alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Turbodyne Technologies, Inc. ("Company") Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 ("Report"), the
undersigned certifies 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 results of operations of the Company.

Date: November 14, 2008

By:    /s/ Debi Kokinos
Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF KEVCO, INC. FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                              77
<SECURITIES>                                         0<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,322<F2>
<ALLOWANCES>                                       132
<INVENTORY>                                     34,988
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                61,702
<PP&E>                                          26,204
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,641
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 114,578
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,575
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            68
<OTHER-SE>                                      40,329
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   114,578
<SALES>                                        271,957
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               276,370
<CGS>                                          235,138
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,738
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,354
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,140
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,056
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,084
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,084
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.88
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
<FN>
<F1>AMOUNTS INAPPLICABLE OR NOT DISCLOSED AS A SEPARATE LINE ON THE STATEMENT OF
FINANCIAL POSITION OR RESULTS OF OPERATIONS ARE REPORTED AS 0 HEREIN.
<F2>*NOTES AND ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE - TRADE ARE REPORTED NET OF ALLOWANCES FOR
DOUBTFUL ACCOUNTS IN THE STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
### **CHAPTER 451—ALCOHOL AND CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES TESTING**

Sec.
45101.
Definition.
45102.
Alcohol and controlled substances testing programs.
45103.
Prohibited service.
45104.
Testing and laboratory requirements.
45105.
Rehabilitation.
45106.
Relationship to other laws, regulations, standards, and orders.
45107.
Transportation Security Administration.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2001**—Pub. L. 107–71, title I, §139(5), Nov. 19, 2001, 115 Stat. 641, added item 45107.
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Samuel Flasterstein et al., as Executors of Isidor Flasterstein, Deceased, Respondents. Lee M. T. Flasterstein, Appellant.

Motion by appellant to discontinue appeal from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, dated May 13, 1960, granted; appeal discontinued, without costs. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Arelis Jasmin L. and Another, Children Alleged to be Permanently Neglected. Damaris L., Appellant; The Salvation Army, Respondent.

[835 NYS2d 108]

*434Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Jody Adams, J.), entered December 5, 2005, which terminated respondent’s parental rights following a fact-finding determination that she had permanently neglected the children, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There was clear and convincing evidence that despite petitioner’s diligent efforts to strengthen the parental relationship *(Matter of Jamie M.,*63 NY2d 388, 393 [1984]), respondent mother permanently neglected her daughters by failing to plan for their future, particularly by failing to attend therapy consistently, and by refusing to accept the finding that her brother had sexually abused her oldest daughter when the child was seven years old or acknowledge her own responsibility to protect her children from the risk of future abuse (Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]; *Matter of Star Leslie W.,*63 NY2d 136, 142-143 [1984]; *Matter of Orlando F.,*40 NY2d 103, 110 [1976]).

A preponderance of the evidence supported termination of parental rights based upon the best interests of the children (Family Ct Act § 631) to permit them to proceed to adoption by the foster mother with whom they had lived for most of their lives and had bonded and thrived *(Matter of Star Leslie W., supra,*63 NY2d at 147-148).

The court also properly denied the mother’s motion to vacate the fact-finding determination, as there was no showing of a connection between the investigation of the former agency and the records prepared for this case. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, McGuire and Kavanagh, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                        1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                                  7
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          21
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                           504
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      742
<PP&E>                                               2026
<DEPRECIATION>                                        898
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       2054
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 856
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             1
<COMMON>                                               11
<OTHER-SE>                                           1186
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         2054
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      284
<CGS>                                                 369
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        1199
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (907)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (907)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (907)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (.08)



</TABLE>
#### Lawrence Dietz, Jr., Appellant, v. Lucie M. Dietz, Respondent.

In an action by the husband against his wife for a judicial separation, in which she counterclaimed for the same relief, plaintiff appeals: (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated December 31, 1960, which, as a condition to granting his motion to open his default in appearing at the *973trial, to vacate the inquest taken against him upon defendant’s counterclaim and to restore the action to the calendar for trial, required him to pay $50 costs and to serve and file a notice restoring the action to the calendar for a date not later than January 16, 1961; and which, in the event of his noneompliance with such conditions, denied his motion unconditionally with $50 costs; and (2) from the decision of said court holding that plaintiff’s default was deliberate and unjustifiable. Order modified as follows: (1) by extending until March 1, 1961, plaintiff’s time to serve and file a notice to restore the action to the calendar for trial at the earliest available date to be fixed by the clerk of the court, in the event that prior to March 1, 1961 the plaintiff shall have paid the $50 costs; and (2) by denying his motion unconditionally without costs, instead of with $50 costs, in the event that plaintiff shall not have paid said costs within the time prescribed. As so modified, order affirmed without costs. Appeal from decision dismissed. No appeal lies from a decision. In our opinion, under all the circumstances, it was a proper exercise of discretion to require plaintiff to pay $50 costs as a condition to opening his default. However, if plaintiff shall fail to make such payment and to comply with such condition, with the result that his motion to open his default is denied unconditionally, then plaintiff should not be further penalized by also being required to pay the $50 costs in addition to suffering the unconditional denial of his motion. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Pette, JJ., concur.
§ 254.46 Whom do I notify if an oil spill occurs? ( a ) You must immediately notify the National Response Center (1-800-424-8802) if you observe: ( 1 ) An oil spill from your facility;
( 2 ) An oil spill from another offshore facility; or
( 3 ) An offshore spill of unknown origin.
( b ) In the event of a spill of 1 barrel or more from your facility, you must orally notify the Regional Supervisor without delay. You also must report spills from your facility of unknown size but thought to be 1 barrel or more. ( 1 ) If a spill from your facility not originally reported to the Regional Supervisor is subsequently found to be 1 barrel or more, you must then report it without delay.
( 2 ) You must file a written follow up report for any spill from your facility of 1 barrel or more. The Chief, OSPD must receive this confirmation within 15 days after the spillage has been stopped. All reports must include the cause, location, volume, and remedial action taken. Reports of spills of more than 50 barrels must include information on the sea state, meteorological conditions, and the size and appearance of the slick. The Regional Supervisor may require additional information if it is determined that an analysis of the response is necessary.
( c ) If you observe a spill resulting from operations at another offshore facility, you must immediately notify the responsible party and the Regional Supervisor.
[76 FR 64462, Oct. 18, 2011, as amended at 81 FR 36153, June 6, 2016]
In-Person Attendees: Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Public Meeting & Availability of the Framework Document for Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machines Meeting Date: Thursday, June 20, 2013 Name Title Organization Street City State Zip Phone Fax Altman, Ari General Counsil N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Bapanapalli, Ph.D., Satish Senior Research Scientist/Engineer Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) 902 Battelle Boulevard (MSIN: K5-22) Richland WA 99352 509-375-3630509-375-2379 Brookman, Douglas Facilitator Public Solutions, Inc. 108 Newburg Avenue Baltimore MD 21228 410-719-0580410-719-0581 Collins, Jim Director of Engineering Automated Merchandising Systems 255 West Burr Boulevard KearneysvilleWV 25430 304-725-6921 304-725-6921 Davies, Stephen M. N/A US Army, USA-OBT 2521 S. Clark Street, Suite 1010 N/A N/A N/A 703-601-9573 N/A Llenza, Charles F. Project Manager/Engineer U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington DC 20585 202-586-2192202-287-1590 Mathis, James R. Regulatory Lab Manager Crane Merchandising Systems 3330 Dixie Narco Boulevard Williston SC 29853-0719803-266-5000 x 379 803-266-5041 Mau, Michael Senior Refrigeration Engineer Royal Vendors, Inc. 426 Industrial Boulevard KearneysvilleWV 25430 304-728-7056 x 445 304-725-6579 Menzer, Mark N/A N/A 11112 Chessington Place Reston VA 20194 703-435-4433 N/A Morris, Scott Statistician and Energy Analyst Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) 902 Battelle Boulevard P.O. Box 999, MSIN K6-05Richland WA 99532 509-372-6454N/A Negandhi, Dipak J. Vice-President Roayl Vendors, Inc. Bardane Industrial Park, 426 Industrial Boulevard KearneysvilleWV 25430 304-728-8069 x 329 304-725-4728 Present, Elaina N/A Navigant Consulting, Inc. 1200 19th Street, N.W. Suite700 Washington DC N/A 202-973-4504N/A Sachs, Ph.D, HarveySenior Fellow, Buildings Program American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy (ACEEE) National Press Building 529 14th Street NW Suite 600 Washington DC 20045 202-507-4014202-429-2248 Weber, Collin Consultant Navigant Consulting 1801 K Street NW Suite 500 Washington DC 20006 202-973-2400 Main 202-973-2401
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 21, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-10550

Conference Calendar

DANIEL GAUDETTE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

K. J. WENDT; GORDON TRUEBLOOD; KAREN FERNANDERS;

SCOTT CROWE; JOSEPH CAPPS,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:05-CV-245

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

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Daniel Gaudette, federal prisoner # 04208-180, moves this

court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal

following the district court’s dismissal of his pro se and IFP

complaint brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents,

403 U.S. 388 (1971). The district court dismissed the complaint

as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). We construe

Gaudette’s motion as a challenge to the district court’s
No. 05-10550

-2-

determination that the appeal is not taken in good faith. See

Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). 

Gaudette argues that his appeal should proceed because he

“made an honest mistake” by failing to provide all of his

evidence to the district court. Gaudette does not, however, give

any indication what evidence he failed to submit, nor does he

allege that he was precluded from presenting such evidence. He

argues only that because he was proceeding pro se, he thought

that the district court would give him “some leniency.” 

Gaudette was allowed to develop his claims through his

responses to the magistrate judge’s questionnaire. See Eason v.

Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 9-10 (5th Cir. 1994). Gaudette was provided

with ample opportunity to provide evidence, and the record shows

that he made use of that opportunity. His suggestion that the

district court failed to afford his pro se pleadings liberal

construction is without merit. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.

519, 520 (1972).

Gaudette has failed to establish that he seeks to present a

nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, his motion for IFP

is denied, and the appeal dismissed as frivolous. See Baugh,

117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The motion for

appointment of counsel is denied. We caution Gaudette that he

has accumulated two strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See

Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). If he

accumulates a total of three strikes, Gaudette may no longer
No. 05-10550

-3-

proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is

incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under

imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g);

Carson v. Johnson, 112 F.3d 818, 819 (5th Cir. 1997). 

MOTION FOR IFP DENIED; MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
### §862. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act Sept. 21, 1922, ch. 365, 42 Stat. 993, conferred on the courts of Puerto Rico jurisdiction of offenses under act Oct. 28, 1919, ch. 85, 41 Stat. 305, the National Prohibition Act.
Exhibit 99.4 Aggregate Statement of Principal and Interest Distributions to
            Certificateholders as of December 31, 2004

            STRUCTURED ASSET SECURITIES CORPORATION
            MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES
            SERIES 2004-GEL2

               Original    Beginning
Class           Balance      Balance   Principal     Interest
A1          75300000.00  75300000.00 19363844.43    722186.04
A2          32272000.00  32272000.00  8298937.42    346379.06
M1          11005000.00  11005000.00        0.00    137188.03
M2           8875000.00   8875000.00        0.00    144841.24
M3           6745000.00   6745000.00        0.00    185487.48
M4           2982000.00   2982000.00        0.00     82005.00
B            4830288.00   4830288.00        0.00    132832.92
P                  0.00         0.00        0.00    258283.46
Owner Cert         0.00         0.00        0.00         0.00


                              Ending
Class             Loss       Balance
A1                0.00   55936155.57
A2                0.00   23973062.58
M1                0.00   11005000.00
M2                0.00    8875000.00
M3                0.00    6745000.00
M4                0.00    2982000.00
B                 0.00    4830288.00
P                 0.00          0.00
Owner Cert        0.00          0.00
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVEOFFICER OF TRAMMELL CROW COMPANYPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

In connection with the accompanying report onForm 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 and filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, RobertE. Sulentic, Chief Executive Officer of Trammell Crow Company (the “Company”),hereby certify that:

1.                The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.                Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|        |   | /s/ Robert E. Sulentic    |
|--------|--------|---------------------------|
|   |   | Name: Robert E.  Sulentic |
|   |   | Date: August 9,  2004     |

 

----
----

| (a) | the      Registration Statement (Form S-3/A Amendment No.      3 No. 333-141098) and related prospectus of OccuLogix, Inc.      for the registration of 9,441,749 shares of common stock;    and |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (b) | the      Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-124505) pertaining      to the Employees’ Stock Option Plan of OccuLogix,  Inc. |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| March      14, 2008  | /s/      Ernst & Young LLP   |
|----------------------|----------------------------------|
| Toronto,      Canada | Chartered      Accountants       |
|                 | Licensed      Public Accountants |

----
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. George D. Shook, Appellant, against Walter B. Martin, as Warden of Attica Prison, Respondent.

— Motion granted and appeal dismissed, without costs. Memorandum: We denied leave in this case to prosecute the appeal on typewritten papers on March 12, 1958, because it appeared to us on the face of the papers that habeas corpus was not the proper remedy.
#### In the Matter of Janet Winters, Also Known as Susan J. Sullivan, Appellant, v. City Magistrates’ Court of the City of New York, Girls’ Term, Respondent.

Motion to dispense with printing granted. The appeal will be heard on the original papers (including the typed minutes) and on a typewritten brief. The appellant is directed to file six copies of her brief, and to serve one copy of the minutes and her brief on the Corporation Counsel. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Christ, Pette and Brennan, J.J., concur.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

PETER M. GATLIN, a.k.a. Peter Gatlin,

a.k.a. Peter Marshell Gatlin,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-50623

D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00532-SJO

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 25, 2011** 

Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. 

Peter M. Gatlin appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed following his

guilty-plea conviction for passing materially altered postal money orders, and

aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 500, 2(a), and for being a felon in

FILED

OCT 28 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-50623

possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Gatlin contends that the district court gave undue weight to his extended

criminal history and to additional conduct described in the presentence report

(“PSR”), and that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court’s

consideration of conduct described in the PSR was not improper, see United States

v. Columbus, 881 F.2d 785, 787 (9th Cir. 1989), and the sentence is reasonable in

light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing

factors. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v.

Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108-09 (9th Cir. 2010).

AFFIRMED.