alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|   | EXHIBIT 32.2 |   |
|--------|--------------|--------|

|   |
|--------|

|   | CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERREQUIRED BY EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14(b) |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|

| I, Dean E. Sukowatey, Acting Chief Accounting Officer of ALL                Fuels                & Energy Company (the “Company”), hereby certify, pursuant to 18                U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley                Act of 2002, that the accompanying report on Form 10-QSB for the                period                ended June 30, 2007, and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission                on the date hereof (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of                Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.                I                further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly                presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results                of                operations of the Company. |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |
|--------|

| Dated: August 20, 2007. | /s/ DEAN E. SUKOWATEY |   |
|-------------------------|-----------------------|--------|

|   | Dean E. SukowateyActing Chief Accounting Officer |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------|--------|
### SUBCHAPTER III—ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RELATED ISSUES
IB 

Union Calendar No. 285 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5130 

[Report No. 116–360] 

To amend the Small Business Act to adjust the employment size standard 

requirements for determining whether a manufacturing concern is a 

small business concern, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 15, 2019 

Mr. VEASEY (for himself and Mr. KEVIN HERN of Oklahoma) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Small Business 

DECEMBER 19, 2019 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 

2 

•HR 5130 RH

A BILL 

To amend the Small Business Act to adjust the employment 

size standard requirements for determining whether a 

manufacturing concern is a small business concern, and 

for other purposes. 

3 

•HR 5130 RH

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 ‘‘Capturing All Small 

5 Businesses Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EMPLOYMENT SIZE STANDARD REQUIREMENTS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3(a)(2) of the Small Busi8 ness Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)(2)) is amended— 

9 (1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ‘‘and sub10 ject to the requirements specified under subpara11 graph (C)’’ after ‘‘paragraph (1)’’; and 

12 (2) in subparagraph (C)— 

13 (A) by inserting ‘‘(including the Adminis14 tration when acting pursuant to subparagraph 

15 (A))’’ after ‘‘no Federal department or agency’’; 

16 and 

17 (B) in clause (ii)(I) by striking ‘‘12 

18 months’’ and inserting ‘‘24 months’’. 

19 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This Act and the amend20 ments made by this Act shall take effect one year after 

21 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Union Calendar No. 285 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5130 

[Report No. 116–360] 

A BILL 

To amend the Small Business Act to adjust the emsmall business concern, and for other purposes. mining whether a manufacturing concern is a ployment size standard requirements for deterDECEMBER 19, 2019 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed
§ 751.13 Control measures. ( a ) Consistent with the goals of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321), recycling of junk and scrap is to be encouraged to the greatest extent practicable in the implementation of the junkyard control program. Recycling should be considered in conjunction with other control measures. To facilitate recycling, junk or scrap should be moved to an automobile wrecker, or a scrap processor, or put to some other useful purpose.
( b ) Every effort shall be made to screen where the junkyard is to continue as an ongoing business. Screening may be accomplished by use of natural objects, landscaping plantings, fences, and other appropriate means, including relocating inventory on site to utilize an existing natural screen or a screenable portion of the site.
( c ) Where screening is used, it must, upon completion of the screening project, effectively screen the junkyard from the main traveled way of the highway on a year-round basis, and be compatible with the surroundings. Each State shall establish criteria governing the location, design, construction, maintenance, and materials used in fencing or screening.
( d ) A junkyard should be relocated only when other control measures are not feasible. Junkyards should be relocated to a site not visible from the highway or to an industrial area, and should not be relocated to residential, commercial, or other areas where foreseeable environmental problems may develop.
( e ) The State may develop and use other methods of operation to carry out the purposes of this directive, subject to prior FHWA approval.
### §825s–6. Southeastern Power Administration; deposit and availability of discretionary offsetting collections

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 3302 of title 31 and section 825s of this title, all funds collected by the Southeastern Power Administration that are applicable to the repayment of the annual expenses of this account in this and subsequent fiscal years shall be credited to this account as discretionary offsetting collections for the sole purpose of funding such expenses, with such funds remaining available until expended: Provided further, That for purposes of this appropriation, annual expenses means expenditures that are generally recovered in the same year that they are incurred (excluding purchase power and wheeling expenses).

(Pub. L. 111–85, title III, Oct. 28, 2009, 123 Stat. 2869.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This fiscal year, referred to in text, is the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2010.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010, and not as part of the Federal Power Act which generally comprises this chapter.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-20-00464-CV

Lydia DE LA FUENTE,

Appellant

v.

Johamberlin R. BEATO,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020CV01085

Honorable J. Frank Davis, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 3, 2021

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

Appellant’s brief was due on January 8, 2021. Appellant failed to file her brief or a motion 

for extension of time. On January 26, 2021, we issued an order informing appellant that her brief 

was overdue and directing her to file, on or before February 12, 2021, her brief and a written 

response reasonably explaining why appellee was not significantly injured by appellant’s failure 

to timely file a brief. We advised appellant that if she failed to file a brief and a written response 

by the date ordered, we would dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P.

38.8(a)(1) (allowing appellate courts to dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution when an 
04-20-00464-CV

- 2 -

appellant fails to timely file a brief); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c) (allowing appellate courts to 

dismiss an appeal when an appellant fails to comply with a court order). Appellant has not filed 

her brief or otherwise responded to our January 26, 2021 order. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed 

for want of prosecution.

PER CURIAM
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

 551

 582

 589

 577

 589

 570

 527

 530

 533

 518

 536

 535

 511

 504

 497

 532

 574

 575

 578

 566

 579

 587

 670

 694

 672

 655

 673

 705

 669

 630

 627

 508

 506

 511

 530

 525

 495

 451

 442

 455

 445

 425

 426

 442

 459

 477

 494

 535

 552

 549

 520

 529

 529

 555

 567

 563

 563

 579

 541

 539

 519

 492

 528

 538

 546

 553

 560

 531

 487

 492

 507

 469

 491

 483

 479

 481

 487

 513

 558

 565

 565

 542

 556

 559

 583

 622

 611

 603

 610

 606

 588

 567

 559

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JANUARY 2018 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: February 1, 2018

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 342

 348

 353

 358

 362

 344

 317

 320

 329

 306

 319

 314

 312

 313

 317

 333

 361

 365

 365

 351

 360

 361

 376

 400

 394

 389

 393

 391

 379

 366

 361

TOTAL 16,839

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 20
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         429,057
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  161,456
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                76,169
<PP&E>                                       3,043,361
<DEPRECIATION>                                 135,676
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,845,719
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           72,993
<BONDS>                                      1,548,138
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,224,588
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,845,719
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,412,495
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  672,413
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               184,812
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             198,138
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                357,132
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   357,132
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       81
        

</TABLE>
Opinion issued December 1, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-15-00127-CR

———————————

CANDANCE NICOLE MAXI, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 185th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1421350

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Candance Nicole Maxi, pled guilty to the offense of theft. In 

accordance with Maxi’s plea bargain with the State, the trial court entered an order,
2

deferring adjudication of guilt and placing her on four years of community 

supervision. On April 3, 2015, Maxi filed a notice of appeal.1 

In a plea bargain case, a defendant may only appeal those matters that were 

raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial or after getting the trial 

court’s permission to appeal. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02 (West 

2006); TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). An appeal must be dismissed if a certification 

showing that the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the 

record. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d).

Here, the trial court’s certification is included in the record on appeal. See id. 

The trial court’s certification states that this is a plea bargain case and that the 

defendant has no right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). The record 

supports the trial court’s certification. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Because appellant has no right of appeal, we must 

dismiss this appeal. See Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2006) (“A court of appeals, while having jurisdiction to ascertain whether an 

appellant who plea-bargained is permitted to appeal by Rule 25.2(a)(2), must 

dismiss a prohibited appeal without further action, regardless of the basis for the 

appeal.”). 

 

1 Appellant’s notice of appeal is also untimely. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a).
3

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss any 

pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Higley, Huddle, and Lloyd.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
### §7a. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–287, §7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3272

Section, act Mar. 18, 1950, ch. 72, §1, 64 Stat. 27; Pub. L. 85–726, title XIV, §1402(e), Aug. 23, 1958, 72 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 91–258, title I, §52(b)(1), May 21, 1970, 84 Stat. 235, related to airports in national parks, monuments and recreation areas; construction, etc. See section 101501(b) of Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs.
### [§1993. Repealed. Pub. L. 109–177, title I, §110(a), Mar. 9, 2006, 120 Stat. 205]

Section, added Pub. L. 107–56, title VIII, §801, Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 374; amended Pub. L. 108–21, title VI, §609, Apr. 30, 2003, 117 Stat. 692; Pub. L. 109–59, title III, §3042(a), Aug. 10, 2005, 119 Stat. 1639, related to terrorist attacks and other acts of violence against public transportation systems. See section 1992 of this title.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 5, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 18782]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7996]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1063, 1064, 1066-1068 (Review)]


Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Brazil, China, India, Thailand, and 
Vietnam

Determinations

    On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject five-year 
reviews, the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) 
determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
U.S.C. 1675(c)), that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on 
frozen warmwater shrimp from Brazil, China, India, Thailand, and 
Vietnam would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of 
material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably 
foreseeable time.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).
    \2\ Commissioner Daniel R. Pearson determines that revocation of 
the antidumping duty orders covering frozen warmwater shrimp from 
Brazil, China, India, Thailand, and Vietnam would not be likely to 
lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry 
in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Commission instituted these reviews on January 4, 2010 (75 FR 
1078, January 8, 2010) and determined on April 9, 2010 that it would 
conduct full reviews (75 FR 22424, April 28, 2010). Notice of the 
scheduling of the Commission's reviews and of a public hearing to be 
held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice 
in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 
Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register on 
August 11, 2010 (75 FR 48724). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, 
on February 1, 2011, and all persons who requested the opportunity were 
permitted to appear in person or by counsel.
    The Commission transmitted its determinations in these reviews to 
the Secretary of Commerce on March 30, 2011. The views of the 
Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4221 (March 2011), 
entitled Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Brazil, China, India, Thailand, 
and Vietnam: Investigation Nos. 1063, 1064, 1066-1068 (Review).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: March 30, 2011.
James R. Holbein,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-7996 Filed 4-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  Certification

I, A. Roland Thomas, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Moldflow Corporation;

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 consolidated financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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 registrant 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 registrant, 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. [Omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986];

      c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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 registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

      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 registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize 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 registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: November 12, 2003

                                           /s/ A. Roland Thomas
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           A. Roland Thomas
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ MARK BESANCENEY, Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Respondent

______________________

2022

- 1271

______________________ Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. PH

- 1221

- 19

- 0255

- M

- 1.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

J OHN T HOMAS H ARRINGTON
, The Employment Law Group, PC, Washington, DC, argued for petitioner. Also represented by R OBERT S COTT O SWALD

.

J ANA M OSES
, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent. Also represented by R EGINALD T HOMAS B LADES
, J R ., B RIAN M. B OYNTON
, P ATRICIA M. M C C ARTHY

.

E MILEE C OLLIER , Investigation and Prosecution Case: 22-1271 Document: 46 Page: 1 Filed: 07/12/2023Division, United States Office of Special Counsel, for amicus curiae Office of Special Counsel

, Washington, DC . Also

represe nted by L IZ B ROWN
, K AREN G ORMAN
, H ENRY J. K ERNER

.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (M OORE
, Chief Judge

, L OURIE and S TOLL
, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

July 12, 2023 Date /s/ Jar r ett B. Perlow J a r rett B. Perlow Acting Clerk of Court Case: 22-1271 Document: 46 Page: 2 Filed: 07/12/2023