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



|ASPEN EXPLORATION CORPORATION
|-----------------------------

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer

To my knowledge: the annual report on Form 10-KSB for the period ended June 30, 2007, containing financial statements for the period then ended, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Act of 1934; and the information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Aspen Exploration Corporation for the periods presented.



|September 26, 2007
|------------------



|/s/   Robert A. CohanRobert A. Cohan, Chief ExecutiveOfficer and Chief Financial Officer
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
#### In the Matter of Dennis K. Drowne, Petitioner, v James P. Melton, as Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, Respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered in Rensselaer County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles which revoked petitioner’s New York State operator’s license. The petitioner was involved in a one-car accident as the operator of the automobile. A trooper testified that when he interviewed the petitioner at some time after the accident, the petitioner appeared intoxicated and he admitted having consumed some "alcoholic beverages” and having "stopped at a barroom” on his way home from work. The trooper arrested the petitioner for driving while intoxicated and requested the petitioner to take a chemical test to determine the alcoholic content of his blood. The petitioner refused the test and, pursuant to section 1194 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, his license was revoked for such refusal. The sole issue raised in the present proceeding is whether or not the trooper had reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner had been driving a vehicle while intoxicated *(Matter of Boyle v Tofany,*36 NY2d 1012; *Matter of Williams v Tofany,*46 AD2d 708). The record contains substantial evidence to support the finding that the trooper had reasonable cause to believe that the petitioner had been driving while intoxicated. Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Kane, Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
#### Louise R. Spillman, Also Known as Louise S. Bryant, Appellant, v Richard W. Spillman, Respondent.

— In a proceeding for support pursuant to article 4 of the Family Court Act, petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Rockland County, entered November 10, 1975, which dismissed the petition. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, petition granted and proceeding remanded to the Family Court, *943Rockland County, for entry of an appropriate order after a determination as to arrears in support payments. On the record before this court, the respondent did not meet his burden of proving that the petitioner’s relationship with another man met the requirements of section 248 of the Domestic Relations Law, by which the court could modify the judgment of divorce by eliminating the alimony provisions (see *Northrup v Northrup,*43 NY2d 566). Rabin, J. P., Shapiro, Cohalan and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee 

for Meritage Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-3, AssetBacked Certificates, Series 2005-3,

 PLAINTIFF 

CASE NUMBER:1:12-cv-2639

VS. DISTRICT JUDGE: Sharon Johnson Coleman 

Foster Williams III, Tangie D. Williams, Midland 

Funding LLC, Mortgage Electronic Registration 

System, Inc. as nominee for Meritage Mortgage 

Corporation, JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA successor 

in interest to Providian National Bank, 

 DEFENDANTS

MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Young B. Kim

AFFIDAVIT FOR SERVICE BY PUBLICATION

The undersigned certified the following:

1. This Affidavit is made pursuant to the provisions of 735 ILCS 5/2-206, 5/2-413, and 

5/15-1502(c), for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction of the above court over 

defendant(s), Foster Williams III, Tangie D. Williams, of the real estate described in the 

complaint filed herein.

2. Said Defendant(s) on due inquiry cannot be found, so that process cannot be served upon 

them.

3. The place of residence of said defendant is not known to the plaintiff, and upon diligent 

inquiry said defendant’s place of residence cannot be ascertained.

4. The names and last known address of said named defendants are:

a. Foster Williams III, 14522 South Cottage Grove, Dolton, IL 60419

b. Tangie D. Williams, 14522 South Cottage Grove, Dolton, IL 60419

Case: 1:12-cv-02639 Document #: 11 Filed: 09/12/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:76
5. The Clerk of this Court is requested to publish a Notice of Foreclosure (For Publication) 

in accordance with 735 ILCS 5/2/207 and 15/1502(c) and to mail copies of such Notice 

in accordance with 735 ILCS 5/2-206.

CERTIFICATION

Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/1-109, the undersigned 

certifies that the statements set forth in this instrument are true and correct, except as to matters 

therein stated to be on information and belief and as to such matters the undersigned certifies as 

aforesaid that he verily believes the same to be true.

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ James N. Pappas

James N. Pappas #6291873

Burke Costanza & Carberry LLP

Attorneys for Plaintiff

225 W. Washington St, Suite 2200

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

(219) 769-1313

Case: 1:12-cv-02639 Document #: 11 Filed: 09/12/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:77
#### 1480.602 Performance and payment bonds.

Solicitations requiring performance and payment bonds must conform to FAR part 28 and may authorize use of any of the types of security acceptable in accordance with FAR subpart 28.2 or 25 U.S.C. 1497a. In accordance with FAR 28.102 and 25 U.S.C. 47a, the CO may accept alternative forms of security in lieu of performance and payment bonds if a determination is made that such forms of security provide the Government with adequate security for performance and payment.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 1995 for Hallwood Energy Corporation and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000319019
<NAME> HALLWOOD ENERGY CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                              10
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      398
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,644
<PP&E>                                         116,999
<DEPRECIATION>                                 107,160
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,465
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,263
<BONDS>                                            825
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           599
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,412
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    14,465
<SALES>                                          5,507
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,632
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,443
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,396
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 493
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    300
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (406)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                706
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       706
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.00)
        

</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 INFORMATIONAL ADDENDUM TO REPORT ON FORM 10-K PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 NOT FILED PURSUANT TO
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 Solely for the purpose of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
and solely to the extent this certification may be applicable to this Report on
Form 10-K, the undersigned hereby certify that this report on Form 10-K of
American Building Control, Inc. fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained herein this report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of American
Building Control, Inc. Dated: April 9, 2004 /s/ Danny W. MillsDanny W. Mills
President and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Jon D. GreenwoodJon D. Greenwood
Senior Vice-President, Secretary, Treasurer and
Interim-Chief Financial Officer
M. P. No. 75-154.

#### Ruth Ann Boudreau, *p.p.a.*Dorothy I. Hyde *v.*Pimental Electric Co., Inc. *et al.*

*Morriss & Vacca, Anthony Vacca,*for petitioners. *Hanson, Curran, Bowen & Parks, David P. Whitman,*for respondents.

Petition for writ of certiorari denied.
MEMORANDUM

Date: November 10, 2021

To: U.S. Department of Education

From: Persis Yu and Joshua Rovenger, Negotiators for Legal Assistance Organizations that Represent 

Students and/or Borrowers

Re: Borrower Defense Individual Process Proposals 

As discussed at Session 2, we propose the following two changes to the individual process 

provision in § 685.403:

• In § 685.403(b): Eliminate (b)(ii). Alternatively, if the Department wants to maintain some 

version of (b)(ii), it should modify the provision to say: “Any statements made in the 

application shall be considered testimonial evidence. The Borrower may, but is not required 

to, provide additional evidence that supports the application.” 

• Add a new sub-section (f) saying: “If the Secretary collects on a loan placed in forbearance or 

stopped collections in violation of sections (d) and (e) above, the Secretary shall reimburse the 

borrower the amount collected and then settle and compromise an amount of the borrower’s 

loans in an amount equal to the money collected.”
**Exhibit
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**





In
      connection with the Annual Report of Arbor EnTech Corporation (the “registrant”)
      on Form 10-KSB for the year ending April 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “report”), I, Mark Shefts, Chief
      Financial Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to
      18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:




(1)
      The
      report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




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




June
          13,
          2007
 /s/ Mark
                    SheftsMark
                      Shefts
                    Chief
                        Financial Officer
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-5067

MULTISERVICE JOINT VENTURE, LLC,

Plaintiff,

and

JANICE DAVIS,

Sanctioned Party-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in 06-CV-312,

Judge Thomas C. Wheeler.

ON MOTION

Before MAYER, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

The United States moves to stay proceedings in this appeal pending the ruling of

the United States Court of Federal Claims on a motion for reconsideration. The United

States moves for a 62-day extension of time, until September 21, 2009, to file its brief.

The	United States indicates that the trial court recently denied the

reconsideration motion and thus the motion to stay is moot.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1)	The motion to stay is moot.
(2)	The motion for an extension of time is granted. No further extensions

should be anticipated.

FOR THE COURT

JUL 29 2009 /s/ Jan Horbalv

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

Date

cc:	Matthew H. Solomson, Esq.

Janice Davis, Esq.

s17

use coujoriLEAppets

FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

JUL 29 2009

JAN rithdlaY

CLERIC

2009-5067	 2
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10 - 17

- 00373 - CV TANYA MARIE COX , Appellant v. HUNTER WEBB AND ARNO LD GERIK , Appellee s

From the 170th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2016 - 1337 - 4
MEMORANDUM OPINION On November 13, 2017, appellant, Tanya Marie Cox, filed a notice of appeal in this
matter purportedly challenging an order signed by the trial court on October 27, 2017. However, attached to her notice of appeal is an order signed by the trial court on October 16, 2017, whereby the trial court denied traditional and no

- evidence motions for

sum mary judgment filed by appellee, Arnold Gerik. Additionally, appellant’s notice of appeal refers to the trial court cause number as 2016

- 1337

- 4.C ox v. Webb , et al. Page 2

Nevertheless, after receiving the Clerk’s Record in this matter, we discovered that, in trial court cause numb er 2016

- 1337

- 4, which is the basis for this appeal, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Gerik on October 27, 2017. However, the trial court’s October 27, 2017 order did not dispose of appellant’s claims against co

- defendant Hunter Webb. As such, the trial court’s October 27, 2017 order entered in trial court cause number 2016

- 1337

- 4 is not final. See Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (noting that an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment); see also Sultan v

. Mathew , 178 S.W.3d 747, 751 (Tex. 2005) (“To be final for purposes of appeal, a judgment must dispose of all issues and parties in a case.” (internal citation omitted)). On February 6, 2018, we notified appellant by letter that this appeal is subject t o dismissal because appellant appeals from an order that is not final. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.3, 44.3. We requested a response from appellant showing grounds for continuing the appeal to be filed within twenty

- one days of our February 6, 2018 letter. Mo re than twenty
- one days have passed, and appellant has not filed a response in this case. We therefore dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See id. at R. 42.3; see also Sultan , 178 S.W.3d at 751; Lehmann , 39 S.W.3d at 195.

AL SCOGGINS JusticeC ox v. Webb , et al. Page 3

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Appeal dismissed Opinion delivered and filed March 21, 2018 [CV06]
#### Barrow *v.*Barrow.

Hill, J.

Where a bill of exceptions complains of a judgment allowing temporary alimony and counsel fees, and it appears therefrom that the evidence submitted upon the hearing consisted only of affidavits made by named persons, some in' behalf of the petitioner and some for the respondent, and such evidence is neither incorporated in the bill nor referred to therein and attached thereto as an exhibit properly authenticated, and no brief of the evidence has been approved and filed so as to become a part of the record, but such documentary evidence is merely specified by the excepting party as a part of the record to be sent up to this court by the clerk of the trial court, the judgment will be affirmed, as without such evidence this court can not determine the question whether the judge erred in rendering the judgment complained *807of; and such affidavits, not being a part of the record in the ease, can not be specified and sent to this court as such. *Silvey*v. *Brown,*137 *Ga.*104 (72 S. E. 907).

April 18, 1913.

Temporary alimony. Before Judge Sheppard. Tattnall superior court. October 7, 1912.

*Anderson & Girardeau*and *R. R.*Elders, for plaintiff in error.

*Way <&*Burlehalter, contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Publications

Appendix Table C2. Daily recoveries, recoveries standardized for effort, dates of median fish recovery, and movement rates to Jones Beach of marked subyearling chinook salmon released from Bonneville Hatchery into Tanner Creek and transported from the hatchery to midstream Columbia River, 1991.

a  		
- AG D1 D2 = Agency code, Data 1 code, Data 2 code.

b  		
- Julian date; equivalent day and month shown in parentheses.

c  		
- A = Actual daily purse seine or beach seine catch.

d  		
- S = Standardized daily catch. Purse seine data standardized to a   10-set-per-day effort Julian dates 179 to 197; beach seine data standardized   to a 5-set-per-day effort Julian dates 179 to 194. A "-" indicates recoveries   of fish from date outside of the data standardization periods because of   minimal catches and low effort.

e  		
- Day that the median fish was captured (standardized effort).

f  		
- NE = no sampling effort.

g  		
- Mvmt. rate = Movement rate (km/day) = distance traveled (RKm 232 to RKm   75)  ̧ travel time (days from release to median fish   recovery).

Use your browser's BACK button to return to the text.

Table of Contents
To: The Student Loan Debt Relief Negotiating Committee

From: Richard Haase, Primary Negotiator for Graduate Loan Borrowers

Date: December 11, 2023

Subject: Proposed Amendment to 34 C.F.R. § 30.81

Proposed Changes

§ 30.81 Waiver when the current balance exceeds the original

principal balance for low-income borrowers on an IDR plan. (a)

Pursuant to the authority to waive debt that the Secretary is

unable to collect in full under the standards prescribed in 31

U.S.C. 3711(d), and subject to paragraphs (b) and (c) of this

section, the Secretary may waive the lesser of $20,000 or the

amount by which a borrower’s loans cumulatively have a total

outstanding balance that exceeds—

(1) The original principal balance of the loans for loans

disbursed before January 1, 2005;

(2) The balance of the loans on the final day of their grace

period for loans disbursed on or after January 1, 2005; or

(3) The total original principal balance of all loans repaid by

a Federal Consolidation Loan or a Direct Consolidation Loan.

(b) A borrower is eligible for the waiver described in

paragraph (a) of this section if-

(1) The borrower is enrolled in an IDR plan under §§ 682.215,

685.209, or 685.221 as of a date determined by the Secretary.;

And

(2) The borrower’s adjusted gross income or other documentation

of income acceptable to the Secretary demonstrates that the

borrower’s annual income is equal to or less than 225 percent of

the applicable Federal Poverty Guideline as described in §

685.209.

Rationale

It’s well established that cost of living varies significantly across the country. The Federal 

Poverty Guideline for a family of four, for example, is $27,750. According to a recent study 

conducted by the Suffolk County Legislature’s Welfare to Work Commission, however, the 
poverty line for a family of similar size living on Long Island is $55,500, literally twice the 

Federal standard.

The shortcomings of applying national statistics to all localities only increases as the Department 

metric is scaled up to set the proposed benchmarks. Using the 225% standard proposed in the 

Regulations provided would require a family of four on Long Island to bring in only $62,437.50, 

when the same 225% applied to regionally adjusted salaries would render families earning less 

than $124,875 eligible. 

The effect of using the Federal Poverty Guideline to determine eligibility will have the effect of 

ensuring that almost no borrowers in the most expensive parts of the country – where assistance 

is highly needed – will see any form of relief.
### Organization, programs, and activities of the Geologic Division, U.S. Geological Survey

By: Robert Ellis Davis

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1000

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF CHASE GENERAL CORPORATION CONTAINED IN ITS QUARTERLY
REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         278,164
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   92,568
<ALLOWANCES>                                    22,026
<INVENTORY>                                    247,678
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               616,402
<PP&E>                                       1,023,603
<DEPRECIATION>                                 814,646
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 825,359
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          105,758
<BONDS>                                        162,672
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,361,440
<COMMON>                                       969,834
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,774,345)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   825,359
<SALES>                                      1,753,469
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,756,554
<CGS>                                        1,351,032
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  307,279
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,815
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,320
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 86,108
<INCOME-TAX>                                    20,750
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    65,358
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>