alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


                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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March
31, 2003, of Synagro Technologies, Inc. (the "Company"), as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, J. Paul
Withrow, certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company and that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

This certificate is being furnished solely for purposes of Section 906 and is
not being field as part of the Report.

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.



                                            /s/ J.  Paul Withrow
                                            ----------------------------
                                            J.  Paul Withrow
                                            May 15, 2003
§ 148.73 Baggage on carriers operated by the Department of Defense. ( a ) *Declaration.* All persons, including crewmembers, entering the United States on carriers operated by or for the Department of Defense shall execute written baggage declarations.
( b ) *Exemptions applicable.* Passengers on transports shall be granted the applicable exemptions from duty provided for in Chapter 98, Subchapter IV, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (19 U.S.C. 1202). Members of the Armed Forces of the United States and personnel in the civil service of the United States engaged in the operation of the vessel shall be accorded the same privilege. Civilian officers and crewmembers not in the service of the United States shall be subject to the provisions of subpart G of this part with respect to exemption from duty.
( c ) *Examination of baggage.* Baggage on transports shall be examined at the port where landed in the same manner as baggage on commercial vessels.
[T.D. 73-27, 38 FR 2449, Jan. 26, 1973, as amended by T.D. 82-213, 48 FR 46979, Oct. 17, 1983; T.D. 89-1, 53 FR 51265, Dec. 21, 1988]
#### • Benjamin Feinberg et al., Appellants, v. Louis Feinbbrg, Respondent.—

*785In our opinion the proof was insufficient as a matter of law to establish that appellants were other than guests in respondent’s automobile, or that respondent was guilty of gross negligence or willful and wanton disregard of the safety of appellants, within the meaning of the Virginia statute limiting recovery by guests transported without payment. (Mitchie’s Unofficial Code of Virginia, § 2154 [232].) Present — Nolan, P. J., Johnston, Sneed, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ. [See *post,*p. 846.]
#### § 10000.1 Purpose and scope.

The regulations in this part implement the provisions of the FOIA.
#### § 171.44 Forfeited property authorized for official use.

If forfeited property which is the subject of a claim under section 613, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1613) has been authorized for official use, retention or delivery will be regarded as the sale thereof for the purposes of section 613. The appropriation available to the receiving agency for the purchase, hire, operation, maintenance and repair of property of the kind so received is available for the granting of relief to the claimant and for the satisfaction of liens for freight, charges and contributions in general average that may have been filed.
Executive Order 13359

# Amendment to Executive Order 13173, Interagency Task Force on the Economic Development of the Central San Joaquin Valley

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to improve the operation of the Interagency Task Force on the Economic Development of the Central San Joaquin Valley, it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 13173 of October 25, 2000, is amended as follows:

**Section 1.**                     Section 1(b) is amended to read as follows:                

“The Task Force shall consist exclusively of the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Education, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Director of National Drug Control Policy, the Administrator of General Services, the Administrator of the Small Business Administration, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, or their designees, and such other senior executive branch officials as may be determined by the Task Force. The Chair of the Task Force shall be the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Each of the Federal departments and agencies, as appropriate, shall designate one staff person, for the years 2004 through 2006, to work on issues of the Task Force and to ensure the participation of the staff person's department or agency in the operations of the Task Force.”

**Sec. 2.**                     Section 1(c)(1) is amended by inserting “regulations,” after “analyze”.                

**Sec. 3.**                     Section 5 is amended to read as follows:                

                    “                    *Judicial Review.*                     This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the Federal Government and is not intended to, and does not, create any right, benefit, or trust responsibility, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its agencies, entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.”                

[FR Doc. 04-23994

Billing code 3195-01-P
Editorial Note on Part 354
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 354 appear at 63 FR 24403, May 4, 1998, and at 78 FR 62418, Oct. 22, 2013.

§ 354.6 Initiation of proceedings. ( a ) *In general.* After an investigation and report by the director under § 354.5(c) and consultation with the Chief Counsel, the Deputy Under Secretary for International Trade will determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe that a person has violated an administrative protective order. If the Deputy Under Secretary for International Trade determines that there is reasonable cause, the Deputy Under Secretary for International Trade also will determine whether sanctions under paragraph (b) or a warning under paragraph (c) is appropriate for the violation.
( b ) *Sanctions.* In determining under paragraph (a) of this section whether sanctions are appropriate, and, if so, what sanctions to impose, the Deputy Under Secretary for International Trade will consider the nature of the violation, the resulting harm, and other relevant circumstances of the case. If the Deputy Under Secretary for International Trade determines that sanctions are appropriate, the Deputy Under Secretary for International Trade will initiate a proceeding under this part by issuing a charging letter under § 354.7. The Deputy Under Secretary for International Trade will determine whether to initiate a proceeding no later than 60 days after receiving a report of the investigation.
( c ) *Warning.* If the Deputy Under Secretary for International Trade determines under paragraph (a) of this section that a warning is appropriate, the Deputy Under Secretary will issue a warning letter to the person believed to have violated an administrative protective order. Sanctions are not appropriate and a warning is appropriate if: ( 1 ) The person took due care;
( 2 ) The Secretary has not previously charged the person with violating an administrative protective order;
( 3 ) The violation did not result in any disclosure of the business proprietary information or the Secretary is otherwise able to determine that the violation caused no harm to the submitter of the information; and
( 4 ) The person cooperated fully in the investigation.
[63 FR 24404, May 4, 1998]
### §1881a. Providing Capitol-flown flags for families of fallen heroes

#### (a) In general

At the request of an immediate family member of a firefighter, law enforcement officer, member of a rescue squad or ambulance crew, or public safety officer who died in the line of duty, the Representative or Senator of the family may provide to the family a Capitol-flown flag, together with the certificate described in subsection (c).

#### (b) No cost to family

A Capitol-flown flag provided under this section shall be provided at no cost to the family.

#### (c) Certificate

The certificate described in this subsection is a certificate which is signed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Representative, or the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Senator, providing the Capitol-flown flag, as applicable, and which contains an expression of sympathy for the family involved from the House of Representatives or the Senate, as applicable.

(Pub. L. 114–156, §3, May 16, 2016, 130 Stat. 391.)
§ 1215.22 Definitions. ( a ) Claim or debt. An amount or property owed to the United States which includes, but is not limited to: Overpayments to program beneficiaries; overpayments to contractors and grantees, including overpayments arising from audit disallowances; excessive cash advances to grantees and contractors; and civil penalties and assessments. A debt is overdue or delinquent if it is not paid by the due date specified in the initial notice of the debt (see § 1215.26) or if the debtor fails to satisfy his or her obligation under a repayment agreement.
( b ) *Debtor.* An individual, organization, group, association, partnership, or corporation indebted to the United States, or the person or entity with legal responsibility for assuming the debtor's obligation.
( c ) *MSPB.* The Merit Systems Protection Board.
( d ) *Administrative offset.* Satisfying a debt by withholding money payable by the United States to or held by the United States for a debtor.
#### George Gregory JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANALYST INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION; Andersen Consulting; Yellow Technology Services, Inc.; Yellow Logistics; Yellow Freight System, Inc.; Yellow Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-3151.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

May 8, 2002.

Before KELLY, BRISCOE, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

MARY BECK BRISCOE, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Appellant George Gregory Jackson appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for relief from judgment brought pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). We review the denial of a 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion. *Plotner v. AT & T*
      *761
      *Corp.,*224 F.3d 1161, 1174 (10th Cir.2000). “We will reverse the district court’s determination only if we find a complete absence of a reasonable basis and are certain that the district court’s decision is wrong.” *Id.*(quotation omitted).

Having carefully reviewed the briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we conclude that Mr. Jackson has failed to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion in denying his 60(b) motion. Accordingly, the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas is AFFIRMED.

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
### **CHAPTER 32—METHANE HYDRATE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT**

Sec.
2001.
Findings.
2002.
Definitions.
2003.
Methane hydrate research and development program.
2004.
National Research Council study.
2005.
Reports and studies for Congress.
2006.
Authorization of appropriations.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

This chapter is comprised of Pub. L. 106–193, as amended generally by Pub. L. 109–58, title IX, §968(a), Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 894, known as the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000, which was formerly set out as a note under section 1902 of this title.
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Exhibit CFM-303 of Corporate Flight Management, Inc. to its application.


Exhibit CFM-303 of Corporate Flight Management, Inc. to its application.
#### § 182.49 Retention of records.

All records required to be kept by the exporter, importer, manufacturer or producer under this subpart with respect to manufacturing drawback claims, and all records kept by others which complement the records of the importer, exporter, manufacturer or producer, including any person who transfers or enables another person to make or perfect a drawback claim, must be retained for at least three years from the date of liquidation of such claims or longer period if required by law (*see* §§ 190.10, 190.15, 190.38, and 190.175(c) of this chapter).

[CBP Dec. 21-10, 86 FR 35589, July 6, 2021]
1 Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that have no

precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

___________________________

No. 95-20745 Summary Calendar

___________________________

JOHN D. BERTLING AND BEST SAND TRUCKING CO.,
Plaintiff-Appellants,

VERSUS

ATLANTIC RICHFIELD, ET AL.,

Defendants,

ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee.

___________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas

(CA H 90-147)

____________________________________________________ July 30, 1996 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: 1

John Bertling and Best Sand Trucking Company appeal from the

district court’s order granting summary judgment to Atlantic
Richfield Company (ARCO). We affirm.

Appellants sued ARCO see king recovery for economic losses

allegedly caused by ARCO’s negligent disposal of toxic waste at the2

Sikes Superfund Site near Crosby, Texas. The undisputed summary
judgment evidence demonstrated that various companies disposed of

toxic waste at Sikes from 1960 t hrough 1967. In 1979, Bertling

began to operate his sand mining and trucking business near the old

Sikes site. He built a road traversing the toxic dump and used it

to conduct his company’s business. In January of 1991, government

authorities closed the road in order to begin environmental

remediation. Appellants sued ARCO to recover for the economic
injuries they suffered as a result of the closure.

The district court considered the summary judgment evidence in
the light most favorable to Appellants. It nonetheless concluded

that there existed no genuine issue of material fact as to
foreseeability. ARCO documents demonstrated that the company had

considered the health risk to per sons in the area as well as the
potential for clean-up liability. ARCO, however, did not foresee

that a company might construct a road which authorities might then

shut down in orde r to clean up the Sikes Site. Nor would any

person of ordinary intelligence perceive this scenario as a risk of

toxic dumping. S ee Doe v. Boys Clubs of Greater Dallas, Inc. , 907

S.W.2d 472, 478 (Tex. 1995); Union Pump Co. v. Albritton
, 898

S.W.2d 773, 775-76 (Tex. 1995). The district court did not err

when it concluded that Appellants claimed a harm too attenuated, as
a matter of law, to ARCO’s alleged dumping activities. We affirm
for essentially the reasons set out by the district court.

AFFIRMED.
### §43. Conditions of sale by local legislature

As a condition of sale, in the absence of necessary legislation by Congress, the local legislature of any State or Territory may provide rules for working mines, involving easements, drainage, and other necessary means to their complete development; and those conditions shall be fully expressed in the patent.

(R.S. §2338.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

R.S. §2338 derived from act July 26, 1866, ch. 262, §5, 14 Stat. 252.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Submerged Lands Act

Provisions of this section as not amended, modified or repealed by the Submerged Lands Act, see section 1303 of Title 43, Public Lands.
#### §§ 201.171-201.999 [Reserved]
EXHIBIT 99





Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


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





The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Central European Distribution
Corporation (the Company), each hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:





(a)  the Form 10-K/A of the Company for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2001, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(b)  information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





By:

/s/    WILLIAM V. CAREYWilliam V. Carey Chief Executive Officer September 4, 2002By:

/s/    NEIL A.M. CROOKNeil A.M. Crook Chief Financial Officer September 4, 2002
### §204. Repealed. Pub. L. 94–377, §13(a), Aug. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1090

Section, act Feb. 25, 1920, ch. 85, §4, 41 Stat. 439, provided for the leasing of an additional tract of land or coal deposit, not to exceed 2560 acres, upon a showing by a lessee that all workable deposits of coal would be exhausted, worked out, or removed within three years thereafter.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Savings Provision

Pub. L. 94–377, §13(a), Aug. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1090, provided that the repeal of this section is subject to valid existing rights.
§ 200.735-104 Disciplinary and other remedial action. ( a ) An employee who violates any of the regulations in this part may be disciplined. The disciplinary action may be in addition to any other penalty prescribed by law for the violation. In addition to, or in lieu of, disciplinary action, remedial action to end conflicts or appearance of conflicts of interest may include, but is not limited to: ( 1 ) Changes in assigned duties;
( 2 ) Divestment by the employee of his conflicting interest; or
( 3 ) Disqualification for a particular assignment.
( b ) Remedial action, whether disciplinary or otherwise, shall be effected in accordance with any applicable laws, Executive orders, and regulations.
NRC NEWS U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 Office of Public Affairs Telephone 301/415-8200

 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov

 Web Site: www.nrc.gov

No. 03-099 July 25, 2003

 NRC FINDS INDIAN POINT MEETS REASONABLE ASSURANCE

 CRITERIA FOR EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) have distinct yet coordinated responsibilities for assessing emergency

preparedness associated with commercial nuclear facilities. FEMA has responsibility for

assessing off-site emergency preparedness, including the coordination and implementation of

radiological protection guidelines. NRC has responsibility for assessing on-site emergency

planning and preparedness; the specific requirements and oversight are established for NRC

licensees to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety. Ultimately, the NRC has the

overall responsibility for determining that there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective

measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at an NRC licensed

facility.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received the results of the Federal Emergency

Management Agency’s most recent review of the adequacy of off-site emergency preparedness

plans and procedures for the Indian Point nuclear power facility. FEMA has concluded: “After

carefully considering all available information, we have reasonable assurance that appropriate

protective measures to protect the health and safety of surrounding communities can be taken 

and are capable of being implemented in the event of a radiological incident at the Indian Point

facility.”

The NRC has determined, from its continuing evaluation of the licensee’s on-site

emergency planning and preparedness for radiological events, that Indian Point meets the

requisite criteria for reasonable assurance of adequate protection. Considering both FEMA’s offsite and NRC’s on-site emergency preparedness assessments, the NRC’s overall determination

continues to be that Indian Point emergency preparedness is satisfactory and provides reasonable

assurance of adequate protection.
- 2 -

The NRC and FEMA recognize that planning for possible emergencies is an ongoing

process. Efforts to improve emergency preparedness associated with the Indian Point facility

continue to be made by the State of New York, involved Counties, and the plant operator. The

NRC will continue to work closely with FEMA, state and local officials as well as the plant

operator to assure continued protection of the public health and safety. In that regard, plans will

be developed by the NRC and FEMA, and in coordination with state and local governments, for

the next emergency preparedness drill at Indian Point, which will include a simulated terrorist

scenario.

###