaded with Beckie Rosenberg, Appellant.

Orders affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas, Carr and Rich, JJ., concurred.
Exhibit
32.1




Certification
Pursuant to


18
U.S.C. Section 1350,


As
Adopted pursuant to


Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




I,
Nicholas Goodman, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Raser Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Raser Technologies, Inc.




Date:
      November 10, 2010
                  /s/    Nicholas
      GoodmanNicholas
      GoodmanChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive
Officer)




Certification
Pursuant to


18
U.S.C. Section 1350,


As
Adopted pursuant to


Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




I, John
T. Perry, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge,
the Quarterly Report of Raser Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Raser
Technologies, Inc.




Date:
      November 10, 2010
                /s/    John
      T. PerryJohn
      T. PerryChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial and Accounting
Officer)




A signed
original of each of the above-written statements required by Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Raser Technologies, Inc. and
will be retained by Raser Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




The
forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q and shall not be considered filed as
part of the Form 10-Q.