alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**





In
      connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Internet Infinity, Inc.
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the
“Report”), I, Roger Casas, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
      certify that to my knowledge:





(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78o(d)); and





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


Dated:
                  November 13, 2007*/s/
                  Roger Casas*Roger
                  CasasChief
                  Executive Officer





The
      above
      certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB
      or as a separate disclosure document.




Exhibit
        32
Order entered March 6 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 12
- 01161
- CR
ELOY SANCHEZ, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Caus e No. F08
- 24673
- L 

### O RDER
The Court ORDER S court reporter Debi Harris to file, within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this order, a supplemental record containing copies of State’s Exhibit nos. 12 and 14,
DVDs.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this ord er, by electronic transmission, to Debi Harris, Deputy Official Court Reporter, Criminal District Court No. 5, and to counsel for all parties.

.
/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
#### § 19.9 Pension benefits for former spouses.
### §291n–1. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title VI, §637, formerly §654(c), as added July 12, 1954, ch. 471, §3, 68 Stat. 463; renumbered §637 and amended Aug. 14, 1959, Pub. L. 86–158, title II, §201, 73 Stat. 349, related to transfers of allotments between States, prior to the general amendment of this subchapter by Pub. L. 88–443, Aug. 18, 1964, 78 Stat. 447. See section 291b of this title.
!""
"#$
#

%&


'
(



	

)*
*+,

 	
 -	
.

,
 	
/-


'0 '&"$


"1
"2
#"#

"

$$

"

1#$
 34 +5%67!'7	
7
/

 
0

2$


89
#:








89$
"#
"#



""
$
#$)
"

"$$)(#
*
#$
$
$


$
"
;""
)3"<4##

$#"$<
*"
"
*

1#$


89"
"#)#


$
"1#$
$

!./	
)$

&
$$

""	
/8=-

>'/=

5
9##
$"$$

$$

"

#

)%<*"$"





#
$$
"$

$

#
"!$,3
?$




#
&)$$&

$$

2$")&1
"
)#
)#


$$

$#-	
4

*


#<
*)


#$);
#)*
< "$$

<

##


$$
$$

$
4

"1


<


$



,<&)

&
3

)))

.#)


#

$




0 
%""

.#)
#### In the Matter of Suzanne Kissane, Appellant, v Brian J. Wing et al., Respondents.

[717 NYS2d 45]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered February 22, 1999, which denied petitioner’s application for attorneys’ fees, and order, same court and Justice, entered August 2, 1999, which, to the extent appealable, denied so much of petitioner’s motion as sought renewal, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner is not entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees under 42 USC § 1988 (b) because she did not establish that she had a viable claim under 42 USC § 1983, based on an official policy or practice of respondents *(see, Matter of Auguste v Wing,*244 AD2d 252; *Matter of Riley v Dowling,*221 AD2d 446). Nor has petitioner established that the court erred in determining that she was not entitled to attorneys’ fees pursuant to CPLR 8601 *(see, Matter of Mitchell v Bane,*218 AD2d 537, 541, *Iv dismissed*88 NY2d 1003).

Petitioner’s motion, to the extent that it sought renewal, was properly denied since the alleged newly-discovered misrepresentation was immaterial to the issue of petitioner’s entitlement to attorneys’ fees. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Saxe, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 20

- 00172

- CV

MYERS

- WOODWARD, LLC

v. UNDERGROUND SERVICES MARKHAM, LLC AND UNITED BRINE PIPELINE COMPANY LLC

On Appeal from the 130th District Court of Matagorda County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 13

- E

- 0218

JUDGMEN T THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and re manded i n part, and reversed and render ed in part, and affirmed in part

. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED and REMAND ED IN PART, REVERSED AND RENDERED IN PART, and AFFIRMED IN PART . Costs of the appeal will be taxed against the party incur ring the same

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. J une 16, 2022
§ 120.31 Defense article. ( a ) *Defense article* means any item or technical data designated in § 121.1 of this subchapter and includes: ( 1 ) Technical data recorded or stored in any physical form, models, mockups or other items that reveal technical data directly relating to items designated in § 121.1 of this subchapter; and
( 2 ) Forgings, castings, and other unfinished products, such as extrusions and machined bodies, that have reached a stage in manufacturing where they are clearly identifiable by mechanical properties, material composition, geometry, or function as defense articles.
( b ) It does not include basic marketing information on function or purpose or general system descriptions.
( c ) The policy described in § 120.3 is applicable to designations of additional items.
§ 1471.6 Preliminary hearing procedures. When the Panel determines that a hearing is necessary under § 1471.5 it will: ( a ) Appoint one or more of its designees to conduct such hearing; and
( b ) Issue and serve upon each of the parties a notice of hearing and a notice of prehearing conference, if any. The notice will state ( 1 ) the names of the parties to the dispute;
( 2 ) the date, time, place, type, and purpose of the hearing;
( 3 ) the date, time, place, and purpose of the prehearing conference, if any;
( 4 ) the name of the designated representative appointed by the Panel; and
( 5 ) the issues to be resolved.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 237 (Friday, December 10, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71814-71815]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27268]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Notices

DATE AND TIME: Thursday, December 16, 2004, at 10 a.m.

PLACE: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).

[[Page 71815]]


STATUS: This meeting will be open to the public.
    The following item has been added to the Agenda: Treasurers' 
Policy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Biersack, Press Officer, 
telephone (202) 694-1220.

Mary W. Dove,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 04-27268 Filed 12-8-04; 12:37 pm]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-M
### Re: ppm-hours data Vicki Sandiford to: Susan Stone 02/08/2010 01:03 PM Cc: David Schonbrunn, David Mintz, Tricia Crabtree

Dear David Schhonbrunn, Please see pages 3021 to 3026 in the January 19, 2010 Ozone Federal Register Notice available on the EPA Technology Transfer Network (TTN). The sections covered in these pages describe how the Administrator reached her proposed decision regarding an appropriate range of levels to consider in the context of the current reconsideration of the 2008 secondary standard. If you are unable to get access to the FRN, I would be happy to send you a file with the relevant pages included. Thank you for your interest. Vicki Sandiford

Victoria Sandiford Environmental Scientist Ambient Standards Group (C504-06) Health and Environmental Impacts Division Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 109 TW Alexander Drive Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 sandiford.vicki@epa.gov Phone: 919-541-2629 FAX: 919-541-0237

Susan Stone 02/08/2010 11:56:06 AM Dear David Schhonbrunn: By copy of this mess...

From: Susan Stone/RTP/USEPA/US To: David Schonbrunn <David@Schonbrunn.org> Cc: Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, David Mintz/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Vicki Sandiford/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 02/08/2010 11:56 AM Subject: Re: ppm-hours data

Dear David Schhonbrunn: By copy of this message, I am asking David Mintz to point you to any additional mapping information, other than the maps we had at the public hearing; and I'm asking Vicki Sandiford to point you to the location in the Federal Register notice where we discuss our rationale for the proposed range. David M. and Vicki, if you would please copy Tricia Crabtree on your responses so that we can ensure that communications are entered into the public docket. David Schonbrunn, I hope this information will be useful. Best regards, Susan

Susan Lyon Stone Ambient Standards Group l US EPA (C504-06) l Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Phone: 919-541-1146 l Fax: 919- 541-0237 l HSD Phone 919-966-6226

David Schonbrunn 02/04/2010 09:09:31 PM Susan, I would appreciate being able to look at t...
Exhibit
32.2





Section
1350 Certification of Principal Financial Officer





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 of INX Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended June 30, 2008 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Brian Fontana, Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.





By:
            /s/ BRIAN FONTANABrian
      Fontana, Vice Presidentand
      Chief Financial Officer





August
12, 2008
.... 

==- \\_~ffi-~ ~~ ~~L\J ______ -\))_~~\~~ -~n_cl __ _ \ \ · Q.,\-- \~~ o\\e>-- D~,· e_. 

-----~-G9 . ~ Lb C\ s;r; ' , T .e aS I~ 4 D I ) Df'l 

~I':"-X-2:j . -rD\_;0., ~-e... {)~~ "Dcx-\-.OD~ 

' v 0 ____ ~" s \ S:, \-' -S 4 s~ re_€:b 

cl "3 O C? ~O\'C\€.S '{Y\ "f\o\-\\e_r- O-\\cl_ 

CL~ \ \V ~~ '\\e_x tJ0r-hO 
--

1 \\ E2_ ~Q_\-\- ' \ ~h ·,--\ ) 'o ±b e J 

I Qss\- , '0t\ D s-t o ~ fu e_ c_v-; \ld t:=£f) 

- -------fi--1 ~~

\ss;:u-e.-___ss:t:_a '- _ a.\\ 

€___ 

\::-\rd~ 

'fY\ 

,=llien ~ 

~ €-'r€ o. \ 6 + o-? ""D '~ ri:\0 

. - )e__ 
~~Q)c\'D ~ \S. S 0 ---!11--"¥--\---=-'--· 

.,... 

--4F~\__Q_~Q-._ \__ ? r-ab\ -e__m · d.s £.1.)~ -- ~ 

-=--~~-t:Ll{r/cL j,·/(-r Jc ere/£ 7-) i£,· C 

t1 f-JI- (' /c;./ ·J-h q f -/A e £/>q "5"' Aav'/hy 

___ __....,.~'-----(;L..L-'.L.-~ r"'al ) 11.9---: /; 'L f: (M:-f' J.a 'e q 1-b 011 • '...)oA; 

/t7r, ocfi4 £)/, -e .eH~CJf'~t& yb-,-eT'-3 

--~~~J c/~h~-- _z·cca C]t,. ~ ~ o./ker c;ryei/C'>/£ 

v /lor,£, CJ-e hal/~ never A eadarJ?y
###### Editorial Note on Part 133

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 133 appear at 68 FR 66582, Nov. 26, 2003.

#### § 133.115 Does this part affect the Federal contracts that I receive?

It will affect future contract awards indirectly if you are debarred or suspended for a violation of the requirements of this part, as described in § 133.510(c). However, this part does not apply directly to procurement contracts. The portion of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 that applies to Federal procurement contracts is carried out through the Federal Acquisition Regulation in chapter 1 of Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations (the drug-free workplace coverage currently is in 48 CFR part 23, subpart 23.5).
Government & Industry Affairs 

1050 K Street, NW Suite 900 

Washington, D.C. 20001 

(202) 962-8550 

April 19, 2012 

To: Docket Number EERE-2008-BT-STD-005 

From: Ric Erdheim, Senior Counsel, Philips Electronics 

Re: Ex Parte Communication 

Participants: Peter Shreve and Ric Erdheim, Philips Electronics 

 Vic Petrolatti, DOE 

 Michael Kido, DOE General Counsel Office 

 Matt Nardotti, Navigant Consulting 

Discussion: Philips staff asked a series of questions regarding the application of the test 

procedure and the proposed standard for class I inductive charge battery chargers. 

1) Philips asked whether based on statements in the TSD it would be technically feasible 

for appliances with Ni based batteries to meet the proposed Class 1 (inductive 

connection) standard. DOE staff said the proposed standard is not a technology based 

standard so that any technology that met the standard was permissible but DOE staff 

was unaware of any technologies that would allow the use of nickel based batteries in 

compliance with the proposed standard. DOE staff said the Philips could comment on 

the cost of shifting to lithium ion batteries or any loss of utility from such a shift. 

2) Philips asked whether the energy used to power LEDs that show battery charge level 

must be included in the energy consumption measurement. DOE staff said that under 

the proposal LED energy use must be included, but that Philips could provide comments 

that LEDs provide a ‘utility’ for the user and therefore the energy used for this purpose 

should not be considered as part of the energy use calculation. 

3) Philips asked for clarification of the term “tcd.” The NOPR defined it as ‘charge test 

duration’ when it is more precisely ‘charge and maintenance test duration’ as defined in 

the test procedure and TSD. The term could be interpreted as just the ‘charge’ portion 

of the ‘charge and maintenance’ test duration. DOE staff confirmed that this term 

includes both the ‘charge and maintenance’ test duration. E.g. if a handle was fully 

charged in 19 hours or less, Tcd = 24 hours. 

4) Philips asked for clarification of the definition of “Ebatt.” The NOPR references section 

5.6 of the test procedure, but section 5.6 (Testing Charge Mode and Battery 

Maintenance Mode) does not address Ebatt. DOE staff suggested that we provide a 

comment to request a clarification in the rule on this issue. 

5) Philips asked for a clarification of the equation shown in section 2.2 of test procedure. 

The equation is used to define ‘real’ power in Watts, but the equation shows VA. The 

equation is missing the power factor term. 

6) Philips asked for a clarification of the duration of the charge and maintenance mode test 

for a battery charging system that uses trickle charging exclusively without any ‘full 

charge’ indication. DOE staff said that 24 hours should be used, regardless of the actual 

charge time.
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 quarterly report of Medical Media Television,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on August 21, 2006 (the  "Report"),
I, Donald R.  Mastropietro,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  ss.  906  of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

/s/ Donald R. Mastropietro
Donald R. Mastropietro
Chief Financial Officer
August 21, 2006

A signed  original of this  certification  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.
SAT Report

PMN Number: P-13-0365

SAT Date: 4/12/2013

Print Date: 5/1/2013

Related cases:

Health related cases: 

Ecotox related cases: 

Concern levels:

Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments

Level of Concern: 1-2 1

 Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments

1 1 1 PMN

3 1 1 Hyd Pdt

Exposure Based Review:

Health:

Ecotox: No

Routes of exposure: Health: Dermal Inhalation 

Ecotox: No releases to water

Fate: ; Hyd Pdt negl

Keywords:

 Keywords: ONCO; MUTA; SENS-L,S; IRR-L,MM

Summary of Assessment:

 Fate:

Fate Summary: P-13-0365

FATE: MW = 1390 with 0% < 500 and 10.1% < 1000

Hydrolysis half-life = hr

VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 C (E)

H < 1.00E-8 (E)

POTW removal (%) = PMN 90-99 via hydrolysis; then Hyd Pdt 90 via sorption
Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg > mo

Sorption to soils/sediments = v.strong

PBT Potential: PMN P1B1; Hyd Pdt P3B1

*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl

 Health:

 Health Summary: Absorption is nil all routes as the neat material (pchem); 

poor all routes for the low molecular weight fraction (10% <1000) if in solution (pchem). 

Concern for oncogenicity based on 70% <500, 90% 

<1000]; mutagenicity based on respiratory and dermal sensitization and lung and 

mucous membrane irritation based on the 

 Ecotox:

Test Organism Test 

Type

Test End 

Point

Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 *

daphnid 48-h LC50 *

green algal 96-h EC50 *

fish _ chronic value *

daphnid _ chronic 

value

*

algal _ chronic 

value

*

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50 _

Sewage Sludge _ Chronic 

Value

_

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for SAR 

chemical class = mw = 1390 with 10.1% < 1000 and 0% < 500; 

pH7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients 

and mean measured concentrations; hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments

Assessment Factor 10

Concentration of Concern 

(ppb)

*

SARs

SAR Class

Ecotox Category 

Ecotox Factors Comments: 

 SAT Chair: L Keifer 564-8916
### §290cc–24. Determination of amount of allotment

#### (a) Minimum allotment

The allotment for a State under section 290cc–21 of this title for a fiscal year shall be the greater of—

(1) $300,000 for each of the several States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and $50,000 for each of Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; and

(2) an amount determined in accordance with subsection (b).

#### (b) Determination under formula

The amount referred to in subsection (a)(2) is the product of—

(1) an amount equal to the amount appropriated under section 290cc–35(a) of this title for the fiscal year; and

(2) a percentage equal to the quotient of—

(A) an amount equal to the population living in urbanized areas of the State involved, as indicated by the most recent data collected by the Bureau of the Census; and

(B) an amount equal to the population living in urbanized areas of the United States, as indicated by the sum of the respective amounts determined for the States under subparagraph (A).

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title V, §524, as added Pub. L. 100–77, title VI, §611(3), July 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 517; amended Pub. L. 101–645, title V, §511, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4728.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 524 of act July 1, 1944, was renumbered section 545 by section 611(2) of Pub. L. 100–77 and is classified to section 290ee of this title.

#### Amendments

1990—Pub. L. 101–645 amended section generally, substituting provisions relating to determination of amount of allotment for provisions relating to requiring provision of certain mental health services.
C O N F I D E N T I A LC O N F I D E N T I A LC O N F I D E N T I A L
#### In the Matter of William Bowman, Appellant, et al., Petitioners, v. Paul D. McGinnis, as Commissioner of Correction of the State of New York, Respondent. In the Matter of Ralph A. LaValley, Appellant, v. Paul D. McGinnis, as Commissioner of Correction of the State of New York, Respondent. In the Matter of Bismark Bennett, Jr., Appellant, et al., Petitioners, v. Paul D. McGinnis, as Commissioner of Correction of the State of New York, Respondent. In the Matter of Leon Chaverous, Appellant, et al., Petitioners, v. Paul D. McGinnis, as Commissioner of Correction of the State of New York, Respondent.

Motions by appellants to extend their time to perfect the appeals granted; time extended to the February Term, beginning January 30, 1961. The appeals are ordered on the calendar for said term. Appellants’ briefs must be served and filed on or before January 9, 1961. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

 

Management of K-Star Asset Management LLC

 

We have examined management of K-Star Asset Management LLC’s (the “Company”) assertion that the Company complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for all transactions for which the Company acted as special servicer (the “Platform”), excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(ii), 1122(d)(3)(i)-1122(d)(3)(iv), 1122(d)(4)(ii), 1122(d)(4)(iv)-1122(d)(4)(v), 1122(d)(4)(ix)-1122(d)(4)(xiii), and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Assessment of Compliance with the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB Servicing Criteria dated March 13, 2024 as of and for the year ended December 31, 2023. The Company’s management is responsible for its assertion. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with the specified requirements based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Those standards require that we plan and perform the examination to obtain reasonable assurance about whether management’s assertion about compliance with the specified requirements is fairly stated, in all material respects. An examination involves performing procedures to obtain evidence about whether management’s assertion is fairly stated, in all material respects. The nature, timing, and extent of the procedures selected depend on our judgment, including an assessment of the risks of material misstatement of management’s assertion, whether due to fraud or error. We believe that the evidence we obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

 

We are required to be independent and to meet our other ethical responsibilities in accordance with relevant ethical requirements relating to the engagement.

 

Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the specified requirements.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Assessment of Compliance with Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB Servicing Criteria dated March 13, 2024 as of and for the year ended December 31, 2023 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

 

 

Greenville, South Carolina

March 13, 2024

 

----