alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
32.1




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 Cardima, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert Cheney, Chief
Executive 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 to the best of
my knowledge:





(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.








Company NameDate:
      May 14, 2009
              By:
              /s/
      Robert CheneyName Robert
      CheneyTitle Chief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer








This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed to be filed by the Company
for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  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.
No. 89-6408.

#### Taylor *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Order entered April 14, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00377-CV

IN THE BEST INTEREST AND PROTECTION OF E.P., Appellant

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. MI-20-00463

ORDER

Before the Court are appellant’s April 10, 2020 motion for a twenty-day 

extension of time to file his brief and court reporter Charletta Breed’s April 10, 

2020 request for a fourteen-day extension of time to file a supplemental reporter’s 

record containing two State’s exhibits. The exhibits appear to be related to 

appellee’s cross-appeal. 

We GRANT the extensions. We ORDER Ms. Breed to file the 

supplemental reporter’s record no later than April 24, 2020 and, as the 

supplemental reporter’s record does not appear necessary to appellant’s appeal, we

ORDER appellant to file his brief no later than April 30, 2020. 

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
Exhibit 10.6





	



Demand Promissory Note, dated August 9, 2022, in the principal amount of $30,000 from Bookmakers Company US, LLC payable to Victor Salerno 


 


Please refer to the accompanying Exhibit 10.6. It is saved in PDF format.
- 01aGCP_Parashant-COVER
- 01bGCP_Becomepg1(insidefrontcover)
- 02GCP_Adaptationspg2
- 03GCP_Trackspg3
- 04GCP_Archeologistpg4
- 05GCP_YourRoompg5
- 06GCP_Cavepg6
- 07GCP_BeTREEpg7
- 08GCP_I_SPYpg8
- 09GCP_Journalpg9
- 10GCP_Leavenopg10
- 11GCP_Lifestylespg11
- 12GCP_MOHAVEpg12
- 13GCP_Pathwayspg13
- 14GCP_Poetrypg14
- 15GCP_Soundspg15
- 16GCP_Nosepg16
- 17GCP_CERTIFICATElastpg
99.2

KPMG LLP company logo here
KPMG LLP
Three Wachovia Center
Suite 2300
401 South Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC  28202-1911


INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT

The Board of Directors
HomEq Servicing Corporation

We have examined management's assertion, included in the
accompanying Management's Assertion, that HomEq Servicing
Corporation (the Company) complied in all material respects with
the minimum servicing standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers
Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for
Mortgage Bankers as of and for the year ended December 31,2004.  Management
is responsible for the Company's compliance with those minimum servicing
standards.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's
assertion about the Company's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,
accordingly, including examining, on a test basis, evidence about the
Company's compliance with the minimum servicing standards specified above
and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the
circumstances.  We believe that our examination provides a reasonable
basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal
determination on the Company's compliance with the minimum servicing
standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with
the aforementioned minimum servicing standards during the year ended
December 31, 2004 is fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/: KPMG LLP
KPMG LLP
February 25, 2005


KPMG LLP is a limited liability partnership in the US
Member firm of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative







<page>




HOMEEQ SERVICING logo here


Management's Assertion


As of and for the year ended December 31, 2004, HomEq Servicing
Corporation (the "Company") complied in all material respects with the
minimum servicing standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association
of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers.  As
of and for this same period, the Company had in effect a fidelity bond
and errors and omissions policy in the amounts of $200 million and $20
million, respectively.


HomEq Servicing Corporation


/s/:  Arthur Q. Lyon
Arthur Q. Lyon
President

Date:  February 25, 2005


/s/:  Keith G. Becher
Keith G. Becher
Chief Operating Officer

Date:  February 25, 2005















Wachovia logo here
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsVirtual Passive Controller for Robot Systems Using Joint Torque SensorsThis paper presents a control method based on virtual passive dynamic control that will stabilize a robot manipulator using joint torque sensors and a simple joint model. The method does not require joint position or velocity feedback for stabilization. The proposed control method is stable in the sense of Lyaponov. The control method was implemented on several joints of a laboratory robot. The controller showed good stability robustness to system parameter error and to the exclusion of nonlinear dynamic effects on the joints. The controller enhanced position tracking performance and, in the absence of position control, dissipated joint energy.Document ID19970015275Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsAldridge, Hal A.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA United States)*Juang, Jer-Nan*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1997Subject CategoryEngineering (General)Report/Patent NumberNASA-TM-110316NAS 1.15:110316Accession Number97N18233Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 519-30-21-04Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970015275.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
## In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 13

- 00042

- CR

ALESHA DAWN KELLER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Hunt County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR1200591

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.2 

### O RDER

Alesha Dawn Keller appeals from her conviction of driving while intoxicated. The

clerk’s record was filed April 5, 2013, and the reporter’s record was filed April 26, making the

appellant’s brief due May 28. Appellant’s counsel filed two motions to extend the briefing

deadline, which were granted, resulting in the current due date of July 19. Our communication

to counsel advising him that his second request for an extension had been granted also warned

that no more extensions would be granted. Undeterred, counsel has now filed a third motion to

extend seeking an additional forty

- five days to file appellant’s brief.

We have reviewed counsel’s third motion to extend time as well as the appellate record,

and we find no compelling information to convince us that this brief requires more time to

prepare. The motion to extend time to file appellant’s brief is overruled.

We order counsel to file appellant’s brief with this Court on or before August 30, 2013.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: August 20 , 2013
§ 1243.201 How will ONRR determine if I am financially solvent? ( a ) The ONRR bond-approving officer will determine your financial solvency by examining your total net worth, including, as appropriate, the net worth of your affiliated entities.
( b ) If your net worth, minus the amount we would require as surety under subpart B for all orders you have appealed is greater than $300 million, you are presumptively deemed financially solvent, and we will not require you to post a bond or other surety instrument.
( c ) If your net worth, minus the amount we would require as surety under subpart B for all orders you have appealed is less than $300 million, you must submit the following to the ONRR Debt Collection Section by one of the methods in § 1243.200(a): ( 1 ) A written request asking us to consult a business-information, or credit-reporting service or program to determine your financial solvency; and
( 2 ) A nonrefundable $50 processing fee: ( i ) You must pay the processing fee to us following the requirements for making payments found in 30 CFR 1218.51. You are not required to use Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) for these payments;
( ii ) You must submit the fee with your request under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, and then annually on the date we first determined that you demonstrated financial solvency, as long as you are not able to demonstrate financial solvency under paragraph (a) of this section and you have active appeals.
( d ) If you request that we consult a business-information or credit-reporting service or program under paragraph (c) of this section: ( 1 ) We will use criteria similar to that which a potential creditor would use to lend an amount equal to the bond or other surety instrument we would require under subpart B;
( 2 ) For us to consider you financially solvent, the business-information or credit-reporting service or program must demonstrate your degree of risk as low to moderate: ( i ) If our bond-approving officer determines that the business-information or credit-reporting service or program information demonstrates your financial solvency to our satisfaction, our bond-approving officer will not require you to post a bond or other surety instrument under subpart B;
( ii ) If our bond-approving officer determines that the business-information or credit-reporting service or program information does not demonstrate your financial solvency to our satisfaction, our bond-approving officer will require you to post a bond or other surety instrument under subpart B or pay the obligation.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Johnnie Solomon, Appellant.

Judgment of conviction unanimously affirmed. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court convicting defendant of the crime of burglary, third degree, rendered on his plea of guilty to the first count of an indictment.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. William Green, Petitioner, v Eugene S. Le Fevre, as Superintendent of the Clinton Corree*1066tional Facility, Respondent.

Application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to CPLR 7002 (subd [b], par 2) denied. The petition does not disclose a violation of petitioner’s constitutional or statutory rights. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Larkin and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Tumbleweed Communications Corp. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Timothy G. Conley, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) 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: May 10, 2007



|                                                                               |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 
|/S/ TIMOTHY G. CONLEY                                                          |  | 
|Timothy G. Conley Senior Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial
Officer |  |
§ 907.5 Procedures for declaring substantial default. ( a ) *Notification of finding of substantial default.* If the PHA is found in substantial default, the PHA shall be notified of such determination in writing. Except in situations as described in paragraph (d) of this section, the PHA shall have an opportunity to respond to the written determination, and an opportunity to cure the default, if a cure of the default is determined appropriate by HUD. The determination of substantial default shall be transmitted to the Executive Director of the PHA, the Chairperson of the Board of the PHA, and the appointing authority(ies) of the PHA's Board of Commissioners, and shall: ( 1 ) Identify the specific statute, regulation, covenants, conditions, or agreements of which the PHA is determined to be in violation;
( 2 ) Identify the specific events, occurrences, or conditions that constitute the violation;
( 3 ) Specify the time period, which shall be a period of 10 but not more than 30 days, during which the PHA shall have an opportunity to demonstrate that the determination or finding is not substantively accurate, if required;
( 4 ) If determined by HUD to be appropriate, provide for an opportunity to cure and specify the time period for the cure; and
( 5 ) Notify the PHA that, absent a satisfactory response in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, action shall be taken as determined by HUD to be appropriate.
( b ) *Receipt of notification and response.* Upon receipt of the notification described in paragraph (a) of this section, the PHA may submit a response, in writing and within the specified time period, demonstrating: ( 1 ) The description of events, occurrences, or conditions described in the written determination of substantial default is in error, or establish that the events, occurrences, or conditions described in the written determination of substantial default do not constitute noncompliance with the statute, regulation, covenants, conditions, or agreements that are cited in the notification under paragraph (a) of this section; or
( 2 ) If any opportunity to cure is provided, that the violations have been cured or will be cured in the time period specified by HUD.
( c ) *Waiver of notification and the opportunity to respond.* A PHA may waive, in writing, receipt of written notification from HUD of a finding of substantial default and the opportunity to respond to such finding. HUD may then immediately proceed with the remedies as provided in § 907.7.
( d ) *Emergency situations.* A PHA shall not be afforded the opportunity to respond to a written determination or to cure a substantial default in any case where: ( 1 ) HUD determines that conditions exist that pose an imminent threat to the life, health, or safety of public housing residents or residents of the surrounding neighborhood; or
( 2 ) The events or conditions precipitating the default are determined to be the result of criminal or fraudulent activity.
| **Long-Term Debt (Tables)**        | 6 Months Ended                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
||
| **Long-Term Debt [Abstract]**      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
| Interest Margin [Table Text Block] |   Total Leverage Ratio (as defined) Applicable Margin  >=5.5 3.00%  >=5.0 but <5.5 2.75%  >=4.5 but <5.0 2.50%  >=4.0 but <4.5 2.25%  <4.0 2.00% |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
No authoritative reference available.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**gciinc_InterestMarginTableTextBlock**Namespace Prefix:**gciinc_**Data Type:**nonnum:textBlockItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                          |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**us-gaap_DebtDisclosureAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
### §13504. Exempt motor carrier transportation entirely in one State

Neither the Secretary nor the Board has jurisdiction under this subchapter over transportation, except transportation of household goods, by a motor carrier operating solely within the State of Hawaii. The State of Hawaii may regulate transportation exempt from jurisdiction under this section and, to the extent provided by a motor carrier operating solely within the State of Hawaii, transportation exempt under section 13503 of this title.

(Added Pub. L. 104–88, title I, §103, Dec. 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 860.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in section 10525 of this title prior to the general amendment of this subtitle by Pub. L. 104–88, §102(a).

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1996, except as otherwise provided in Pub. L. 104–88, see section 2 of Pub. L. 104–88, set out as a note under section 1301 of this title.
Link to 10-Q  **EXHIBIT 31.2**
  
 **Certification of Chief Financial Officer**
 **Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
 
  I, Joseph W. Baty, certify that:
  1.
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Weider Nutrition International, Inc.;   2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;   3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;   4.
The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:   (a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;   (b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and   (c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and   5.
The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):   (a)
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and   (b)
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.   
  Date: October 14, 2004
/s/  Joseph W. BatyJoseph W. Baty
Chief Financial Officer
January 13, 2016 

Dear Mr. Gonzalez: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket 

No. FAA-2015-5420). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) to process your petition. 

 Describe the aircraft make(s), model(s), and type(s)(i.e., fixed wing, rotorcraft, lighter 

than air) for the proposed UAS operation. The description(s) should include the 

maximum weight (including payload). This information can be located in the aircraft 

manual(s). 

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) 

which is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to 

proceed without this manual and remove closed-set filming from your proposed operation 

please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below. 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at 

www.regulations.gov. Once your information has been submitted, please also send a copy of the 

requested information (and any proprietary information), as well as your comment tracking 

number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process 

your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 1/27/16. If we do 

not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-2999. 

Sincerely, 

/S/ 

Program Analyst