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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Vice President and Cashier of Communitycorp (the Company), each certify that, to his or
her knowledge on the date of this certification:



| | 1. | The quarterly report of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (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.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |     |  |                                      
|------------------ |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: May 12, 2010 |  | By: |  | /s/ W. Roger Crook                   
|                   |  |     |  | W. Roger Crook                       
|                   |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                   |  |    
|Date: May 12, 2010 |  | By: |  | /s/ Gwendolyn P. Bunton              
|                   |  |     |  | Gwendolyn P. Bunton                  
|                   |  |     |  | Vice President and Cashier
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2798 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2798

 To authorize the disinterment from the American Ardennes Cemetery at 
   Neuville-en-Condroz, Belgium, of the remains of Sergeant Roaul R. 
Prieto, who died in combat in April 1945, and to authorize the transfer 
                   of his remains to his next of kin.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 8, 2005

  Mrs. Bono introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize the disinterment from the American Ardennes Cemetery at 
   Neuville-en-Condroz, Belgium, of the remains of Sergeant Roaul R. 
Prieto, who died in combat in April 1945, and to authorize the transfer 
                   of his remains to his next of kin.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF DISINTERMENT AND TRANSFER OF CUSTODY OF 
              REMAINS OF A SPECIFIED AMERICAN WORLD WAR II FATALITY 
              INTERRED IN THE AMERICAN ARDENNES CEMETERY, BELGIUM.

    (a) Disinterment.--The Secretary of the Army and the American 
Battle Monuments Commission shall take such steps as are necessary to 
authorize the next of kin of Sergeant Roaul R. Prieto, United States 
Army, who died on April 6, 1945, as a result of a mid-air collision 
during a bombing mission over Leipzig, Germany, to disinter his remains 
from the American Ardennes Cemetery, Neuville-en-Condroz, Belgium (such 
remains being interred in Plot A, Row 41, Grave 46).
    (b) Transfer.--The Secretary of the Army and the American Battle 
Monuments Commission shall take such steps as are necessary to 
authorize the transfer of the remains of Roaul R. Prieto to the custody 
of his next of kin.
    (c) No Expenditure of Federal Funds.--No Federal funds may be 
expended for the disinterment and transfer of custody authorized by 
this section.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Robert Haigler, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[835 NYS2d 461]—

Froceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this *922Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Charged with smuggling, refusing a direct order and refusing a frisk, petitioner was found guilty following a tier III disciplinary hearing. After an administrative appeal, the determination was affirmed. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination.

We confirm. The misbehavior report and the testimony of two correction officers who witnessed the events provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Price v Goord,*29 AD3d 1203,1204 [2006]). Petitioner’s exculpatory statements as to the nature of his acts and testimony of his witnesses presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve *(see Matter of Miller v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs.,*295 AD2d 714, 714-715 [2002]). Petitioner’s argument that he was denied access to records in the form of a surveillance videotape is without merit as the record establishes that no recording existed *(see Matter of Cornwall v Goord,*287 AD2d 911, 911-912 [2001]).

Mercure, J.R, Spain, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
(June 14, 1960)

#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Eddie Hodges against Harry Silberglitt, as Warden of the City Prison, Borough of Manhattan.

Motion for an order modifying the order of this court entered May 18, 1960 granted, the appellant having complied with the terms and conditions contained in the order to show cause, dated May 31, 1960. Respondent’s points are to be served and filed on or before June 14, 1960 and the appeal is to be argued or submitted on June 16, 1960. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente and Bergan, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 99.5**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ENGINEERS**

 

We hereby consent to the use of and reference to our name andour reports, and the inclusion of information derived from our reports, evaluating Vermilion Energy Inc.’s petroleum andnatural gas reserves and resources as at December 31, 2015, in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of Vermilion Energy Inc.

 

Yours truly,

 

*(“GLJ Petroleum Consultants Ltd.”)*

 

GLJ Petroleum Consultants Ltd.

4100, 400 - 3rd Avenue S.W.,

Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 4H2

(403) 266-9500 Fax (403) 262-1855

 

March 4, 2016
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT In re : APPLIC ATION PUR SUANT TO 28 U.S.C . § 1782 TO TAKE DISC OVER

Y OF ASM L U.S., INC .

------------------------------ NIKON C ORPOR

ATION, Pe t i tione r-Appe lle e , v. ASM L U.S., INC .,

R e sponde nt-Appe lla

nt. No. 17-16961

D.C . No. 2:17-m c -00035-JJT M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na John Joseph Tuc hi, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 7, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : GR

AB E R and N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s , a n d SIM ON, * * Distric t Judge . 

# FIL ED DEC 12 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble M ic ha e l H. Sim on, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ore g o n, sitting by de signa tion.ASM L U.S., Inc . , tim e ly a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r, in re s ponse to a re que s t by

Nikon C o rporation pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1782(a ), re quiring ASM L U.S. to produc e doc um e nts a nd othe r inform ation. R e vie wing for a b use of disc re tion, Four Pilla

rs Ente rs. C o. v. Ave ry

De nnison C orp., 308 F.3d 1075, 1078 (9th C ir. 2002), we a ffirm . The sta tutory re q u ire m e nts for disc ove ry

indisputa b ly are m e t. The distric t c ourt c are fully

c onside re d the fa c tors de sc ribe d by the Supre m e C o urt in Inte l C orp. v. Adva

n c e d M ic ro De v i c e s , Inc ., 542 U.S. 241, 264 (2004). On this rec ord, we c annot c onc lude tha

t the c ourt a

buse d its " broa d

disc re tion" in orde ring disc ove ry lim ite d to doc um e nts phy sic a lly

loc ate d within the

Unite d State s. Ake bia The ra pe utic s , Inc . v. FibroGe n, Inc ., 793 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th C ir. 2015). For e xam ple , e v e n for the doc um e nts loc at e d both in the Unite d Stat e s a nd a broa d , the se c o nd Inte l fa c tor is m e t be c a use Nikon’ s e xpe rts sta

te d, in unre butte d de c la ra tions, tha

t the fore ign tribunals would we lc om e the disc ove ra ble e vide nc e . Sim ila rly , we are unpe rsua de d tha t the disc o ve ry orde r im

pose s a n undue burde n on ASM L U.S., the fourth Inte l fa c tor. Eve n if a n a lte rnative we ighing of the fa c t ors we re re a s ona

ble , the distric t c ourt’ s de c i sion wa s not " (1) illogic a l, (2) im pla usible , or (3) without support in infe re nc e s tha t m ay be drawn from the fa c ts in the re c ord." M ujic a v. AirSc an Inc ., 771 F.3d 580, 589 (9th C i r. 2014) (inte rna l 2quota

t ion m arks om itte d). M o re ove r, no bright-line rule e xists in the

sta tute , Supre m e C ourt la

w, or our pre c e de nts— and we de c line to c re ate one — t o the e ffe c t that disc ove ry

m ust be de nie d for the sole re a son tha t the sa m e ite m s a

re found in anothe r c ountry . AFFIRM E D.

3
#### § 1000.518 When must a recipient obtain public comment on its annual performance report?

The recipient must make its report publicly available to tribal members, non-Indians served under NAHASDA, and other citizens in the Indian area, in sufficient time to permit comment before submission of the report to HUD. The recipient determines the manner and times for making the report available.

The recipient shall include a summary of any comments received by the grant beneficiary or recipient from tribal members, non-Indians served under NAHASDA, and other citizens in the Indian area.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2850 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2850

 To extend the suspension of duty on 1-Acetyl-4-(3-dodecyl-2,5-dioxo-1-
             pyrrolidinyl)-2,2,6,6-tetr amethylpiperidine.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 9, 2005

 Mrs. Myrick introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the suspension of duty on 1-Acetyl-4-(3-dodecyl-2,5-dioxo-1-
             pyrrolidinyl)-2,2,6,6-tetr amethylpiperidine.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. 1-ACETYL-4-(3-DODECYL-2,5-DIOXO-1-PYRROLIDINYL)-2,2,6,6-
              TETRAMETHYLPIPERIDINE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.04.06 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to 1-Acetyl-4-(3-dodecyl-2,5-
dioxo-1-pyrrolidinyl)-2,2,6,6-tetramethylpiperidine) is amended by 
striking ``12/31/2006'' and inserting ``12/31/2008''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
### §7274l–1. Vesting title in property interests related to energy development, demonstration, and deployment programs funded under Department of Energy appropriations

(a) Hereafter, for energy development, demonstration, and deployment programs funded under Department of Energy appropriations (other than those for the National Nuclear Security Administration and Office of Environmental Management) provided for fiscal year 2022, the current fiscal year, or any fiscal year thereafter (including by Acts other than appropriations Acts), the Secretary may vest unconditional title or other property interests acquired under projects in an award recipient, subrecipient, or successor in interest, including the United States, at the conclusion of the award period for projects receiving an initial award in fiscal year 2022 or later.

(b) Upon vesting unconditional title pursuant to subsection (a) in an award recipient, subrecipient, or successor in interest other than the United States, the United States shall have no liabilities or obligations to the property.

(c) For purposes of this section, the term "property interest" does not include any interest in intellectual property developed using funding provided under a project.

(Pub. L. 117–328, div. D, title III, §309, Dec. 29, 2022, 136 Stat. 4645.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2023, and also as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, and not as part of the Department of Energy Organization Act which comprises this chapter.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Leon Topf, Respondent, v American *1112Character Doll & Toy Co., et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed August 6, 1976. In 1961 claimant was found to have had a permanent partial disability and received the appropriate workmen’s compensation benefits. Claimant, pursuant to a vocational rehabilitation program approved by the Workmen’s Compensation Board, studied accounting. He was hired by the Cosmopolitan Mutual Insurance Company in January, 1966 and remained with that firm until November 29, 1974, when he was laid off because of adverse economic conditions. Claimant applied for and received Unemployment Insurance benefits and, thereafter, applied for and was awarded Workmen’s Compensation benefits. At the time of the lay off the claimant was earning in excess of his established average weekly wage. On appeal, the board found "claimant was classified permanently partially disabled with rate at $50.00. For period January 1, 1974 to November 24, 1974, there were no reduced earnings until he stopped working on November 29, 1974. Even if claimant works, due to his classification, there has been no proof to the contrary that he has this disability. Accordingly, the referee decision is affirmed” (decision dated Aug. 6, 1976). From that decision, this appeal ensued. It is undisputed that the claimant continues to suffer a permanent partial disability causally related to his 1961 injury. Although the immediate cause of claimant’s loss of his most recent employment was a reduction in work force owing to economic conditions, claimant would still be entitled to compensation if his disability was a limiting factor in the search for employment and, therefore, partly responsible for his inability to find other employment *(Matter of Dyke v Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.,*34 AD2d 713). Although it is true that where, as here, a claimant has a permanent partial disability such a disability permits an inference of lost wages *(Matter of Mazziotto*v *Brookfield Constr. Co.,*40 AD2d 245), such inferencé is not sufficient to overcome direct proof that a claimant’s loss of employment was caused solely by wage or economic conditions or other factors unrelated to his disability *(Matter of Schmitt v Alpha Delta Phi Fraternity House,*33 AD2d 1082). We find no substantial evidence in this record to support the board’s determination that the claimant’s disability was caused or even "partly responsible” for his loss of employment and, thus, his reduced earnings. There is no substantial evidence tending to establish a relationship between the claimant’s disability and his failure to find work. Claimant merely testified that he sought other employment unsuccessfully. The matter should be remitted for further evidence in this regard *(Matter of Boyle v Gatti,*40 AD2d 1063). Decision reversed, with costs to appellant against the Workmen’s Compensation Board, and matter remitted for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Main, Larkin and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C.

__________________________________________ ) Application of ) ) ISLAND WINGS LIMITED ) DOCKET DOT

- OST -2012-0150 ) for an exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 ) (Bahamas

- U.S. charters) ) __________________________________________)
APPLICATION OF ISLAND WINGS LIMITED FOR RENEWAL OF AN EXEMPTION

Communications with respect to this document should be sent to: John R. Mietus, Jr. Law Office of John Mietus, LLC 6701 Democracy Blvd., Suite 300 Bethesda, MD 20817-7500 (202) 747-5212 john@mietuslaw.com
Counsel for ISLAND WINGS LIMITED

NOTICE: Any person may support or oppose this application by filing an answer and serving a copy of the answer on counsel for Island Wings and upon persons served with this application no later than November 10, 2014.

October 24, 2014BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C.

__________________________________________ ) Application of ) ) ISLAND WINGS LIMITED ) DOCKET DOT

- OST -2012-0150 ) October 24, 2014 for an exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 ) (Bahamas

- U.S. charters) ) __________________________________________)
APPLICATION OF ISLAND WINGS LIMITED FOR RENEWAL OF AN EXEMPTION

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 40109(c), Island Wings Limited respectfully requests
renewal of the above -captioned exemption, granted by Notice of Action Taken dated October 29, 2013 (the “Notice”), for a n additional, one-year period. The Notice permits
Island Wings to engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail between a point or points in the Bahamas and a point or points in Florida, and other charters pursuant to 14 CFR Part 212 of the Department’s regulations, using small
aircraft. Island Wings intends to invoke the automatic extension provisions of 5 U.S.C. § 558(c) and Part 377 of the Department's Special Regulations. In support of this application, it states as follows:
1. Island Wings is a Bahamian flag carrier and intends to operate Bahamas -U.S.
charter service under the above- captioned charter authority. It remains licensed by the
Bahamian Department of Civil Aviation to perform charter air transportation, and Bahamas

U.S. charter operations remain governed by principles of comity and reciprocity that support the Department’s continued grant of authority. See, e.g., Cherokee Air, Ltd. , Notice of Action
§ 110.5 Definitions. ( a ) The terms *Department* and *Secretary* are defined in 24 CFR part 5.
( b ) *Discriminatory housing practice* means an act that is unlawful under section 804, 805, 806, or 818 of the Act.
( c ) *Dwelling* means any building, structure, or portion thereof which is occupied as, or designed or intended for occupancy as, a residence by one or more families, and any vacant land which is offered for sale or lease for the construction or location thereon of any such building, structure, or portion thereof.
( d ) *Family* includes a single individual.
( e ) *Person* includes one or more individuals, corporations, partnerships, associations, labor organizations, legal representatives, mutual companies, joint-stock companies, trusts, unincorporated organizations, trustees, trustees in cases under title 11 U.S.C., receivers and fiduciaries.
( f ) *Fair housing poster* means the poster prescribed by the Secretary for display by persons subject to sections 804-806 of the Act.
( g ) *The Act* means the Fair Housing Act (The Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988), 42 U.S.C. 3600, *et seq.*
( h ) *Person in the business of selling or renting dwellings* means a person as defined in section 803(c) of the Act.
[37 FR 3429, Feb. 16, 1972, as amended at 54 FR 3311, Jan. 23, 1989; 61 FR 5205, Feb. 9, 1996]
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-19-0000166 08-JAN-2020 07:46 AM
### §7154. Transfers from Department of Housing and Urban Development

(a) There is transferred to, and vested in, the Secretary the functions vested in the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development pursuant to section 304 of the Energy Conservation Standards for New Buildings Act of 1976 [42 U.S.C. 6833], to develop and promulgate energy conservation standards for new buildings. The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall provide the Secretary with any necessary technical assistance in the development of such standards. All other responsibilities, pursuant to title III of the Energy Conservation and Production Act [42 U.S.C. 6831 et seq.], shall remain with the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, except that the Secretary shall be kept fully and currently informed of the implementation of the promulgated standards.

(b) There is hereby transferred to, and vested in, the Secretary the functions vested in the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development pursuant to section 1701z–8 of title 12.

(Pub. L. 95–91, title III, §304, Aug. 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 580.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Energy Conservation and Production Act, referred to in subsec. (a), is Pub. L. 94–385, Aug. 14, 1976, 90 Stat. 1125. Title III of the Energy Conservation and Production Act, known as the Energy Conservation Standards for New Buildings Act of 1976, is classified generally to subchapter II (§6831 et seq.) of chapter 81 of this title. For complete classification of the Energy Conservation and Production Act and the Energy Standards for New Buildings Act of 1976 to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 6801 of this title and Tables.
* 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. 02-10344

Conference Calendar

 

JOHN H. CLOUD; SORETA CLOUD,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

JIMMY WEBB; UNKNOWN OTHERS; SUPERVISOR UNKNOWN,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:99-CV-207-R

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

October 28, 2002

Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

John Cloud, Texas inmate # 749521, appeals the dismissal of

his civil rights action, in which he also named his wife as a

plaintiff, as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). 

Cloud argues that the defendants retaliated against him after he

filed a prior civil rights action in which he alleged that the

same defendants had deprived him of legal property. 
No. 02-10344

-2-

Cloud fails to establish that but for a retaliatory motive

the complained-of incidents would not have occurred. See Woods

v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir. 1995); Jones v. Greninger,

188 F.3d 322, 324-25 (5th Cir. 1999). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### § 51.40 Burden of proof.

The applicant has the burden of proving that he or she is a U.S. citizen or non-citizen national.