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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Richard Coglon, hereby certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

|(1) | the annual report on Form 20-F of Bradner Ventures Ltd.
      for the year ended November 30, 2008 (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 Bradner Ventures Ltd.                                                               

Dated: May 29, 2009

| | /s/ Richard Coglon                                      
| | --------------------------------------------------------
| | Richard Coglon                                          
| | President and Secretary                                 
| | (Principal Executive Officer, Principal
      Accounting
| | Officer and Principal Financial Officer)                

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other 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 Bradner Ventures
Ltd. and will be retained by Bradner Ventures Ltd. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
117 So.2d 918

#### Louis E. DURR, Jr. v. Mrs. Isabel McCALEB, widow of Arthur J. PORCHE.

No. 43989.

Feb. 15, 1960.

*81Andrew H. Thalheim, Gretna, for defendant-appellant.

D. L. Kirschenheuter, Jr., New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.

HAMITER, Justice.

Plaintiff instituted this action to obtain confirmation of a tax title to two certain lots of ground situated in the Parish of Jefferson, each of which measures 25 feet in width and 120 feet in depth. The district court rendered a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and from it the defendant appealed to this court.

At the outset it appears that we are unable to entertain the appeal. With respect to the value of the two lots involved, which is determinative of our appellate jurisdiction herein, there is contained in the record only a stipulation of counsel that “the value of the property in dispute is the sum of $5500.” And this court has often held that such a stipulation is without effect insofar as the vesting of jurisdiction in this court is concerned. Tucker v. Woodside, 218 La. 708, 50 So.2d 814; Martin v. Carroll, 220 La. 481, 56 So. 2d 843; Newman v. McClure, 221 La. 556, 59 So.2d 882; Adger v. Oliver, 222 La. 793, 64 So.2d 6; Castleberry v. Ethridge, 223 La. 466, 65 So.2d 138; Wainer v. Kirn, 223 La. 669, 66 So.2d 587; H. G. Hill Stores Realty Co. Inc. v. Latter, 227 La. 791, 80 So.2d 410; Russ v. Stephens, 230 La. 720, 89 So.2d 213; Holmes v. Wyatt Lumber Co., Inc., 234 La. 510, 100 So.2d 488.

For the reasons assigned it is ordered that this cause be transferred to the Court of Appeal for the Parish of Orleans pursuant to the provisions of LSA-R.S. 13:-*834441 and 13 :4442, the record to be filed in such court by appellant within thirty days from the date on which this decree shall become final; otherwise the appeal shall stand dismissed. Appellant shall pay the costs of the appeal to this court, and all other costs shall await the final disposition of the case

SIMON, J., absent.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

Inconnection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Advanced Life SciencesHoldings, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal quarter ending June 30, 2006 (the“Report”), I, R. Richard Wieland II, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1)                           The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 to the extent applicable; and

(2)                           The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|        | Date: August 14, 2006                 |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   |                                  |
|   | /s/ R. Richard Wieland II             |
|   | R. Richard Wieland II                 |
|   | Chief Financial Officer               |
|   | Advanced Life Sciences Holdings, Inc. |

 

1

----
§ 1753.81 Inspection and certification. ( a ) Upon completion and prior to closeout, minor construction must be inspected and certified to be in compliance with RUS construction standards, to be reasonable in cost, and to meet applicable codes. The certification is made by an experienced telephone engineer who is either licensed in the state where the inspection will be performed, or is a borrower's staff engineer, who meets the requirements of the “employee in charge” of force account engineering as described in subpart B of this part. The GFR will periodically audit the inspection of minor construction to ensure integrity of the procedure. RUS borrowers with less than 2000 subscribers may use the above procedure or have construction inspection performed by the GFR.
( b ) Engineering services for minor construction may be contracted using RUS Form 245, Engineering Service Contract—Special Services. Costs for these services may be included in the costs for construction on the Form 771. (See subpart B of this part.
( c ) Upon completion of construction, the borrower shall obtain the engineer's certification on RUS Form 771. An official of the borrower, designated by the board of directors, shall also execute the borrower's certification on Form 771.
[54 FR 39267, Sept. 25, 1989. Redesignated at 55 FR 39397, Sept. 27, 1990, as amended at 55 FR 53488, Dec. 31, 1990]
#### § 1735.44 Prepayment premiums.

The loan documents normally provide that RUS insured loans may be repaid in full at any time without prepayment premiums. Depending upon the lender, there may be prepayment premiums on loans guaranteed by RUS. See RUS Bulletin 320-12 for additional information. This CFR part supersedes those portions of RUS Bulletin 320-12, “Loan Payments and Statements,” with which it is in conflict.

[84 FR 59922, Nov. 7, 2019]
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 18-13105

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:17-cr-00228-LGW-GRS-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOHN JORDAN, JR., 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

________________________

(May 13, 2019)

Before WILSON, NEWSOM and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

W. Thomas Hudson, appointed counsel for John Jordan, Jr., in this direct 

criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the 

Case: 18-13105 Date Filed: 05/13/2019 Page: 1 of 2 
2

appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of 

the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the 

entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is 

GRANTED, and Jordan’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.

Case: 18-13105 Date Filed: 05/13/2019 Page: 2 of 2
§ 1726.23 Qualification of bidders. ( a ) *Qualified bidder list (QBL).* The borrower shall (acting through its engineer, if applicable) review the qualifications of prospective bidders for contract construction and for material and equipment procurement, and select firms qualified for inclusion on the borrower's list of qualified bidders for each contract. (See also § 1726.16 and § 1726.17.) A bid may not be solicited from a prospective bidder or opened by the borrower unless that bidder has been determined to be a qualified bidder for the contract. When preparing the QBL, in addition to the actual experience of the borrower, if any, in dealing with a prospective bidder, the borrower may solicit information from that bidder or from other parties with firsthand experience regarding the firm's capabilities and experience. It is also important to consider the firm's performance record, safety record, and similar factors in determining whether to include that firm on the QBL, since the borrower may not evaluate these factors when evaluating a bid from a qualified and invited bidder.
( b ) *Conflict of interest.* If there is a relationship between the borrower or engineer and a prospective bidder which might cause the borrower or engineer to have or appear to have a conflict of interest, that prospective bidder shall not be included on the QBL unless the engineer discloses the nature of the relationship to the borrower. In the case of the borrower, if its employees or directors have a relationship with a prospective bidder, the prospective bidder shall not be included on the qualified bidders list unless the nature of the relationship is disclosed to the board of directors, and the board of directors specifically approves the inclusion of that bidder in light of the potential for a conflict of interest.
#### In the Matter of Incorporated Village of Hewlett Bay Park, Appellant, Relative to Acquiring Title to Real Property for Storage Purposes. Joseph Klein et al., Respondents.

Pinal order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated January 26, 1966, reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs, petition for condemnation granted and proceeding remitted to the Special Term for further proceedings consistent herewith. The findings of fact contained or implicit in the opinion below which are inconsistent herewith are reversed and new findings are made as indicated herein. In our opinion, the record does not support the trial court’s opinion that there has been “ a perversion of the condemnation process ” in this case. It is undisputed that, as declared by the Board of Trustees of the appellant village, the purpose for which the property is to be used is a public purpose, i.e., storage of the village’s work vehicles, supplies, etc. Assuming *arguendo*that, in the absence of the taking of the property by the village for such use, legal use of the property as an automobile parking lot could have been achieved ■—a use generally opposed by the village residents — the fact remains that there is no proof in the record that the village will not in fact use the property for the stated storage purpose. Thus, there was no proof of “bad faith” on the part of the condemnor, either as to whether the proposed use is a public one or as to whether there would be adherence to such use after the taking of the property. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur. [48 Misc 2d 833.]
#### Edward Rager, Petitioner, v Martin Evans et al., Respondents.

Application unanimously denied, the cross motion granted and the petition dismissed, without costs and without disbursements. No opinion. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Birns, Lupiano and Bloom, JJ.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Michael A. Schneider, President and Chief Executive Officer ofAffinity Group Holding, Inc., certify that:

 

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q ofAffinity Group Holding, Inc.;

 

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.   The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures, (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant, and we have:

 

(a)     Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)     Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)     Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.   Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

 

(a)     Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

(b)     Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financialreporting.

 

 
| Date: May 9, 2008 |   | /s/ Michael A. Schneider              |   |
|------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                   |   | Michael A. Schneider                  |
|                   |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1790 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1790

 To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to extend to physician 
assistants eligibility for Medicaid incentive payments for the adoption 
  and use of certified electronic health records, whether or not such 
  physician assistants practice at a rural health center or Federally 
                        qualified health center.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2013

 Ms. Bass (for herself, Mr. Rangel, Ms. Wilson of Florida, Mr. Enyart, 
Mr. Grijalva, and Ms. Jackson Lee) introduced the following bill; which 
          was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to extend to physician 
assistants eligibility for Medicaid incentive payments for the adoption 
  and use of certified electronic health records, whether or not such 
  physician assistants practice at a rural health center or Federally 
                        qualified health center.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Health IT Modernization for 
Underserved Communities Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. EXTENDING PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT ELIGIBILITY FOR MEDICAID 
              ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD INCENTIVE PAYMENTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 1903(t)(3)(B)(v) of the Social Security 
Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b(t)(3)(B)(v)) is amended by striking ``insofar as 
the assistant is practicing in a rural health clinic that is led by a 
physician assistant or is practicing in a Federally qualified health 
center that is so led''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to payments made for calendar quarters beginning on 
or after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7674

FRANK LISTER RAIGNS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JOSEPH HARPER, Sheriff; CAPTAIN COSGROVE;

LIEUTENANT DANCE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District

Judge. (CA-95-1090-AM)

Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 26, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam

opinion.

Frank Lister Raigns, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error in the dismissal of Appellant's claim of deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of harm by another inmate. Accordingly,

we affirm the dismissal of that claim on the reasoning of the district court. Raigns v. Harper, No. CA-95-1090-AM (E.D. Va. Sept. 8,

1995). The district court dismissed Appellant's claim of deliberate

indifference to his medical needs without prejudice. Because Appellant may be able to save this claim by amending his complaint, the

portion of the order relating to this claim is not reviewable. See

Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064,

1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal with

respect to the medical needs claim. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART
#### § 1730.100 OMB control number.

The information collection requirements in this part are approved by the Office of Management and Budget and assigned OMB control number 0572-0025.

[89 FR 17276, Mar. 11, 2024]
Editorial Note on Subchapter B of Chapter XIV
Editorial Note: For Federal Register citations to regulations affecting previous program years not included in this volume, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov .*

§ 1467.14 Transfer of land. ( a ) *Offers voided.* Any transfer of the property prior to the enrollment of the easement, 30-year contract, or restoration cost-share agreement contract, including the landowner entering into a contract or purchase agreement to sell the land subject to offer, shall void the offer of enrollment.
( b ) *Payments to landowners.* For easements with multiple annual payments, any remaining easement payments will be made to the original participant unless NRCS receives an assignment of proceeds.
( c ) *Claims to payments.* With respect to any and all payments owed to participants, NRCS shall bear no responsibility for any full payments or partial distributions of funds between the original participant and the participant's successor. In the event of a dispute or claim on the distribution of cost-share payments, NRCS may withhold payments without the accrual of interest pending an agreement or adjudication on the rights to the funds.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

Inconnection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Advanced Life SciencesHoldings, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal quarter ending June 30, 2007 (the“Report”), I, R. Richard Wieland II, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934to the extent applicable; and

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.
|        | Date:  August  9, 2007          |
|--------|--------------------------------------|
|   |                                 |
|   |                                 |
|   | /s/ R. Richard Wieland II            |
|   | R. Richard Wieland II                |
|   | Chief Financial Officer              |
|   | Advanced Life Sciences Holdings, Inc |

 

 

----
§ 1709.5 Determination of energy cost benchmarks. ( a ) The Administrator shall establish, using the most recent data available, and periodically revise, the home energy cost benchmarks and the high energy cost benchmarks used to determine community eligibility for high energy cost grant and loan programs and the Denali Commission high energy cost grants and loans. In setting these energy cost benchmarks, the Administrator shall review the latest available information on home energy costs published by the EIA. High energy cost benchmarks will be set at 275 percent of the applicable national average home energy cost benchmark as determined by the Administrator from the published EIA data. Eligibility benchmarks shall be published in each grant announcement.
( b ) For use in determining eligibility for High Energy Cost Grants, the Administrator may establish benchmarks for national average annual household expenditures and for national average household per unit energy expenditures for major home energy sources or fuels, including, but not limited to, electricity, natural gas, fuel oil, kerosene, liquified petroleum gas (propane), other petroleum products, wood and other biomass fuels, coal, wind and solar energy.
Exhibit
4.6  Düsseldorf,
January 2nd 2004    Reappointment: Mr Ottmar C. Küsel
as member of the executive board and chief executive officer    Dear Mr Barnes, Dear Mr Heldler,  The term of office for the chief executive
officer, Ottmar C. Küsel, expires on 31.12.2004.  We have already discussed on the telephone
that Mr Küsel should be reappointed for a further three years, that is for the
period from January 1st 2005 until December 31st 2007, as member of the
executive board and chief executive officer. You have already informed me in a
telephone conversation that you will not be objecting to a written vote in line
with paragraph 10 section 1, sentence 2 of our
corporate articles.  Please find enclosed the proposed resolution
with the form for your vote. I would appreciate it if you could return your
vote to me at your earliest possible convenience.  Thank you very much.   Yours sincerely,  /s/ Dr. Volker Triebel (Dr. Volker Triebel)  Dr. Volker Triebel Chairman of the Rosenthal AG Supervisory
Board