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

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 CDI Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and 2) the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



By:

/s/ Roger H. BallouRoger H. BallouPresident and Chief Executive Officer


Dated: November 7, 2008

By:

/s/ Mark A. KerschnerMark A. KerschnerExecutive Vice President andChief Financial Officer


Dated: November 7, 2008

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to CDI Corp. and will be retained by CDI Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 12 , 2015

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 14

- 00888

- CV

ROBERTO LUIS FRUTO G UEVARA , Appellant

V.
CONSUELA LEONA TSINN IJINNIE , Appellee

On Appeal from the 387th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 14

- DCV

- 212348

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from a judgment signed October 10 , 201 4 . The notice of appeal was filed November 3 , 201 4 . To date, our records show that appellant has not paid the $1 9 5.00 appellate filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5 (requiring payment of fees in civil cases unless indigent); Tex. R. App. P. 20.1 (listing requirements for establishing indigence); see also Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 51.207.2 On January 13, 2015 , this court ordered appellant to pay the appellate filing
fee on or before January 28, 20 1 5 , or the appeal would be dismissed. Appellant has not paid the appellate filing fee. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c) (allowing involunt ary dismissal of case because appellant has failed to comply with notice from clerk requiring response or other action within specified time).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and McCally

.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Frank Agosto, Appellant.

— Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, New York *625County, rendered March 9, 1978, convicting defendant of robbery in the first degree and sentencing him thereupon as a predicate felon to an indeterminate term of 8% years to 16% years held in abeyance and the matter remanded to Trial Term for a reopened *Huntley*hearing. After a hearing, defendant’s motion to suppress his statements was denied. Thereafter a plea of guilty was entered. At the *Huntley*hearing defendant made an offer of proof with respect to his intention to call three witnesses, whose testimony would establish, *inter alia,*the efforts by his sister and by the mother of his child to determine whether he had a lawyer present at the time of his interrogation. The offer of proof was rejected. This testimony should have been received. It was, at the very least, relevant to the issue of Detective McLinskey’s credibility, inasmuch as the proffered testimoney of two of the witnesses might have been at variance with the detective’s as to the subject of their conversation at the station house. In remanding, we intimate no view, tentative or otherwise, that defendant was sealed off from his family and/or an attorney while he was being questioned. This is an issue which may be explored at the reopened hearing, after which, and on the basis of an entire record, the court should make its findings of fact and conclusions of law. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Lane, Sandler and Sullivan, JJ.
# Court of Appeals

First District of Texas

BILL OF COSTS

No. 01

- 17

- 00269

- CV

Myong Ladner

v

.

Pareshbhai Vanmalibhai Patel, and Minaxi Pareshbhal Patel

NO. 278,589

- B IN THE 146TH DISTRICT COUR T OF BELL C OUNTY

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID/DUE STATUS PAID BY

MT FEE
FILING
CHAPTER 51
INDIGENT
STATEWIDE EFILING $10.00 $100.00 $50.00 $25.00 $30.00 11/21/2017

03/10/2017
03/10/2017
03/10/2017
03/10/2017 E

- PAID

TRANSFER
TRANSFER
TRANSFER
TRANSFER APE
ANT
ANT
ANT
ANT



### The costs incurred on appeal to the First Cour t of Appeals Houston, Texas are $215.00.

Court costs in this case have been taxed in this Court’s judgment

I, Christopher A. Prine , Clerk o f the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, do hereby certify that this is a true statement of the cost s of appeal in this case.IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the seal of the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, this 25 th day of May, 2018

.
#### 3401.303 Publication and codification.

(a) The EDAR is issued as chapter 34 of title 48 of the CFR.

(1) The FAR numbering illustrations at FAR 1.105-2 apply to the EDAR.

(2) The EDAR numbering system corresponds with the FAR numbering system. An EDAR citation will include the prefix “34” prior to its corresponding FAR part citation; *e.g.,* FAR 25.108-2 would have corresponding EDAR text numbered as EDAR 3425.108-2.

(3) Supplementary material for which there is no counterpart in the FAR will be codified with a suffix beginning with “70” or, in cases of successive sections and subsections, will be numbered in the 70 series (*i.e.,* 71-79). These supplementing sections and subsections will appear to the closest corresponding FAR citation; *e.g.,* FAR subpart 16.4 may be augmented in the EDAR by citing EDAR 3416.470 and FAR 16.403 may be augmented in the EDAR by citing EDAR 3416.403-70. (*Note:* These citations are for illustrative purposes only and may not actually appear in the published EDAR). For example:

| FAR | Is
implemented as | Is
augmented
as |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 15 | 3415 | 3415.70 |
| 15.1 | 3415.1 | 3415.170 |
| 15.101 | 3415.101 | 3415.101-70 |
| 15.101-1 | 3415.101-1 | 3415.101-170 |

Table 1 to Paragraph (a)(3)

(c) Guidance that is unique to an organization with Head of the Contracting Activity (HCA) authority contains that activity's acronym directly preceding the cite. The following activity acronyms apply: FSA—Federal Student Aid.
#### Walgreen Company, appellee, v. Mark F. Madden and Michael S. Madden, copartners, trading as Madden Brothers, appellants.

Gen. No. 30,589.

Action for money had and received. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Arnold Heap, Judge, presiding. Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1925.

Reversed and cause remanded.

Opinion filed June 23, 1926.

James V. O’Donnell and McKinley & Schmauch, for appellants; Walter W. Schmauch, of counsel.

Isaac B. Upson, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Thomson

delivered the opinion of the court.
# C_2021006EN.01001201.xml

| 8.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/12

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

7 January 2021

(2021/C 6/10)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2276 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 127,13 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4392 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,90190 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,0575 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0833 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 155,30 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,3435 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 26,147 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 357,79 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,4998 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,8712 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 8,9987 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5836 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5601 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,5176 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6907 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6253 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 342,29 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 18,7919 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,9392 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5660 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 17 259,99 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,9570 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,043 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 91,2000 |
| THB | Thai baht | 36,859 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 6,5172 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 24,2552 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 90,0455 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2276

JPY

Japanese yen

127,13

DKK

Danish krone

7,4392

GBP

Pound sterling

0,90190

SEK

Swedish krona

10,0575

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0833

ISK

Iceland króna

155,30

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,3435

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

26,147

HUF

Hungarian forint

357,79

PLN

Polish zloty

4,4998

RON

Romanian leu

4,8712

TRY

Turkish lira

8,9987

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5836

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5601

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,5176

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6907

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6253

KRW

South Korean won

1 342,29

ZAR

South African rand

18,7919

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,9392

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5660

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

17 259,99

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,9570

PHP

Philippine peso

59,043

RUB

Russian rouble

91,2000

THB

Thai baht

36,859

BRL

Brazilian real

6,5172

MXN

Mexican peso

24,2552

INR

Indian rupee

90,0455

---

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

---
June 11, 2015 

Mr. Cole Nickell 

3610 Hearthway Lane 

Cumming, GA 30041 

Dear Mr. Nickell: 

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

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your May 26, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

1907), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does 

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request 

any further, you must send us all of the following: 

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

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

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

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

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

What You Should Do 

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

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

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

If We Do Not Hear From You 

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

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure
# C_2019003EN.01000101.xml

| 7.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 3/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 3/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

4 January 2019

(2019/C 3/01)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1403 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 123,20 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4679 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,89988 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,2460 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1256 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 134,00 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,8648 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,653 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 321,45 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2957 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,6656 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 6,1707 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6189 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5328 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,9325 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7045 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5525 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 279,13 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,1175 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,8280 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4335 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 241,35 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7106 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,809 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 77,6790 |
| THB | Thai baht | 36,587 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,2889 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 22,3080 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 79,4315 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1403

JPY

Japanese yen

123,20

DKK

Danish krone

7,4679

GBP

Pound sterling

0,89988

SEK

Swedish krona

10,2460

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1256

ISK

Iceland króna

134,00

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,8648

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,653

HUF

Hungarian forint

321,45

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2957

RON

Romanian leu

4,6656

TRY

Turkish lira

6,1707

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6189

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5328

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,9325

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7045

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5525

KRW

South Korean won

1 279,13

ZAR

South African rand

16,1175

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,8280

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4335

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 241,35

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7106

PHP

Philippine peso

59,809

RUB

Russian rouble

77,6790

THB

Thai baht

36,587

BRL

Brazilian real

4,2889

MXN

Mexican peso

22,3080

INR

Indian rupee

79,4315

---

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

---
# C_2020051EN.01002001.xml

| 14.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/20

---

Call for expressions of interest for the selection of a member of the European Fiscal Board

Prolongation of deadline for submission of applications

(Official Journal of the European Union C 13 of 15 January 2020)

(2020/C 51/10)

The deadline for submission of applications for the call for expressions of interest for the selection of a member of the European Fiscal Board of 14 February 2020, midnight, has been prolonged until 15 March 2020, midnight, Brussels time.

---
IA 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 201 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection relating to ‘‘Registry of Nonbank Covered Persons Subject 

to Certain Agency and Court Orders’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 30, 2024 

Mr. OGLES submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating 

to ‘‘Registry of Nonbank Covered Persons Subject to 

Certain Agency and Court Orders’’. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Bu4 reau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to ‘‘Reg5 istry of Nonbank Covered Persons Subject to Certain 

6 Agency and Court Orders’’ (89 Fed. Reg. 56028; pubVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:44 Aug 30, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HJ201.IH HJ201

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 201 IH 

1 lished July 8, 2024) and such rule shall have no force or 

2 effect. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
31.703 Requirements. ( a ) Contracts which refer to this subpart 31.7 for determining allowable costs shall be deemed to refer to, and shall have the allowability of costs determined by the contracting officer in accordance with, the OMB Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR part 200, subpart E and appendix IV in effect on the date of the contract.
( b ) Agencies are not expected to place additional restrictions on individual items of cost. However, under 10 U.S.C. 3744 and 41 U.S.C. 4304, the costs cited in 31.603(b) are unallowable.
[48 FR 42301, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 60 FR 42661, Aug. 16, 1995; 79 FR 24211, Apr. 29, 2014; 81 FR 45853, July 14, 2016; 87 FR 73899, Dec. 1, 2022]
#### Alphonso Hammond, defendant in error, v. James C. Edmondson, plaintiff in error.

Gen. No. 30,321.

Bill for dissolution of partnership. Judgment for complainant upon decree finding indebtedness due from defendant. Error to the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Oscar Hebei, Judge, presiding. Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1925.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed June 14, 1926.

Rehearing denied June 29, 1926.

Sydney P. Brown, for plaintiff in error.

Joseph E. Snowden, for defendant in error.

Mr. Presiding Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of William J. O’Connor, Deceased. Joseph M. O’Connor, Appellant; Charles J. Heffernan, as Executor, *743Respondent.

In a proceeding to judicially settle the final account of the executor of the estate of William O’Connor, deceased, in which the decedent’s brother (Joseph M. O’Connor) filed certain objections to the account, the objector appeals from three separate orders of the Surrogate’s Court, Richmond County, each dated January 7, 1963, as follows: (1) from so much of an order as denied his motion to examine the executor pursuant to section 263 of the Surrogate’s Court Act and, in addition, certain named persons (not parties to the proceeding) pursuant to article 29 of the Civil Practice Act; (2) from so much of an order as denied the objector’s motion to vacate the executor’s demand for a bill of particulars and directed the objector to serve a bill of particulars with respect to his objections; and (3) from an order which denied his demand for a jury trial. The order with respect to the examination is modified by striking out the second decretal paragraph denying the examination of the executor pursuant to section 263 of the Surrogate’s Court Act, and by substituting therefor a provision granting such examination. As so modified, order insofar as appealed from, affirmed, without costs. Order denying the objector’s motion with respect to the bill of particulars and directing the service of the bill, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, without costs. Order denying jury trial affirmed, without costs. The examination of the executor shall proceed on 10 days’ written notice or at such other time and place as the parties may mutually stipulate. The objector’s time to serve the bill of particulars is extended until 20 days after his completion of said examination of the executor. In our opinion it was error to deny the objector’s motion to examine the executor pursuant to section 263 of the Surrogate’s Court Act, notwithstanding that the Objections to the account had already been filed and that an examination of the executor has been directed pursuant to article 29 of the Civil Practice Act (cf. *Matter of Walger,*8 AD 2d 971). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

Programs
|                                                   |
|---------------------------------------------------|
|                                                   | PurposeFunding StatusEligibilityLaws, Regs, & GuidanceApplicant InfoResourcesAwardsFAQsPerformanceContacts |  |
| Office of Elementary and Secondary Education Home |
|                                                   |

Authorized by: Section 220 of the Department of Education Organization Act

|        |
|--------|
|   | Printable view |
|        |

## How Do I Find...

          - Student loans, forgiveness
          - College accreditation
          - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
          - FERPA
          - FAFSA
          - 1098, tax forms

More >

## Information About...

          - Transforming Teaching
          - Family and Community Engagement
          - Early Learning

 

|  |
|--|
|  |
|  | No Related Topics Found |  |
|  |

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a GrantEligibility for Grants

Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website

Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works Clearinghouse

About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy ProgramSubscribe to E-Mail Updates

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
***Does the Act apply only to older people?***

The Act does not                  limit protection against discrimination to a certain age group.

***Does the Act apply to age distinctions that are included in federal,                state and local laws, such as a minimum age to enroll in a public                school?***

No, the Act does                  not apply to statutes and ordinances passed by elected bodies                  that establish age criteria for participation in certain programs.

***Does the Act have any other exceptions?***

There are a variety of exceptions to the rule that permit age to be taken into account. For example, the act permits schools and colleges to offer special programs that are geared toward providing special benefits to children and the elderly in a specific age range.

***Does the Act allow schools to set age limits for programs like drivers                education?***

Yes. The Act contains                  a number of exceptions that take into account whether consideration                  of age is necessary to operate the program. A district may limit                  participation in a driver's education course to those students                  who are a certain age if this age criterion is necessary to the                  program.

***What if a school or college uses factors other than age as criteria for                admission to a program (such as requiring applicants to have graduated                from their previous school within 2 years), but it has the effect                of excluding older people who may have graduated many years ago?***

The Act may prohibit                  this if the requirement being questioned is not needed for the                  normal operation of the program being offered.

***Does the Act apply to age discrimination in employment?***

No, employment discrimination                  is covered by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which                  is enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

***Do I have to file                an OCR complaint before I can file a claim in court?***

The regulations under                  the Age Discrimination Act, allow you to file a claim in Federal                  court only after: 1) 180 days have elapsed since you filed the                  complaint with OCR and OCR has made no finding, or 2) OCR issues                  a finding in favor of the recipient. If this occurs, OCR will                  promptly notify you and remind you of your right to file in court.                  

If you are considering                  filing in court, bear in mind that OCR does not represent complaining                  parties or provide advice regarding court filings. You would need                  to use the services of your own attorney. Also, if you proceed                  with your claim in a court, OCR will not continue to pursue your                  OCR complaint.