alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.36


          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 Annual Report of General Communication, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ronald
A. Duncan, Chief Executive 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.


Date:  March 24, 2003

                                       /s/
                                       Ronald A. Duncan
                                       Chief Executive Officer
                                       General Communication, Inc.


                                       1
<PAGE>
          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 Annual Report of General Communication, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John M.
Lowber, 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.



Date:  March 24, 2003

                                       /s/
                                       John M. Lowber
                                       Chief Financial Officer
                                       General Communication, Inc.


                                       2
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Eric Mossman, an Infant, by His Guardian ad Litem Sylvia Mossman et al., Respondents, and Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, Appellant.

In a proceeding to confirm an arbitration award, the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (hereafter called the “ MVAIC ”) appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated December 21, 1962, granting petitioners’ motion to confirm the award, as awarded to the petitioners costs of $25 and disbursements of $39.60. Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, without costs, on the law and in the exercise of discretion; the provisions awarding such costs and disbursements are stricken out; and the total amount awarded is reduced accordingly. In our opinion, on the motion to confirm the award it was improper to assess against MVAIC the petitioners’ disbursements of $39.60 which were incurred in the arbitration proceeding prior to the making of the motion but which were not assessed by the arbitrator (Civ. jPrac. Act, § 1464; *Matter of Weeks,*273 N. V. S. 922; *Uneeda-Sempstead*v. *Bilt Well Gontr. Go.,*168 Mise. 774). It is also our opinion that on this motion it was an improper exercise of discretion to impose any costs against the MVAIC. The motion finalizes the arbitration award and is therefore an integral part of the arbitration procedure necessary to protect the interests of the parties. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.
### §53305. Eligible fund deposits

A construction reserve fund may include deposits of—

(1) the proceeds from the sale of a vessel;

(2) indemnities for the loss of a vessel;

(3) earnings from the operation of a documented vessel and from services incident to the operation; and

(4) interest or other amounts accrued on deposits in the fund.

(Pub. L. 109–304, §8(c), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1588.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 53305 | 46 App.:1161(b) (1st sentence words after 16th comma). | June 29, 1936, ch. 858, title V, §511(b) (1st sentence words after 16th comma), as added Oct. 10, 1940, ch. 849, 54 Stat. 1106; June 17, 1943, ch. 130, subdiv. (a), 57 Stat. 157; July 17, 1952, ch. 939, §9, 66 Stat. 762. |

Section

In paragraph (3), the words "documented vessel" are substituted for "vessels documented under the laws of the United States" because of the definition of "documented vessel" in chapter 1 of the revised title.

In paragraph (4), the words "interest or other amounts accrued on deposits in the fund" are substituted for "receipts, in the form of interest or otherwise, with respect to amounts previously deposited" for clarity and to eliminate unnecessary words.
### §42306. Know Your Rights posters

(a) In General.—Each large hub airport, medium hub airport, and small hub airport with scheduled passenger service shall prominently display posters that clearly and concisely outline the rights of airline passengers under Federal law with respect to, at a minimum—

(1) flight delays and cancellations;

(2) refunds;

(3) bumping of passengers from flights and the oversale of flights; and

(4) lost, delayed, or damaged baggage.

(b) Location.—Posters described in subsection (a) shall be displayed in conspicuous locations throughout the airport, including ticket counters, security checkpoints, and boarding gates.

(c) Accessibility Assistance.—Each large hub airport, medium hub airport, and small hub airport with scheduled passenger service shall ensure that passengers with a disability (as such term is defined in section 382.3 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations) who identify themselves as having such a disability are notified of the availability of accessibility assistance and shall assist such passengers in connecting to the appropriate entities to obtain the same information required in this section that is provided to other passengers.

(Added Pub. L. 118–63, title V, §504(a), May 16, 2024, 138 Stat. 1190.)

#### Delayed Effective Date of Section

Section effective 1 year after May 16, 2024, see Effective Date note below.

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

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 118–63, title V, §504(d), May 16, 2024, 138 Stat. 1191, provided that: "The amendments made by this section [enacting this section and amending section 46301 of this title] shall take effect on the date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act [May 16, 2024]."
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3519 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to provide a credit toward the 

non-Federal share of projects carried out under the airport improvement 

program to an owner or operator of an airport that is utilized to respond 

to a disaster or emergency. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 28, 2005 

Mr. ANDREWS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to provide a credit 

toward the non-Federal share of projects carried out 

under the airport improvement program to an owner 

or operator of an airport that is utilized to respond 

to a disaster or emergency. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Airport Emergency 

5 Reimbursement Act of 2005’’. 
2 

•HR 3519 IH 

1 SEC. 2. AIP CREDIT FOR UTILIZATION OF AIRPORTS IN RE2 SPONSE TO DISASTERS AND EMERGENCIES. 

3 Section 47109 of title 49, United States Code, is 

4 amended by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(e) CREDIT FOR UTILIZATION OF AIRPORTS IN RE6 SPONSE TO DISASTERS AND EMERGENCIES.— 

7 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—If an owner or operator of 

8 an airport allows the Director of the Federal Emer9 gency Management Agency or the head of a State or 

10 local agency to utilize the airport to respond to a 

11 disaster or emergency declared under the Robert T. 

12 Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 

13 Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), the owner or operator 

14 shall receive a credit for such utilization that may 

15 applied toward the non-Federal share of allowable 

16 project costs for projects carried out at the airport 

17 under this subchapter. 

18 ‘‘(2) AMOUNT OF CREDIT.—The amount of a 

19 credit provided under this subsection for utilization 

20 of an airport shall be in an amount that equals the 

21 revenues that the owner or operator demonstrates to 

22 the satisfaction of the Secretary of Transportation 

23 were lost, and the costs of operating the airport that 

24 the owner or operator demonstrates to the satisfac-
3 

•HR 3519 IH 

1 tion of the Secretary were incurred, by the owner or 

2 operator during the period of such utilization.’’. 

Æ
### §30307. Criminal penalties

(a) General Penalty.—A person (except an individual described in section 30305(b)(6) 1 of this title) shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than one year, or both, if—

(1) the person receives under section 30305 of this title information specified in section 30304(b)(1)(A) or (C) of this title;

(2) disclosure of the information is not authorized by section 30305 of this title; and

(3) the person willfully discloses the information knowing that disclosure is not authorized.

(b) Information Penalty.—A person knowingly and willfully requesting, or under false pretenses obtaining, information specified in section 30304(b)(1)(A) or (C) of this title from a person receiving the information under section 30305 of this title shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

(Pub. L. 103–272, §1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 979.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 30307 | 23:401 (note). | Oct. 25, 1982, Pub. L. 97–364, §208, 96 Stat. 1746; Dec. 30, 1987, Pub. L. 100–223, §305(b)(1), 101 Stat. 1526. |

Section

In this section, the words "fined under title 18" are substituted for "fined not more than $10,000" for consistency with title 18.

In subsection (a), before clause (1), the reference to "section 30305(b)(6) of this title" is used to carry out the probable intent of Congress. Section 305(b)(1) of the Airport and Airway Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1987 (Public Law 100–223, 101 Stat. 1526) amended section 206(b) of the National Driver Register Act of 1982 (Public Law 97–364, 96 Stat. 1744) by "redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4), and any reference thereto, as paragraphs (4) and (5), respectively". Because the reference to "section 206(b)(4)" in section 208 of the National Driver Register Act of 1982 appears to have been incorrect before that amendment, and would continue to be incorrect if the reference is redesignated as required by the amendment, a reference to section 30305(b)(6) is used in this section to carry out the probable intent of Congress.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 30305(b) of this title, referred to in subsec. (a), was amended by Pub. L. 105–178, title II, §2006(b)(2)(A), (B), June 9, 1998, 112 Stat. 336, which added a new par. (6) and redesignated former par. (6) as (10).

1 See References in Text note below.
Exhibit 10.179


AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AMENDED AND RESTATED


AIRCRAFT LEASE AGREEMENT





This Amendment No. 1 dated effective as of December 27, 2010 (“Amendment”), is the first amendment to that Amended and Restated Aircraft Lease Agreement (“Agreement”) dated effective as of February 25, 2005, between GCI Communication Corp., an Alaska corporation (“GCI” and “Lessee”) and 560 Company, Inc., an Alaska corporation (“Lessor”).





Now, therefore, Lessor and Lessee agree as follows:





I.
Return of/Condition of Aircraft.  In consideration of $350,000 to be paid by Lessee to Lessor on or before December 31, 2010, the parties agree that the Astra may be returned to Lessor at any time in the same condition as it is in on December 27, 2010, ordinary wear and tear excepted.





II.
Ratification.  All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect.





III.
Counterpart Signatures.  This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, the compilation of which shall be considered as one document.








In witness whereof, Lessor and Lessee have caused this Amendment to be duly executed by their respective officers as of December 27, 2010.





560 Company, Inc.








By:       /s/ Ronald A. Duncan


Ronald A. Duncan, President





GCI Communication Corp.








By:        /s/ John M. Lowber


John M. Lowber


Senior Vice President,


Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
|         |                                                  |
|---------|--------------------------------------------------|
| • | Registration Statement No. 333-19771 on Form S-8 |

|         |                                                   |
|---------|---------------------------------------------------|
| • | Registration Statement No. 333-103839 on Form S-8 |

|         |                                                   |
|---------|---------------------------------------------------|
| • | Registration Statement No. 333-166378 on Form S-8 |

|         |                                                   |
|---------|---------------------------------------------------|
| • | Registration Statement No. 333-188789 on Form S-8 |

|         |                                                   |
|---------|---------------------------------------------------|
| • | Registration Statement No. 333-195594 on Form S-8 |

|         |                                                   |
|---------|---------------------------------------------------|
| • | Registration Statement No. 333-195595 on Form S-8 |
### §1611. District Court of Virgin Islands; local courts; jurisdiction; practice and procedure

#### (a) District Court of Virgin Islands; local courts

The judicial power of the Virgin Islands shall be vested in a court of record designated the "District Court of the Virgin Islands" established by Congress, and in such appellate court and lower local courts as may have been or may hereafter be established by local law.

#### (b) Jurisdiction

The legislature of the Virgin Islands may vest in the courts of the Virgin Islands established by local law jurisdiction over all causes in the Virgin Islands over which any court established by the Constitution and laws of the United States does not have exclusive jurisdiction. Such jurisdiction shall be subject to the concurrent jurisdiction conferred on the District Court of the Virgin Islands by section 1612(a) and (c) of this title.

#### (c) Practice and procedure

The rules governing the practice and procedure of the courts established by local law and those prescribing the qualifications and duties of the judges and officers thereof, oaths and bonds, and the times and places of holding court shall be governed by local law or the rules promulgated by those courts.

(July 22, 1954, ch. 558, §21, 68 Stat. 506; Pub. L. 98–454, title VII, §702, Oct. 5, 1984, 98 Stat. 1737.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1984—Pub. L. 98–454 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), inserted "established by Congress" before "and in such" and substituted "appellate court and lower local courts as may have been or may hereafter be established by local law" for "court or courts of inferior jurisdiction as have been or may hereafter be established by local law", and added subsecs. (b) and (c).

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

#### Effective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–454 effective on ninetieth day following Oct. 5, 1984, see section 1005 of Pub. L. 98–454, set out as a note under section 1424 of this title.
### [§725. Repealed. Pub. L. 114–110, §3(a)(4), Dec. 18, 2015, 129 Stat. 2228]

Section, Pub. L. 104–88, title II, §201(a), Dec. 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 937, required Secretary of Transportation to provide administrative support for the Board.
#### §§ 285.616-285.630 [Reserved]
### §7319. Records of merchant mariners' documents

The Secretary shall maintain records on each merchant mariner's document issued, including the name and address of the individual to whom issued and the next of kin of the individual.

(Pub. L. 98–89, Aug. 26, 1983, 97 Stat. 545; Pub. L. 108–293, title IV, §403, Aug. 9, 2004, 118 Stat. 1043; Pub. L. 116–283, div. G, title LVXXXV [LXXXV], §8505(b)(4), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4751.)

| Revised section | Source section (U.S. Code) |
| --- | --- |
| 7319 | 46:643(f) |

Section 7319 requires the Secretary to maintain records on each merchant mariner's document issued and the seaman's next of kin. However, these records are not open for general or public inspection.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2021—Pub. L. 116–283 substituted "individual" for "seaman" in two places.

2004—Pub. L. 108–293 struck out at end "The records are not open to general or public inspection."
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jesse L. Hughes, Jr., Appellant.

In a *coram nobis*proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered December 21, 1962, which denied without a hearing his application to vacate a judgment of the former County Court, Queens County, rendered February 29, 1952 upon his plea of guilty made during trial, convicting him of murder in the second degree and imposing sentence. Order affirmed. Defendant’s main grievance is that he was arraigned on an indictment charging murder in the first degree and another felony, without representation by counsel. In our opinion, no constitutional right of defendant was curtailed, since the record indicates that upon his arraignment he advised the court that he intended to engage his own counsel, whereupon a plea of not guilty was entered by the court. Soon thereafter, when it appeared that defendant had not obtained counsel and had answered affirmatively (for the first time) that he desired to have the court assist him because he had no means to engage counsel, the court assigned two members of the Bar, well-versed in criminal practice, to represent him. The record contains no indication that the services of such experienced counsel were in any manner ineffective or inadequate or that they overlooked any aspect of defendant’s rights and privileges. On the contrary, it appears that they were successful in obtaining a result which saved the *909defendant from the possibility of exposure to a death sentence. Under the circumstances, defendant suffered no prejudice because of the lack of counsel upon arraignment within the intendment of *Hamilton*v. *Alabama*(368 U. S. 52) and *White*V. *Maryland*(373 U. S. 59). [See *People*v. *Combs,*19 A D 2d 639; *People*V. *Caeeio,*19 A D 2d 640; *People*v. *French,*19 A D 2d 640; see, also, *People*v. *Steinhauer,*19 A D 2d 837.] [For prior appeals in prior *coram nobis*proceedings, see *People*v. *Hughes,*10 A D 2d 990, 14 A D 2d 887.] Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)




In connection with the Quarterly Report of NeoMedia Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Laura A. Marriott, does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to her 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 operation of the Company.




/s/   Laura A. MarriottLaura A. Marriott

Acting Chief Executive Officer,

Principal Executive Officer

May 13, 2011
July 6, 2015

Mr. Hunter Smith

8275 S outh Eastern Ave nue

Suite 200

- 722

Las Vegas

, NV 89123

Dear Mr. Smith :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We entered your exemption request on behalf of S Real Estate, LLC into the public docket

(No. FAA− 2015

− 1551 ) on May 11, 2015 , but we are unable to process your request any

further. The information you sent does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy

enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information describ ed

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 day s, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9677.

Sincerely,

B rittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
#### JOUDA v. KAPLAN.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

November 12, 1903.)

1. Appeal—Determination op Controversy—Judgment—Payment.

Where, in an action for goods sold and delivered, defendant admitted his indebtedness in the amount sued for before a United States commissioner, and when a levy was made promptly paid the judgment, an appeal from such judgment was without merit.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Fourth District.

Action by Nissim M. Jouda against Morris Kaplan. From, a Municipal Court judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and MacLEAN, JJ.

B. Levinson, for appellant.

Wilder & Anderson, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The action is for goods sold and delivered, and the pleadings are in writing. The answer does not deny any of the allegations of the complaint, but sets up a strictly affirmation refusal, alleging an unexpired term of credit. It appears from admissions in the answer that at the time the judgment herein was rendered the *864time of credit had expired as to two sales, though not as to the third. Nevertheless the defendant admitted, under oath, in a proceeding before United States Commissioners Sheilds, his indebtedness in the amount sued for, and when levy was made herein by the sheriff he promptly paid the judgment. The appeal is therefore without merit, and the judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.