alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT32**

**CertificationPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with thefiling of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,2007 (the “Report”) by Cascade Natural Gas Corporation (the “Company”), each ofthe undersigned hereby certifies that:

1.                                       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2.                                       Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Cascade NaturalGas Corporation and will be retained by Cascade Natural Gas Corporation andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or staff upon request.
|        | Date:                                  | May 8, 2007 |
|--------|----------------------------------------|-------------|
|   |                                   |
|   |                                   |
|   | /s/ David W.  Stevens                  |
|   | David W. Stevens                       |
|   | President and  Chief Executive Officer |
|   |                                   |
|   |                                   |
|   | /s/ James E.  Haug                     |
|   | James E. Haug                          |
|   | Chief Accounting  Officer              |

 

----
<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 Composite  Technology  Corporation  Annual Report on Form
10-KSB for the year ended  September 30, 2003 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Benton H Wilcoxon ,
Chief Financial Officer 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, 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, 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 Company.

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906,  another
document authenticating,  acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Composite  Technology  Corporation
and will be retained by Composite  Technology  Corporation  and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                                           /s/ Benton H Wilcoxon
                                           ------------------------------
                                           Benton H Wilcoxon
                                           Acting Chief Financial Officer
                                           (Principal Financial Officer)
#### Cox *et al. v.*Goodman.

November 18, 1912.

Complaint for land. Before Judge Thomas. Berrien superior court. September 21, 1911.

*J. J. Bull,*for plaintiffs. *W. D. Buie,*for defendant.

Hill, J.

1. Where, upon the trial of a complaint for land, the defendant sought to -prove title by prescription under color of title, it was not error to admit in evidence, over the plaintiffs’ objection, the sheriff’s deed made to the defendant’s predecessor in title, who purchased at the sheriff’s sale, because the fi. fa. under which the land in controversy was sold did not accompany the deed. *Hammond*v. *Crosby,*68 *Ga.*767; *Beverly*v. *Burke,*9 *Ga.*440 (54 Am. D. 351); *Connell v. Culpepper,*111 *Ga.*805 (35 S. E. 667); *Wardlaw v. McNeill,*106 *Ga.*32 (31 S. E. 785; *Street*v. *Collier,*118 *Ga.*470 (45 S. E. 294); *Floyd v. Ricketson,*129 *Ga.*668 (59 S. E. 909); *Bodge v. Cowart,*131 *Ga.*549 (62 S. E. 987).

2 On the trial of such a ease it was not error for the court to propound to a witness on the stand questions for the purpose of eliciting the truth of the case, where it does not appear that the questions, some of which were leading, were calculated to impress the jury with the idea that the presiding judge believed the prevailing party in the court below should recover in the suit. *Johnson*v. *Leffler,*122 *Ga.*670 (7), (50 S. E. 488); *Gillis*v. *Bowman,*132 *Ga.*762 (64 S. E. 1096).

3. The verdict was demanded by the evidence, and the court did not err in directing it for the defendant.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concw.*
#### 1804.470 Security requirements for unclassified information technology (IT) resources.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

 Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

 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.

 

April 28, 2017

Order 

Clerk

April 28, 2017

155609(25)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 155609

v COA: 335203

Saginaw CC: 08-031116-FC

MARK COLIN JENNINGS, II,

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellant to exceed the 

page limitation of the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The application

submitted on April 10, 2017, is accepted for filing.
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions Decision: 2015 ME 92 Docket: Yor

- 14

- 493 Submitted

On Briefs : July 1, 2015 Decided: July 28, 2015

Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER
, MEAD, GORMAN, and HJELM, JJ.

ANNE (WORTH) McBRIDE

v.

JEFFREY R. WORTH

PER CURIAM

[¶1] Jeffrey R. Worth appeals from a judgment entered by the District Court

(Springvale, Mulhern, J. ) finding Worth in contempt for failure to pay spousal
support to his ex

- wife, Anne (Worth) McBride. See M.R. Civ. P. 66. The motion
for contempt that led to this judgment was the fourth post

- judgment motion t hat the

District Court had to consider due to Worth’s continuing failure to comply with his
spousal support obligations despite findings that he has the ability to compl y

. [¶ 2 ] In prosecuting this appeal, Worth failed entirely to file an appendix to

the briefs, see M.R. App. P. 8(a), (b)(1), and did not supply a transcript of the

proceedings or any substitute for a transcript as authorized by M.R. App. P. 5.

Because of these defects in the appeal, we are unable to provide meaningful2
appellate re view, and we dismiss the appeal. S ee M.R. App. P. 8(j); Hutchinson v.

Bruyere , 2015 ME 16, ¶¶ 5

- 10, 111 A.3d 36.

[¶ 3 ] We note additionally that the trial court has provided Wo rth with
multiple opportunities to avoid incarceration despite his consistent failure to pay

spousal support . Worth’s present appeal

— combined with the procedural history of

the case

— demonstrates Worth’s willingness to use court process to repeatedly
delay or avoid paying an unambiguous spousal support obligation

. The remedy of
contempt, with the immediate consequence of imprisonment for failure to comply
,

see M.R. Civ. P. 66(d) (1), (2)(D), (3) ( A), is appropriate in such circumstances.
The entry is:

Appeal dismissed. Mandate to issue forthwith.

On the briefs:
Jeffrey R. Worth, appellant pro se
Anne (Worth) McBride, appellant pro se

Springvale District Court docket number FM

- 09

- 58 F OR C LERK R EFERENCE O NLY
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-16325) pertaining to the 1996 Stock Option Plan of ACR Group, Inc. and theRegistration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-42701) pertaining to the registration of 2,411,667 shares of common stock of ACR Group, Inc., of our report dated May 13, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of ACR Group,Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended February 29, 2004. 

 

ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

 

Houston, Texas 

May 26, 2004
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                            Section 906 Certification

          I, Dennis M. McGrath, Chief Financial Officer of PhotoMedex, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the "Company"), do hereby certify, in accordance with 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as created pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

          (1)  the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended
          December 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
          of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 Company.

                                                    PHOTOMEDEX INC.

Dated: March 28, 2003                               By: /s/ Dennis M. McGrath
                                                        -----------------------
                                                        Dennis M. McGrath
                                                        Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Benny Adams, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the former County Court, Kings County, rendered October 20, 1961 after a jury trial, *899convicting him of burglary in the third degree and of petit larceny, and: (a) imposing a sentence of three to six years on the burglary count; and (b) suspending sentence on the petit larceny count. Defendant was tried jointly with a codefendant, Rafael Negron. Judgment modified on the facts by reducing the sentence to the time already served. As so modified, judgment affirmed. Defendant has already served the minimum of his term. Under all the circumstances disclosed by the instant record, the sentence was excessive; it should be reduced to the time already served. (For companion appeal, *People*v. *Negron,*21 A D 2d 904.) Beldoek, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.
# Issue Paper 9

# Session 1:  January 12-14, 2016

**Issue:**Provide Technical Changes to the REPAYE Plan regulations to:  (1) specify that a borrower’s monthly payment amount is not adjusted to take into account the student loan debt of the borrower’s spouse if only the borrower’s income is used to calculate the payment amount; and (2) remove an incorrect reference to loss of partial financial hardship status.

**Statutory cite:**§455(e) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended

**Regulatory cite:**34 CFR 685.209(c)(2)(ii)(B) and (c)(2)(v)

**Summary of issue:**

Under the REPAYE, PAYE, and IBR plans, the regulations provide for an adjustment of the monthly payment amount for a married borrower if the borrower’s spouse also has eligible loans. Specifically, the calculated monthly payment is multiplied by each borrower’s percentage of the couple’s total eligible loan debt. This adjustment results in a reduction of the borrower’s required monthly payment amount if the spouse also has eligible loans. Under the PAYE and IBR plans, this adjustment is made only when the borrower's monthly payment amount was calculated based on the combined income of the borrower and spouse. In contrast, the current REPAYE Plan regulations provide for the spousal loan debt adjustment even when the borrower's monthly payment amount was calculated based solely on the borrower's individual income. This inconsistency with the PAYE and IBR regulations is the result of a technical error in the drafting of the REPAYE Plan regulations. For all three plans, the intent of the spousal loan debt adjustment is to ensure that in cases where both the borrower and spouse have eligible loans ***and*** the joint income of both individuals was used to calculate the borrower’s monthly payment amount, the borrower is required to make a payment that is proportionate to his or her percentage of the couple’s combined loan debt. 

To accurately reflect the intent of the regulations, current 34 CFR 685.209(c)(2)(ii)(B) should be revised to clarify that the adjustment of a married borrower’s REPAYE Plan payment amount based on spousal loan debt is not made if the borrower and spouse filed separate federal income tax returns, and the borrower is separated from his or her spouse, or cannot reasonably access the spouse’s income information (i.e., there would be no adjustment based on spousal loan debt if the spouse’s income was not considered in the calculation of the borrower’s monthly payment amount). 

In addition to the change discussed above, the current REPAYE Plan regulations contain an incorrect reference to partial financial hardship in §685.209(c)(2)(v). This should be removed, since partial financial hardship is not relevant for purposes of the REPAYE Plan.
#### Nicoletta Manente, as Administratrix of the Estate of Nicola Manente, Deceased, Respondent, v. Sorecon Corporation, Appellant.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury sustained by plaintiff’s intestate, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated August 3, 1964 and thereafter entered in Richmond County, as, upon the granting of its motion to require plaintiff to furnish security for costs, pursuant to CPLR 8501, limited the amount of such security to $250. Order modified by amending its decretal paragraph so as to direct that the plaintiff shall furnish security for costs by filing and serving an undertaking in the sum of $4,500. As so modified, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs. Plaintiff’s time to file and serve such undertaking is extended until 40 days after entry of the order hereon. The plaintiff is a nonresident administratrix of the estate of her late husband. Her nonresidence requires the giving of security for costs (CPLR 8501, subd. [a]). Disbursements in this action, to the present, amount to $4,062.48 for the printing of records and briefs in two prior appeals to this court from judgments in plaintiff’s favor. On each appeal this court reversed the judgment and granted a new trial, with costs to abide the event (see 18 A D 2d 922; 20 A D 2d 896). If successful on a third trial or appeal, defendant’s statutory costs may amount to about $375. CPLR 8503 gives the court discretionary power to fix an amount greater than $250 as security “ that the plaintiff shall pay all legal costs awarded to the defendant.” Under the circumstances, it was an abuse of discretion to limit to $250 the amount fixed as security for such costs. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
PN AAAS

ADVANCING SCIENCE, SERVING SOCIETY

Judge Richard A. Posner

US Circuit Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit
219 S. Dearborn Street,

Room 2788F

Chicago, IL 60604

Invoice
Invoice Date: January 22, 2013
Invoice No.: 52-4396-2

Description
Per the Letter of Agreement signed 11/7/12 relating to the services to be provided by AAAS for the
recommendation of an expert(s) in the Brandeis patent litigations as provided through the
Court Appointed Scientific Experts (CASE) project staff.

Final Payment Dué $ 4,000.00

Amount Due AAAS
E.I.N. 53-0196568

Certifying Official:

CLL hs [-22-/3

Colleen Struss Date
Director of Finance

Please include a copy of this invoice with your payment and remit to Deborah Runkle at the address below.
If you have questions regarding the invoice please contact Tanisha Lewis at 202-326-8978.

Office of Finance and Administration

American Association for the Advancement of Science
1200 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20005 USA
Tel: 202 326 6699
www.aaas.org
**U.S. Department of Education**

**Negotiated Rulemaking**

**1990 K Street, NW, 8th Floor Conference Center**

**Washington, D.C.**

**Team II – Student Loan Program Issues**

**January 9, 2012, 12:00 pm – 5:00 pm**

**January 10-12, 2012, 9:00 am – 5:00 pm**

**January 13, 2012, 9:00 am – 12:00 pm**

**AGENDA**

**Welcome**

**Introductions**

**Overview of the Negotiated Rulemaking Process**

**Review and Adopt Protocols**

**Petitions for Membership**

**Overview of the Student Loan Program Issues**

**Review Agenda of Issues to be Negotiated**

**Workshop-Style Review of Issues**

· Modifications to the Income Contingent Repayment (ICR) Plan in the Direct Loan Program

· Modifications to the Income-Based Repayment (IBR) Plan in the Direct Loan and FFEL Programs

· New borrower notification for annual IBR evaluation

· Annual IBR income verification

· Borrower repayment after leaving IBR

· Deadline for FFEL lender 60-day delinquent borrower repayment disclosure

· Forbearance

· Borrowers under Department of Defense repayment plans

· Delinquent borrowers entering forbearance

· Process for defaulted borrowers

· Minimum loan period for transfer students in non-term programs and certain non-standard term programs

· Loan rehabilitation in the Direct Loan and FFEL Programs

· Reasonable and affordable payment standard

· Treatment of borrowers subject to administrative wage garnishment

· Participation rate index appeal for one-year cohort default rates

· Repeal of unnecessary regulations in the FFEL Program 

· Incorporation and modification of corresponding requirements in the Direct Loan Program

· Loan discharges based on total and permanent disability

· Single application process

· Borrower notification of denial

· Post-discharge monitoring of employment earnings

· Closed school loan discharge – 90 day eligibility period for borrowers

· Satisfactory repayment arrangements for defaulted borrowers

· School enrollment status reporting requirements

· Perkins Loan Issues

· Graduate fellowship deferment eligibility

· Social security number requirement for loan assignment

· Cancellation rate progression across cancellation categories

· Economic hardship deferment debt-to-income provision

**Logistics**

· Schedule future meeting

· Identify additional information needs

**Next Steps**

· Draft Regulatory Text

· Agenda for Meeting 2:  February 13-17, 2012

· Meeting Summary

· Other

2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Bisacco, Appellant.

— Appeal by defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the County Court, Suffolk County, imposed April 5, 1978, upon his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, on his plea of guilty, the sentence being an indeterminate prison term with a maximum of life imprisonment and a minimum of three years. Sentence modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the minimum term to one year. As so modified, sentence affirmed. The sentence was excessive to the extent indicated herein. Damiani, J. P., Titone, Suozzi and Rabin, JJ., concur.
July 28, 2016
U.S. Department ofTransportation Docket Management System 1200 NewJersey Ave. , SE Washington DC 20590
RE: Response to Request for Information to FAA-2015-7175, Description ofAircraft Make, Model, Maximum Weight Including Payload and Power Source. aircraft make is a DJI Science and Technology Co., Ltd model is a Phantom II Vision Plus maximum payload is 1350gor 3 lbs
. type ofaircraft is rotorcraft with 4 rotary propellers for lift powersource is a 5200mAh Li-Po Battery I understand that that this information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process the petition and I hope this is all ofthe information necessary to complete the request. Thank you and I look forward to hearing back from the Administration.

Brandon Shane Rasch
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         115,012
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,654
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               152,226
<PP&E>                                       4,001,642
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,584,768
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,569,140
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,805
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,559,335
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,569,140
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               438,991
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  163,971
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                275,020
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            275,020
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   275,020
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    31.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    31.11
        

</TABLE>
#### Chatham Security Corporation, Respondent, v. J. R. Williston & Beane, Appellant.

Order entered October 4, 1961 and the judgment entered thereon on October 20, 1961, unanimously reversed on the law and plaintiff’s *765motion for partial summary judgment is denied, with costs to defendant-appellant. Appeal from the order entered on October 17, 1961 denying defendant’s motion for a rehearing is dismissed as academic, without costs. There are triable issues presented which required a denial of partial summary judgment on the first cause of action. Among others, there are issues as to whether Meadowbrook and plaintiff were Arlee’s agents, whether defendant could set off against plaintiff, as an undisclosed principal, the indebtedness of Arlee, and whether plaintiff was Arlee’s assignee and therefore subject to a setoff of claims which defendant had against Arlee. Only after a trial following adequate pretrial examinations can there be a proper resolution of the issues in this case. Special Term properly struck out the new matter pleaded in the answer in connection with the denials. But even if the pleading is bad, summary judgment must nevertheless be denied if the affidavits indicate triable issues. *(Curry*v. *MacKenzie,*239 N. Y. 267, 272.) The deficiency in pleading can be supplied by amendment. Therefore, defendant is given leave to serve an amended answer appropriately pleading affirmative defenses, setoffs or counterclaims, within 10 days after the entry of the order herein. Concur — Valente, J. P., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.