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

Certification Persuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)


Persuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) the
undersigned General Partners of TASA Products Limited, a Washington limited
partnership (the "Company"), do hereby certify, to the best of such General
Partner's knowledge and belief, that:

1. The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the
"Form 10-K) of the Company 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/MICHEL E. MAES                                      /s/JAMES R. STEFFEY
Michel E. Maes                                         James R. Steffey
Co-General Partner                                     Co-General Partner
Date: 8-17-05                                          Date: 8-17-05
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Hawks
Industries, Inc. 1st Quarter 1998 10Q and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such 10Q.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          25,000
<SECURITIES>                                   208,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  350,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     10,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               647,000
<PP&E>                                       4,337,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,252,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,229,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          854,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,960,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,229,000
<SALES>                                        501,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               504,000
<CGS>                                          426,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  538,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (39,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (39,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (39,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)
        

</TABLE>
Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

Joan H. Lefkow Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 6286 (12 C 1493) DATE 1/8/2013

CASE

TITLE

In Re: Unified Messaging Solutions, LLC

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Pursuant to Stipulation [165], all claims and counterclaims between plaintiff and defendant Walgreen Co.,

are dismissed with prejudice, and Walgreen Co. is dismissed as a party in this case, with each party to bear

its owns costs and fees. Civil case terminated.

Docketing to mail notices.

 Courtroom Deputy

Initials:

MD

12C6286 In Re: Unified Messaging Solutions, LLC Page 1 of 1

Case: 1:12-cv-01493 Document #: 26 Filed: 01/08/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:362
Exhibit 32.2

BRIGGS & STRATTON CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Form 10-Q for Quarterly Period Ended
September 28, 2008

EXHIBIT 32.2

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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Briggs & Stratton Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 28, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James E. Brenn,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that 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.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ James E. Brenn     
|James E. Brenn         
|Chief Financial Officer
|November 5, 2008       

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

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.
Editorial Note on Part 842
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 842 appear at 81 FR 83688, Nov. 22, 2016.

§ 842.57 Reconsideration of final denials. This section provides the procedures used to reconsider a final denial. ( a ) An FCC has the inherent authority to reconsider a final decision. The mere fact that a request for reconsideration is received does not obligate the settlement authority to reopen the claim.
( b ) The FCC does not mention a reconsideration right in the original denial letter.
( c ) A settlement authority must reconsider the final action when there is: ( 1 ) New and material evidence concerning the claim; or
( 2 ) Obvious errors in the original decision.
( d ) The FCC must document in the claim file the reason for reconsideration.
( e ) A FCC above the original settlement authority may direct a claim be forwarded to a higher FCC for reconsideration.
[81 FR 83694, Nov. 22, 2016]
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Federal Screw Works (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Quarterly Report"), I, W. T. ZurSchmiede, Jr., Chairman of the Board, Chief
Financial Officer, Secretary of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

         (1) The Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d)); and

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





                                    /s/ W. T. ZurSchmiede, Jr.
                                    ---------------------------------------
                                    W. T. ZurSchmiede, Jr., Chairman,
                                    Chief Financial Officer and
                                    Secretary of Federal Screw Works



Dated: November 12, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 9 (Thursday, January 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 3229]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00633]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 11313]


Designation of Muhammad Abbatay as a Specially Designated Global 
Terrorist

    Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 
1(a)(ii)(B) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended 
by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, Executive Order 13284 of 
January 23, 2003, and Executive Order 13886 of September 9, 2019, I 
hereby determine that the person known as Muhammad Abbatay, also known 
as Mohamed Abbatay, also known as Abd al-Rahman al-Maghrebi, also known 
as Abdul Rahman al-Maghrebi, is a foreign person who is a leader of al-
Qa'ida, a group whose property and interests in property are 
concurrently blocked pursuant to a determination by the Secretary of 
State pursuant to Executive Order 13224.
    Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 
13224 that prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the 
Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States 
would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in 
the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously, I 
determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person 
subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence 
in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the 
measures authorized in the Order.
    This notice shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: January 6, 2021.
Michael R. Pompeo,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2021-00633 Filed 1-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-AD-P
<PAGE>

Exhibit 4.3

                          FRONT OF STOCK CERTIFICATE


             Incorporated Under the Laws of the State of Maryland

Number                                                             Shares

--                                                                 --

                       PharmaKinetics Laboratories, Inc.
       250,000 Shares of Class B Convertible Preferred Stock Authorized

This certifies that ________________ is the registered holder of
__________________ shares of Class B Convertible Preferred Stock transferable
only on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by
Attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed.

In witness whereof, the said Corporation has caused this Certificate to be
signed by its duly authorized officers and its corporate seal to be hereunto
affixed this ____ day of ________________ A.D. ____________.

__________________________________         ________________________________
James M. Wilkinson, II, President          Taryn L. Kunkel, Secretary

                        Shares without par value each.
<PAGE>

                           BACK OF STOCK CERTIFICATE


The securities represented by this certificate have been purchased pursuant to
an investment representation on the part of the holder hereof and shall not be
sold, pledged, hypothecated or otherwise transferred, by the holder except upon
the issuance to the Corporation of an opinion of counsel and/or the submission
to the Corporation of such other evidence as may be satisfactory to counsel for
the Corporation, to the effect that any such transfer shall not be in violation
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and applicable state securities laws.

The Corporation will furnish to any stockholder on request and without charge a
full statement of the designations and any preferences, conversion or other
rights, voting powers, restrictions, limitation as to dividends, qualifications,
and terms and conditions of redemption of the stock of each class which the
corporation is authorized to issue; the differences in the relative rights and
preferences between the shares of any series of preferred or special class of
stock and the authority of the board of directors to set the relative rights and
preferences of subsequent series; and restrictions on transferability.

For value received, _________ hereby sell, assign, and transfer unto
_________________________ ________________ shares represented by the within
Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint _____________
attorney to transfer the said shares on the books of the within named
corporation with full power of substitution in the premises.

Dated__________________       Year ______________________

In the presence of _______________________        ____________________
#### 2019.705 Responsibilities of the contracting officer under the subcontracting assistance program.
#### 1514.406 Mistakes in bids.
Become a 

Peer Reviewer

with the 

Department 

of Education

Gain a Valuable Credential 

while helping shape the 

Future of Education!

Each year the Department convenes panels of external education 

professionals and practitioners to serve as peer reviewers. Peer reviewers 

evaluate and score submitted applications against competition-specific 

criteria and announced priorities. Application scores are then used to 

inform the Secretary’s funding decisions.

Benefits of being a Peer Reviewer

Development

Network with and learn from other noted education colleagues

Service

Serve the education community by providing your unique expertise

Innovation

Be exposed to new & innovative ideas to expand and enhance education

Influence

Provide evaluations of application quality that are used by Secretary in 

making funding decisions

If you are interested in serving as a peer reviewer for the Department, please review the notice (linked above) 

and the program web pages of the grant programs that match your area of expertise

Notice Inviting 

Peer Reviewers

Office of Elementary & 

Secondary Education

Office of Postsecondary 

Education

Office of Special Education 

& Rehabilitative Services

Office of English

Language Acquisition

Office of Career, Technical, 

& Adult Education
q

"_ ' _41 i' (4% '_""

•"..._........................¢: ...." ._:::;,:/_..:'. .........2_:._3...,__........a,_...... ; -. ":.......-
+

+kP

q

+ +_',++j

ii+ _, _,+ ' u_ .... "u:_' .,-J +"'+ '_': ""+'"'+_"'"_ :" ,j,++'++2;_-'.--:+:'
_ii

I__

.............-__-: ..................._.--".__, ......"......_'_., ......._:'" _"_L ..............._ ....... -----__;_L___'.,_'_.





























rr,_













_ ......

,+)






t

i





U

RIGINALPAGE F-_;,,_. i o , i OF POOR QUALITY . _
+

,_ +.

+ :

c,































j>.






































V













































































































































,_r

,, +:

.,,. r.",
### §612c–3. Repealed. Pub. L. 101–624, title XV, §1578, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3702

Section, Pub. L. 91–524, title VIII, §812, as added Pub. L. 93–86, §1(27)(B), Aug. 10, 1973, 87 Stat. 238, and amended Pub. L. 95–113, title X, §1005, Sept. 29, 1977, 91 Stat. 951; Pub. L. 97–444, title II, §238, Jan. 11, 1983, 96 Stat. 2326, required exporters to report export sales and restricted President from prohibiting or curtailing certain exports. See section 5712 of this title.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Pub. L. 101–624, title XV, §1578, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3702, provided that the repeal of this section is effective upon the effective date of regulations promulgated under former section 5664 of this title, as amended by title XV of Pub. L. 101–624. Implementing regulations were promulgated and published in the Federal Register as follows:

May 30, 1991, eff. July 8, 1991, 56 F.R. 25998.

June 3, 1991, eff. June 7, 1991, 56 F.R. 26323.

Aug. 16, 1991, eff. Aug. 27, 1991, 56 F.R. 42222.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

RAFAEL URQUIDEZ-NAVA, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-50274 

D.C. No. 3:16-cr-03011-LAB 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 15, 2018**

Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Rafael Urquidez-Nava appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges the 18-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for 

being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

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

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

MAY 22 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-50274 

Urquidez-Nava contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing 

to address his non-frivolous arguments for a lower sentence. We review for plain 

error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 

2010), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the court 

considered Urquidez-Nava’s mitigating arguments and was not persuaded that they 

warranted a lower sentence. See United States v. Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 516-

17 (9th Cir. 2008).

Urquidez-Nava next contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable 

because the district court gave undue weight to his criminal and immigration 

history and failed to consider unwarranted sentencing disparities. The court did 

not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The 

court properly considered Urquidez-Nava’s immigration history in determining 

whether to grant a fast-track departure and what sentence to impose. See United 

States v. Rosales-Gonzales, 801 F.3d 1177, 1184 (9th Cir. 2015). The 18-month 

sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing 

factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see also 

United States v. Marcial-Santiago, 447 F.3d 715, 718-19 (9th Cir. 2006)

(sentencing disparities that result from the fast-track program are not unwarranted 
3 17-50274 

and, as such, do not violate 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6)). 

AFFIRMED.
17.106-3 Special procedures applicable to DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard. ( a ) *Participation by subcontractors, suppliers, and vendors.* In order to broaden the defense industrial base, to the maximum extent practicable— ( 1 ) Multiyear contracting shall be used in such a manner as to seek, retain, and promote the use under such contracts of companies that are subcontractors, suppliers, and vendors; and
( 2 ) Upon accrual of any payment or other benefit under such a multiyear contract to any subcontractor, supplier, or vendor company participating in such contract, such payment or benefit shall be delivered to such company in the most expeditious manner practicable.
( b ) *Protection of existing authority.* To the extent practicable, multiyear contracting shall not be carried out in a manner to preclude or curtail the existing ability of the Department or agency to provide for termination of a prime contract, the performance of which is deficient with respect to cost, quality, or schedule.
( c ) *Cancellation or termination for insufficient funding.* In the event funds are not made available for the continuation of a multiyear contract awarded using the procedures in this section, the contract shall be canceled or terminated.
( d ) Contracts awarded under the multiyear procedure shall be firm-fixed-price, fixed-price with economic price adjustment, or fixed-price incentive.
( e ) *Recurring costs in cancellation ceiling.* The inclusion of recurring costs in cancellation ceilings is an exception to normal contract financing arrangements and requires approval by the agency head.
( f ) *Annual and multiyear proposals.* Obtaining both annual and multiyear offers provides reduced lead time for making an annual award in the event that the multiyear award is not in the Government's interest. Obtaining both also provides a basis for the computation of savings and other benefits. However, the preparation and evaluation of dual offers may increase administrative costs and workload for both offerors and the Government, especially for large or complex acquisitions. The head of a contracting activity may authorize the use of a solicitation requesting only multiyear prices, *provided* it is found that such a solicitation is in the Government's interest, and that dual proposals are not necessary to meet the objectives in 17.105-2.
( g ) *Level unit prices.* Multiyear contract procedures provide for the amortization of certain costs over the entire contract quantity resulting in identical (level) unit prices (except when the economic price adjustment terms apply) for all items or services under the multiyear contract. If level unit pricing is not in the Government's interest, the head of a contracting activity may approve the use of variable unit prices, provided that for competitive proposals there is a valid method of evaluation.
1219.7000 General. ( a ) The Small Business Administration provides general oversight to Federal mentor-protégé programs. However, DOT has its own program tailored to assist small business concerns in the transportation industry to enhance their capability to compete for Federal procurement opportunities. The program is administered by the DOT Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) at *https://www.transportation.gov/osdbu/procurement-assistance/mentor-protege-pilot-program .*
( b ) Small business concerns and large DOT prime contractors are encouraged to participate in the Department's Mentor-Protégé Program. Mentor firms provide eligible small business Protégé firms with developmental assistance to enhance their business capabilities and ability to obtain Federal contracts.
( c ) Mentor firms are eligible small businesses and large DOT prime contractors or other socioeconomic firms capable of providing developmental assistance. Protégé firms are small businesses as defined in 13 CFR part 121.
( d ) Developmental assistance is technical, managerial, financial, and other mutually beneficial assistance that assists Protégé firms. The costs for developmental assistance will not be reimbursed to the Mentor firm.
( e ) Mentor and Protégé firms shall submit an evaluation of the overall experience in the program to OSDBU at the conclusion of the agreement or the voluntary withdrawal by either party from the program, whichever occurs first. At the end of each year, the Mentor and Protégé firms will submit a report regarding program accomplishments under their agreement.
( f ) Mentor or Protégé firms shall notify OSDBU in writing, at least 30 calendar days in advance of the effective date of the firm's withdrawal from the program.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 12 , 2019 

# Order

Clerk September 12 , 2019

15 9 646 ( 51 )

DANNY D. AULD, II, and TAMARA

AULD,

Plaintiffs

- Appellees,

SC: 159646

v COA: 341335

Genesee CC: 13

- 101457

- NH

MCLAREN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER,

GJON G. DUSHAJ, MD, and PAUL W.

BROWN, DO,

Defendants

- Appellants,

and

HATEM ATAYA, MD, and HATEM M.

ATAYA , MD, PC,

Defendants

.

_______________________________ ___ __ _ __ __ /

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendants

- appellants to extend the time

for filing their reply is GRANTED. The reply will be accepted as timely filed if submitted

on or before September 24 , 2019.