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

Certification by Chief Financial Officer

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 Cree, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, John T. Kurtzweil, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to 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/    JOHN T.
KURTZWEILJohn T. KurtzweilExecutive Vice President, Chief FinancialOfficer and TreasurerOctober 20, 2009


This Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of any
general incorporation language contained in such filing.

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.
#### § 108.430 Notification to SBA of transactions that may change ownership or Control.

You must promptly notify SBA as soon as you have knowledge of transactions or events that may result in a transfer of Control or ownership of at least 10 percent of your capital. If there is any doubt as to whether a particular transaction or event will result in such a change, report the facts to SBA.
EXHIBIT A

Case 9:20-cv-80971-RAR Document 36-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/03/2020 Page 1 of 7
Case 9:20-cv-80971-RAR Document 36-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/03/2020 Page 2 of 7
Case 9:20-cv-80971-RAR Document 36-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/03/2020 Page 3 of 7
Case 9:20-cv-80971-RAR Document 36-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/03/2020 Page 4 of 7
Case 9:20-cv-80971-RAR Document 36-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/03/2020 Page 5 of 7
Case 9:20-cv-80971-RAR Document 36-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/03/2020 Page 6 of 7
Case 9:20-cv-80971-RAR Document 36-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/03/2020 Page 7 of 7
### §5605. Penalty relating to return of materials used in the manufacture of distilled spirits, or from which distilled spirits may be recovered

Any person who willfully violates any provision of section 5291(a), or of any regulation issued pursuant thereto, and any officer, director, or agent of any such person who knowingly participates in such violation, shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

(Added Pub. L. 85–859, title II, §201, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1402.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 5605, act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 684, related to penalty for improper approval of distiller's bond, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 85–859. See section 7214 of this title.

Provisions similar to those comprising this section were contained in prior section 5609, act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 685, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 85–859.
HomeAbout NRC

# Alternative Dispute Resolution Programs

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is an inclusive term, which encompasses a variety of voluntary processes that may be used as alternatives to litigation to resolve potential disputes. The most common examples of ADR include settlement following direct negotiation between opposing parties, mediation (negotiation mediated by a neutral third party), arbitration (where a neutral third party acts as an arbiter to issue a final decision regarding a dispute), conciliation, and facilitation. These ADR techniques often result in cordial, efficient, and fair resolution of disputed issues.

The Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, as amended (ADRA), encourages Federal agencies to use ADR techniques in lieu of litigation. The ADRA also requires each agency to appoint a Dispute Resolution Specialist to assist in implementing the agency's ADR policy.

In response to the ADRA, on August 14, 1992, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued its *Policy Statement on Alternative Means of Dispute Resolution* (57 FR 36678).

For additional information about the NRC's ADR programs, you can Contact the NRC's Dispute Resolution Specialist or see the following related pages:
        - NRC Programs Using ADR Techniques
        - NRC Participation in ADR Programs Sponsored by Other Agencies

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, January 5, 2022

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - The Commission
          - Organization & Functions
          - Governing Legislation
          - Plans, Budgets, & Performance
          - Locations
          - History
          - Values
          - Commission Direction-Setting and Policymaking Activities
          - Radiation Protection
          - Fire Protection
          - Safety Culture
          - How We Regulate
          - Emergency Preparedness & Response
          - Counterfeit, Fraudulent, and Suspect Items
          - Public Affairs
          - Congressional Affairs
          - International Programs
          - State & Tribal Programs
          - Alternative Dispute Resolution Programs
          - Privacy Program
          - EEO/Civil Rights Program
          - About the NRC & Your Community
          - Contact Us
          - Career Opportunities
          - Contracting Opportunities
          - Grant Opportunities
          - Generic Schedules
          - NRC at a Glance

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, January 5, 2022
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO.: 20-61252-CIV-ALTMAN 

HOWARD COHAN, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

JRA FAMILY POMPANO, LLC, 

d/b/a BEACH HOUSE POMPANO, 

 Defendant. 

_________________________________/ 

NOTICE OF PENDING SETTLEMENT 

 Plaintiff, HOWARD COHAN (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant, JRA FAMILY POMPANO, 

LLC, d/b/a BEACH HOUSE POMPANO (“Defendant”), by and through undersigned counsel, 

pursuant to Local Rule 16.4, hereby give notice that Plaintiff and Defendant (“Parties”) have 

reached an agreement for the resolution of this matter and are in the process of finalizing settlement

documents. The Parties respectfully request that the Court stay all matters and pending deadlines 

in this action and grant the Parties thirty (30) days to finalize the settlement documents and file 

proper pleadings to close this matter out. 

Dated: 7/28/2020 

BY: /s/ Jason S. Weiss 

 Jason S. Weiss 

 Jason@jswlawyer.com 

 Florida Bar No. 356890 

 WEISS LAW GROUP, P.A. 

 5531 N. University Drive, Suite 103 

 Coral Springs, FL 33067 

 Tel: (954) 573-2800 

 Fax: (954) 573-2798 

 Attorneys for Howard Cohan 

Case 0:20-cv-61252-RKA Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 28th day of July, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing 

with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system which automatically gives notice to all 

counsel of record. 

BY: /s/ Jason S. Weiss 

Jason S. Weiss 

Jason@jswlawyer.com

Florida Bar No. 356890

Case 0:20-cv-61252-RKA Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page 2 of 2
#### § 106.400 Non-Fee Based SBA-Sponsored Activity.

The Administrator (or designee) may provide assistance directly to small business concerns through Non-Fee Based SBA-Sponsored Activities under section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Small Business Act.
- vIIC~/iVlO 18:59 FAX 2024935142 FAA -+ DMS ~OOl/001 

'" ."FLYING SERVICE 

DCCl<ETS 

Ll 

"~' : ,.' .,. ,"""'(' 

,··fl. I " " ; .' 

.1, . ~. ' 

November 20,2009 

Federal Aviation Administration 

.I\TTN: Hearip£ Docket ('It'rk. A(;( '.4,0 

Wilbur Wrigh! Building - Suile 2Wl 000 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D. C. 2051::11 

Re: EIR No. 2009SWIIOOl I 

To Whom Tl May Concern; 

Central Flying Service, Inc. requesrs a Hearing on the referenced matter in 

accol'dancc with 14 C.F.R. 13.16. 

CENTRAL FLYING SERVICE,INC. 

~~ Richard N. Holben' 

President 

- , .. " . 

'501 Bond Street .. Uttle Rock, Arkansas 72202 • 501·375-3245 • Fax 501-375-7274
Exhibit 31                  Rule 13a-14(d) Certification

                                  CERTIFICATION

     I, Michael L. Parker, a President and Director of Washington Mutual
Mortgage Securities Corp., certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form
8-K  containing  distribution  or servicing  reports filed in respect of periods
included  in the year  covered  by this  annual  report,  of ABM  AMRO  MORTGAGE
CORPORATION, Multi-Class Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, SERIES 2001-4;

     2. Based on my knowledge,  the  information  in these  reports,  taken as a
whole, 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 as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

     3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  distribution  or  servicing  information
required to be provided  to the  trustee by the  servicer  under the pooling and
servicing, or similar,  agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in
these reports;

     4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities  performed by the servicer
under the  pooling  and  servicing,  or  similar,  agreement  and based  upon my
knowledge and the annual  compliance  review required under that agreement,  and
except as disclosed in the reports,  the servicer has fulfilled its  obligations
under that agreement; and

     5. The  reports  disclose  all  significant  deficiencies  relating  to the
servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the report
provided by an  independent  public  accountant,  after  conducting  a review in
compliance with the Uniform Single  Attestation  Program for Mortgage Bankers or
similar  procedure,  as set forth in the  pooling  and  servicing,  or  similar,
agreement, that is included in these reports.

     In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following  unaffiliated  third parties acting as servicers
and sub-servicers:

ABN AMRO, Washington Mutual


Dated: March 15, 2004
                                     /s/ Michael L. Parker
                                         Michael L. Parker,
                                         President and Director
#### Antonio Palumbo, Respondent, v. City of Niagara Falls, Appellant.

All concur. (The judgment is for plaintiff in a negligence action.) Present — Taylor, P. J., McCum, Love, Vaughan and Kimball, JJ.
454 P.2d 973

#### Noah Ensley DAVIS, Petitioner, v. STATE of New Mexico, Respondent.

No. 8867.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

June 13, 1969.

Ordered that petition for writ of certiorari be and the same is hereby denied.

Further ordered that the record in Court of Appeals Cause No. 285, 80 N.M. 347, 455 P.2d 851 be and the same is hereby returned to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals.
§ 45.24 Can a hearing process be stayed to allow for settlement discussions? ( a ) Prior to referral to the ALJ, the hearing requester and the Department may by agreement stay the hearing process under this subpart for a period not to exceed 120 days to allow for settlement discussions, if the stay period and any subsequent hearing process (if required) can be accommodated within the time frame established for the license proceeding.
( b ) Any stay of the hearing process will not affect the deadline for filing a notice of intervention and response, if any, pursuant to § 45.22(a)(1)(ii).
§ 41.505 Employment criteria. A recipient shall not administer or operate any test or other criterion for any employment opportunity that has a disproportionately adverse effect on persons on the basis of sex unless: ( a ) Use of such test or other criterion is shown to predict validly successful performance in the position in question; and
( b ) Alternative tests or criteria for such purpose, which do not have such disproportionately adverse effect, are shown to be unavailable.
Exhibit 4.398

 

/Emblem of the Russian Federation/

 

FEDERAL SERVICE FOR SUPERVISION IN THE SPHERE OF COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND MASS MEDIA

 

LICENSE

 

No. 181211 dated May 26, 2020

 

For Rendering

 

Data transmission services, except for data transmission services for the purpose of voice transmission

 

This License is granted to

 

Public Joint Stock Company

 

Mobile TeleSystems

 

Primary State Registration Number of a Legal Entity 
 (Individual Entrepreneur) (OGRN, OGRNIP)

 

1027700149124

 

Tax Identification Number (TIN)

 

7740000076

 











 

Location address (place of residence):

 

4, Marksistskaya str., Moscow, 109147

 

The territory covered by telecommunications services is specified in the Appendix.

 

This License is granted for a term:

 

until May 26, 2025.

 

This License is granted by decision of the licensing body - Order dated March 02, 2020 No. 89-рчс

 

Appendix being an integral part of this license is executed on 2 sheets.

 

	
Deputy Head
    	
/signature/   A.А. Pankov
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Stamp   here 
    	
 
    
	
Official seal:
  MINISTRY OF TELECOM AND MASS 
   COMMUNICATIONS 
   OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 
   FEDERAL SERVICE FOR SUPERVISION
   IN THE SPHERE 
   OF COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION 
   TECHNOLOGY 
   AND MASS MEDIA PSRN 
   1087746736296
    	
 
    


 

CN 118281
1 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-40137

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOEL MOLINA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-01-CR-1057-ALL

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

October 29, 2002

Before JONES, DUHÉ, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Joel Molina appeals from his conviction by guilty plea of

illegal reentry. He argues, for the first time on appeal, that the

district court’s failure to admonish him regarding the

applicability of the Sentencing Guidelines and regarding the

unavailability of parole at his plea hearing constituted plain

error. When an appellant allows an error in a guilty-plea colloquy

to pass without objection, this court reviews for plain error only.

United States v. Vonn, 122 S. Ct. 1043, 1046 (2002). To establish
2

plain error, an appellant bears the burden to show: (1) there is

an error (2) that is clear or obvious and (3) that affects his

substantial rights. United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160,

162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (citing United States v. Olano,

507 U.S. 725, 731-37 (1993)). If these factors are established,

the decision to correct the forfeited error is within the sound

discretion of the court, and the court will not exercise that

discretion unless the error seriously affects the fairness,

integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Olano, 507

U.S. at 735-36. 

The district court erred by failing to advise Molina that it

was required to consider the Sentencing Guidelines when imposing

sentence and that it could depart from the guidelines under certain

circumstances. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(c)(1). The district court

was not required to advise Molina that he was not eligible for

parole.

The district court’s error did not affect Molina’s substantial

rights. Molina has not shown any likelihood that he would have

pleaded not guilty and proceeded to trial had he been properly

advised. See United States v. Vasquez-Bernal, 197 F.3d 169, 171

(5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1130 (2000).

Molina does not allege that his possible psychiatric

difficulties, which first came to light in his presentence report

(PSR), affected his ability to understand the proceedings, and it
3

is not self-evident from the mention of the disorders in the PSR

that such might be the case. To the extent that Molina may seek to

argue that his disorders affected his mental state at the time of

his offense, any such argument is irrelevant to the validity of his

guilty plea.

AFFIRMED.
§ 127.405 What happens if SBA determines that the concern is no longer eligible for the program? If SBA believes that a concern does not meet the program eligibility requirements, the concern fails to recertify in accordance with the requirements in § 127.400, or the concern has failed to notify SBA of a material change, SBA will propose the concern for decertification from the program. ( a ) *Proposed decertification.* The D/GC or designee will notify the concern in writing that it has been proposed for decertification. This notice will state the reasons why SBA has proposed decertification, and that the WOSB or EDWOSB must respond to each of the reasons set forth. ( 1 ) The WOSB or EDWOSB must respond in writing to a proposed decertification within 20 calendar days from the date of the proposed decertification.
( 2 ) If the initial certification was done by a third-party certifier, SBA will also notify the third-party certifier of the proposed decertification in writing.
( b ) *Decertification.* The D/GC or designee will consider the reasons for proposed decertification and the concern's response before making a written decision whether to decertify. The D/GC may draw an adverse inference where a concern fails to cooperate with SBA or provide the information requested. The D/GC's decision is the final agency decision.
( c ) *Decertification in response to adverse protest decision.* SBA will decertify a concern found to be ineligible during a WOSB/EDWOSB status protest.
( d ) *Decertification due to submission of false information.* If SBA discovers that a WOSB or EDWOSB or its representative knowingly submitted false information, SBA will propose the firm for decertification. In addition, SBA will refer the matter to the SBA Office of Inspector General for review and may request that Government-wide debarment or suspension proceedings be initiated by the agency.
( e ) *Effect of decertification.* Once SBA has decertified a concern, the concern cannot self-certify as a WOSB or EDWOSB, as applicable, for any WOSB or EDWOSB contract. If a concern does so, it may be in violation of criminal laws, including section 16(d) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 645(d). If the concern has already certified itself as a WOSB or EDWOSB on a pending procurement, the concern must immediately inform the contracting officer for the procuring agency of its decertification. ( 1 ) Not later than two days after the date on which SBA decertifies a business concern, such concern must update its WOSB/EDWOSB status in the System for Award Management (or any successor system).
( 2 ) If a business concern fails to update its WOSB/EDWOSB status in the System for Award Management (or any successor system) in response to decertification, SBA will make such update within two days of the business's failure to do so.
( f ) *Reapplication.* A concern decertified pursuant to this section may reapply to the program pursuant to § 127.305.
[85 FR 27664, May 11, 2020, as amended at 88 FR 26215, Apr. 27, 2023]
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.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 on Form 10-Q for the period
ending September 30, 2002 of El Paso Energy Partners, L.P. (the "Company") as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Keith B. Forman, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of El
Paso Energy Partners Company, general partner of El Paso Energy Partners, L.P.,
certify (i) that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) that
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



                                       /s/ Keith B. Forman
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Keith B. Forman
                                       Vice President and
                                       Chief Financial Officer
                                       (Principal Financial Officer)
                                       El Paso Energy Partners Company, general
                                       partner of El Paso Energy Partners, L.P.

                                       November 12, 2002