alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.1

            STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
         PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE


Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned,
Sally A. Fonner, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of The
Enchanted Village, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that:

       The Company's Form 10-K Annual Report for the fiscal year ended January
       31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
       15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


                           /s/ Sally A Fonner
          Sally A. Fonner
          Chief Executive Officer and
          Chief Financial Officer
          Dated: May 12, 2003
#### 206.302 Circumstances permitting other than full and open competition.
2301.105-2 Arrangement of regulations. ( a ) *General.* The SSAR conforms to the FAR with respect to divisional arrangements; i.e., subchapters, parts, subparts, sections, subsections, and paragraphs.
( b ) *Numbering.* The FAR System of numbering permits the keying of the same or similar subject matter throughout Chapters 1 (FAR) and 23 (SSAR) of Title 48, CFR. However, SSA's system varies somewhat from that of the FAR numbering scheme, in the numbering to the left of the decimal point. Whereas the FAR only identifies the part number of 48 CFR to the left of the decimal point, our corresponding reference identifies the chapter as well. For example, the FAR paragraph corresponding to this SSAR paragraph is numbered 1.105-2(b) where “1” is the part number (may be one or two digits and is followed by a decimal point), “1” (to the right of the decimal point) is the subpart number, “05” (always two digits) is the section number, “2” is the subsection number (always hyphenated), and “(b)” is the paragraph reference. This SSAR reference is 2301.105-2(b) where the “23” is the chapter number assigned to SSA and the “01” represents the part number (part numbers will always be two digits for agencies implementing the FAR). The remaining numbers to the right of the decimal point are identical to and reflect the same divisions as in the FAR numbering scheme.
( c ) *References and citations.* ( 1 ) Unless otherwise stated, references indicate parts, subparts, sections, subsections, etc., of this regulation, the SSAR.
( 2 ) This regulation shall be referred to as the Social Security Acquisition Regulation (SSAR). Any reference may be cited as “SSAR” followed by the appropriate number. Within the SSAR, the number alone will be used.
( 3 ) Citations of authority shall be incorporated where necessary. All FAR reference numbers shall be preceded by “FAR.”
# C_2017123EN.01000601.xml

| 20.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 123/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 123/6

---

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION

(2017/C 123/07)

The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competition:

| | EPSO/AST/140/17 — NURSES (AST 3) |
| --- | --- |

EPSO/AST/140/17 — NURSES (AST 3)

The competition notice is published in 24 languages in
  Official Journal of the European Union C 123 A of 20 April 2017.

Official Journal of the European Union C 123 A

Further information can be found on the EPSO website: https://epso.europa.eu/

---
March 12, 2012

RE: Docket No. DOT-OST-2012-0029

Dear Secretary LaHood:

I am writing in support of the application of Alaska Airlines, Inc. to 

provide a daily direct flight to Reagan National Airport (DCA) from 

Portland International Airport (PDX). I believe that Alaska is the right 

choice. With their large Portland hub presence, strong customer 

service focus and track record for operational reliability, the carrier is 

best suited to provide a nonstop PDX to DCA flight.

Portland is the second largest market to the Washington DC area 

without nonstop service to DCA. With a nonstop route from PDX to 

DCA, Oregon and S.W. Washington residents will no longer be forced 

to use more time-consuming and less convenient service to our 

nation's capital.

I respectfully urge you to grant Alaska Airlines' application to serve 

PDX-DCA.

Linda L Brooks

Pacific City, Oregon

deaclin@gmail.com
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Richard Alston, Jr., Appellant.

In a *coram nobis*proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated November 13, 1962, which denied without a hearing his application to vacate a judgment of the former County Court, Queens County, rendered September 22, 1959 on his plea of guilty, convicting him of feloniously possessing a narcotic drug with intent to sell (Penal Law, § 1751, subd. 2), and imposing sentence. (For prior appeal, see 13 A D 2d 966.) Order affirmed *(People*v. *Nicholson,*11 N Y 2d 1067; *People*v. *Howard,*12 N Y 2d 65). Beldoek, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Rabin, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2


CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Kevin J. Reinhart, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Nexen
Inc., a Canadian  Corporation  (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 on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly  period
     ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
     the date hereof (the  "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 Report fairly  presents,  in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: July 21, 2009

/s/ Kevin J. Reinhart
---------------------------
Kevin J. Reinhart
Senior Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Nexen Inc. and shall be retained by Nexen Inc. and  furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Marvin F. Romanow,  Executive Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer of
Nexen Inc., a Canadian  Corporation  (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 on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period
     ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities  and Exchange  Commission
     on the date hereof (the "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 Report fairly presents,  in all material
     respects,  the  financial  condition  and  results  of  operations  of the
     Company.


Date:  July 18, 2008                                /s/ Marvin F. Romanow
                                                     ---------------------
                                                     Marvin F. Romanow
                                                     Executive Vice President
                                                     and Chief Financial Officer



A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Nexen Inc. and shall be retained by Nexen Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2013-0024 Directorate Identifier: 2000-NE-12-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Remove & replace 

Privilege Injector 1.0 $ 85.00 $1130.00 $1,215.00 131 $159,165.00

Remove & replace 

Fuel Manifold 2.0 $ 170.00 $13,105 $13,275.00 38 $504,450.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $663,615

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
#### GOLD v. DRY DOCK, E. B. & B. R. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

November 18, 1903.)

1. Carriers— Street Railroads—Personal Injuries—Instruction.

The complaint in a personal injury action alleged that the accident occurred in C. street at or near the intersection thereof with H. street. Plaintiff testified that at the time she attempted to get on the car by which she was injured it stood waiting for her on the north side of H. street, but was contradicted in this testimony by two of her own witnesses. The court was requested to charge that, if the jury found that the car stopped at the north side of H. street only, they must find for defendant. ZfeM, that the refusal to charge as requested was proper.

Appeal from City Court of New York, General Term.

Action by Katie Gold against the Dry Dock, East Broadway & Battery Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and BISCHOFF and BLANCHARD, JJ.

Henry A. Robinson, Bayard H. Ames, and F. Angelo Gaynor, for appellant.

Alfred & Charles Steckler,. for respondent.

FREEDMAN, P. J.

The appellant’s brief presents but one point, viz., that the court erred in refusing to charge the jury, as requested, that, if they find that its car stopped at the north side of Hester street only, they must find a verdict for the defendant, and in ruling to *1018leave that question of fact to the jury. The defendant’s counsel excepted generally, failing to specify whether he excepted to. the refusal to charge as requested, or to the court’s leaving the question of fact to the jury. But even if the exception be deemed to relate specifically to the refusal to charge as requested, it is untenable, under the evidence. The complaint averred the accident to have occurred in Clinton street at or near the intersection thereof with Hester street, and the case did not turn exclusively upon the question as to the exact spot at which the car had stopped. The material issue in the case was whether or not the plaintiff attempted to board the car while in motion, or after it had stopped for the purpose of allowing her to get on board. There was a dispute as to whether the car had to stop on the north or the south of Hester street, and the theory of the defense was that the plaintiff stood on the south side of Hester street; that the car passed her, and intended to stop for her at the north side; that the plaintiff ran after the car, and attempted to get on, and was injured before it could be stopped; and that it was stopped on or near the north side of Hester street. But the plaintiff had testified to the effect that the car had crossed Hester street, and, at the time she attempted .to get on, stood waiting for her on the uptown corner of Hester street, which meant the north side. In view of this testimony on the part of the plaintiff, although contradicted by two of her own witnesses, the court properly refused to charge as requested.

The judgment and order must be affirmed, with costs. All concur.
M. P. No. 74-113.

#### Newport Gas Light Company *v.*John H. Norberg, *Tax Administrator.*

*Moore, Virgadamo, Boyle & Lynch, Ltd., Salvatore L. Virgadamo,*for plaintiff-respondent. *Julius C. Michaelson,*Attorney General, *Gregory L. Benik,*Special Asst. Attorney General, *Perry Shatkin,*Chief Legal Officer (Taxation), for defendant-petitioner.

Motion of Newport Gas Light Company to add The Providence Gas Company as a party plaintiff-respondent is granted.
fp1No. Customer Plant Gas SourceMW or GasFlow Rate(Nm3/H)FuelDeNOxEff. (%)CommercialOperationCountry SystemNotes1 East Kentucky Power Cooperative Cooper Unit 2 CB 225 MW Coal 88 2013 U.S.A.9System provided by Hitachi,CM Catalyst2 PSEG Hudson Unit 2CB600 MW Coal 90.9 2011 U.S.A.9System provided by Hitachi4 Duke Energy Cliffside Unit 6 CB 2,602,800 Coal 81.3 2011 U.S.A.9System provided by Hitachi,CM Catalyst19 Minnesota Power Boswell Unit 3 CB355MW PRB 90 2009U.S.A.9System provided by HPSA20 Seminole Seminole Units 1 CB 715 MW70% Ilinois Coal30% Pet Coke90.3 2009U.S.A.9System provided by HPSA21 Seminole Seminole Units 2 CB 715 MW70% Ilinois Coal30% Pet Coke90.3 2009U.S.A.9System provided by HPSA22 Wisconsin Energy Elm Road Unit 2 CB680 Bit. 80 2009U.S.A.9System provided by Hitachi28 MidAmerican Energy Council Bluffs CB750 PRB 66.7 2008U.S.A.9System provided by Hitachi30 Wisconsin Energy Elm Road Unit 1 CB680 Bit. 80 2008U.S.A.9System provided by HitachiUpdated February 2010COALSCR System and NOx Catalyst ExperienceHitachi, Ltd.Babcock- Hitachi K.K.1 of 1Hitachi Power Systems America, Ltd.CONFIDENTIAL
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
               UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Cybrdi Inc. (the
"Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission as of the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Larry Liu, the
chief executive officer of the Company, hereby 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; and

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

                                                     /s/Larry Liu
                                                     --------------------
                                                     Name: Larry Liu, CEO
                                                     Date: July 15, 2005
III 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 197 

To provide sufficient time for legislation to be read. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 21, 2017 

Mr. PAUL submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Rules and Administration 

RESOLUTION 

To provide sufficient time for legislation to be read. 

1 Resolved, That (a) it shall not be in order for the Sen2 ate to consider any bill, resolution, message, conference 

3 report, amendment between the Houses, amendment, trea4 ty, or any other measure or matter until 1 session day 

5 has passed since introduction for every 20 pages included 

6 in the measure or matter in the usual form plus 1 session 

7 day for any number of remaining pages less than 20 in 

8 the usual form. 

9 (b)(1) Any Senator may raise a point of order that 

10 consideration of any bill, resolution, message, conference 

11 report, amendment, treaty, or any other measure or matVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:48 Jun 22, 2017 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\SR197.IS SR197

SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 197 IS 

1 ter is not in order under subsection (a). No motion to table 

2 the point of order shall be in order. 

3 (2) Paragraph (1) may be waived or suspended only 

4 by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly 

5 chosen and sworn. All motions to waive under this para6 graph shall be debatable collectively for not to exceed 3 

7 hours equally divided between the Senator raising the 

8 point of order and the Senator moving to waive the point 

9 of order or their designees. A motion to waive the point 

10 of order shall not be amendable. 

11 (3) This resolution is enacted pursuant to the power 

12 granted to each House of Congress to determine the Rules 

13 of its Proceedings in clause 2 of section 5 of article I of 

14 the Constitution of the United States. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
(October 15, 1963)

#### Gladys L. Robinson, Respondent-Appellant, v. Wildenstein & Co., Inc., Appellant-Respondent.

Order, entered on June 26, 1963, unanimously reversed and vacated on the law and on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and motion for the issuance of a commission to take the testimony of certain witnesses residing in Italy denied, without costs. The vital issue in this action involves the authenticity of a certain painting ascribed to a Venetian painter of the sixteenth century, and the resolving of the issue will rest upon the evaluating and weighing of expert testimony. The expert testimony to be presented by plaintiff will represent the crux of her case, and, in order that crucial issues of credibility be properly resolved, it is most important that the experts appear before the trier of the facts and that the defendant be allowed the opportunity before such trier of a searching and full cross-examinatian in light of their direct testimony and the facts as they are developed on the trial. The plaintiff does not show a lack of availability in New York of art critics and experts who would be well qualified to judge and testify with respect to the genuineness of the particular painting. So, if we assume that the court *808may in a proper ease direct the taking by deposition of the testimony of nonresident expert witnesses (but see CPLR, § 3101, subd. [d]; *Reif*v. *Gebel,*246 App. Div. 776), nevertheless, the motion should have been denied for the failure to make a sufficient and proper showing that the proposed depositions were necessary in prosecution of this action. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
# C_2017350EN.01000401.xml

| 18.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/4

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

17 October 2017

(2017/C 350/04)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1759 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 131,94 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4439 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,89148 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,5813 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1504 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,3260 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,733 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 307,35 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2298 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5800 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 4,3051 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4994 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4741 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,1811 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6375 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5952 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 328,14 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,7977 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,7846 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5080 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 880,12 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,9664 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 60,368 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 67,4711 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,946 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,7358 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 22,4334 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 76,4695 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1759

JPY

Japanese yen

131,94

DKK

Danish krone

7,4439

GBP

Pound sterling

0,89148

SEK

Swedish krona

9,5813

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1504

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,3260

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,733

HUF

Hungarian forint

307,35

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2298

RON

Romanian leu

4,5800

TRY

Turkish lira

4,3051

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4994

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4741

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,1811

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6375

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5952

KRW

South Korean won

1 328,14

ZAR

South African rand

15,7977

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,7846

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5080

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 880,12

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,9664

PHP

Philippine peso

60,368

RUB

Russian rouble

67,4711

THB

Thai baht

38,946

BRL

Brazilian real

3,7358

MXN

Mexican peso

22,4334

INR

Indian rupee

76,4695

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
# C_2017056EN.01000201.xml

| 22.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 56/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8244 — The Coca-Cola Company/Coca-Cola HBC/Neptūno Vandenys)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 56/03)

On 21 December 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8244. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8244. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
2413.301 Governmentwide commercial purchase card. ( c ) HUD's procedures concerning the use of the government-wide commercial purchase card are contained in its Handbook on the Government-wide Commercial Credit Card Program.
[60 FR 46155, Sept. 5, 1995. Redesignated at 64 FR 46095, Aug. 23, 1999]