alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarter Report
of Kodiak Oil & Gas Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Quarterly Report), I, Lynn A. Peterson, Chief Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(1) | The Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
          of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(s) | The information contained in this Annual Report fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:      August 11, 2006
By:   /s/ Lynn A. Peterson
       ______________________________________

                Lynn A Peterson
                Chief Executive Officer and
                Principal Financial Officer

---
#### § 1900.3 State, district, and county office employees.

The following officials and employees of the Rural Development, in accordance with applicable laws, and the regulations implementing these laws, for and on behalf of, and in the name of the United States of America or the Rural Development, are also severally authorized within the area of their respective jurisdictions to perform the acts specified in paragraphs (g) through (r) of § 1900.2; and within their loan approval authority to sell or otherwise dispose of real or chattel property or interests therein and to execute and deliver bills of sale or other instruments to effect such sale or disposition: Chief, Farmer Programs/Specialist; Chief, Rural Housing/Specialist; Chief, Community Programs/Specialist; Chief, Business and Industry/Specialist; Chief, Community and Business Programs/Specialist; Chief, Appraisal Staff/Appraiser; Chief, Underwriting Staff/Underwriter; Chief, Underwriting and Appraisal Staff; Chief, Servicing and Inventory Staff/Credit Management Specialist/Realty Specialist; each District Director, Assistant District Director, Loan Specialist General, County (including Parish) Supervisor, Emergency Loan Supervisor, Assistant Emergency Loan Supervisor, or other supervisor or assistant supervisor, and in the absence or disability of any such official or employee, the person acting in the position.

[50 FR 23902, June 7, 1985, as amended at 55 FR 43325, Oct. 29, 1990; 80 FR 9867, Feb. 24, 2015]
#### HORST v. LOVDAL et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 20, 1906.)

Action by Paul R. 0. Horst against William El. Lovdal and others.

No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. Order filed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. 94A22

Filed 20 October 2023

HOLLIS L. BATSON and CAROL D. BATSON; LAWRENCE F. BALDWIN and 

ELIZABETH C. BALDWIN; BALDWIN-BATSON OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC.

v.

COASTAL RESOURCES COMMISSION and NORTH CAROLINA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of 

the Court of Appeals, 282 N.C. App. 1 (2022), vacating an order entered on 23 

September 2020 by Judge Charles H. Henry in Superior Court, Carteret County, and 

remanding the case. Heard in the Supreme Court on 20 September 2023. 

I. Clark Wright Jr. for petitioner-appellees. 

Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Mary L. Lucasse, Special Deputy 

Attorney General, for respondent-appellant Coastal Resources Commission. 

No brief for respondent-appellee North Carolina Department of Transportation.

PER CURIAM.

Justice DIETZ did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case. 

The remaining members of the Court are equally divided, with three members voting 

to affirm and three members voting to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals. 

Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is left undisturbed and stands 

without precedential value. See City of Charlotte v. Univ. Fin. Props., LLC, 373 N.C. 

325 (2020) (per curiam) (affirming by an equally divided vote a Court of Appeals 
BATSON V. COASTAL RES. COMM’N

Opinion of the Court

-2-

decision without precedential value).

AFFIRMED.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-13-00036-CV

CARLOS A. ARMENTA, TDCJ #743688, Appellant

V.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 202nd District Court

Bowie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 09C1296-202

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Carlos A. Armenta, appellant, has filed a motion to dismiss his appeal pursuant to Rule 

42.1(a)(1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). The 

motion is signed by the appellant, who is representing himself.

We grant the appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: August 15, 2013

Date Decided: August 16, 2013
#### William J. Kerin *v.*City Planning Commission, Town of Bristol

*Edward G. Krawiecki,*corporation counsel, in support of the petition.

Submitted September 20

decided October 6, 1971

The petition by the defendant for certification is denied in view of the appeal pending from the August 30, 1971, judgment of the Court of Common Pleas.
EXHIBIT 23.1b

                     Consent of Richard A. Eisner & Co. and
                              ESTEBAN BROWN CPA, PA
               C E R T I F I E D   P U B L I C   A C C O U N T A N T

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS'S CONSENT

I consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-B (No333-85555) pertaining to PrintOnTheNet.Com, Inc's 1999 Stock
Incentive Plan of my report dated December 17, 1999, and June 8, 2000 with
respect to notes G and L on my audit of the financial statements of
PrintAmerica Interactive, Lnc, and Subsidiary as of and for the year ended
December 31, 1998 which is included in the annual report on form 10-KSB for the
year ended December 31, 1999.

Esteban Brown CPA PA
Miami, FL. 33156
June 14, 2000

           9700 South Dixe Highway - Suite 900 - Miami, Florida 33156
                      Phone 305-670-9090 - Fax 305-670-9844
**EXHIBIT 18.01**

 
|       |                          |      |            |
|------------|-------------------------------|-----------|-----------------|
| ** ** | **KPMG LLP**                  | Telephone | 612 305 5000    |
|       | 4200 Wells Fargo Center       | Fax       | 612 305 5100    |
|       | 90th South  7th Street  55305 | Internet  | www.us.kpmg.com |

 

April20, 2005

 

Ceridian Corporation3311 E. Old Shakopee Road

Minneapolis, MN 55425

Ladiesand Gentlemen:

Wehave audited the consolidated balance sheets of Ceridian Corporation (the “Company”)as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements ofoperations, cash flows and stockholders’ equity for each of the years in thethree-year period ended December 31, 2004, and have reported thereon under dateof April 20, 2005. The aforementioned consolidated financial statements and ouraudit report thereon are incorporated by reference in the Company’s annualreport on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004. As stated in Note Ito those financial statements, the Company changed the measurement date for itspension and postretirement health care plans from September 30 to December31.  The note also states that the newlyadopted accounting principle is preferable in the circumstances because: (a) itwould allow pension cost measurements and future pension plan funding decisionsto be based on information closer to the financial statement date of December31; and (b) it is more closely aligned with the timing of the Company’s annualbudgeting and planning process.  Inaccordance with your request, we have reviewed and discussed with Companyofficials the circumstances and business judgment and planning upon which thedecision to make this change in the method of accounting was based.

Withregard to the aforementioned accounting change, authoritative criteria have notbeen established for evaluating the preferability of one acceptable method ofaccounting over another acceptable method. However, for purposes of the Company’scompliance with the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission, weare furnishing this letter.

Basedon our review and discussion, with reliance on management’s business judgmentand planning, we concur that the newly adopted method of accounting ispreferable in the Company’s circumstances.
| Very  truly yours, |
|--------------------|
|               |
| /s/  KPMG LLP      |

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KPMG LLP, a U.S. limitedliability partnership, is the U.S. member firm of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative.

----
#### § 1787.4 Unmanufactured articles, materials, and supplies.

The Buy American requirement also applies to unmanufactured articles, materials, and supplies to be financed with RUS loan funds, and will be considered domestic if mined or produced in the United States or in an eligible country.
§ 1740.28 Civil rights procedures and requirements. ( a ) *Equal opportunity and nondiscrimination.* The agency will ensure that equal opportunity and nondiscriminatory requirements are met in accordance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and 7 CFR part 15. In accordance with federal civil rights law and USDA civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs).
( b ) *Civil rights compliance.* Recipients of federal assistance under this part must comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. In general, recipients should have available for the Agency, racial and ethnic data showing the extent to which members of minority groups are beneficiaries of federally assisted programs. The Agency will conduct compliance reviews in accordance with 7 CFR part 15. Awardees will be required to complete RD 400-4, “Assurance Agreement,” for each Federal Award received.
( c ) *Discrimination complaints.* Persons believing they have been subjected to discrimination prohibited by this section may file a complaint personally or by an authorized representative with USDA, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250. A complaint must be filed no later than 180 days from the date of the alleged discrimination, unless the time for filing is extended by the designated officials of USDA or the Agency.
#### Rucker *vs.*Bosworth.

Error to the Fayette circuit; Hickey, Judge.

*Fines. Remission of fines.*

Caso 192.

November 2,

Judge Nicholas

delivered tho opinion of the court.

Rucicer, as an informer, obtained judgments in the name of the Commonwealth, before a justice of the peace, for a number of fines, *646which were collected by a constable and paid over-to Rucker. Subsequent to the payment of the fines to Rucker, a remission thereof was obtained from the governor. Bosworth then instituted this suit for the recovery of the amount of the fines so paid Rucker, and having obtained a verdict and judgment therefor, Rucker prosecutes this writ of error.

After n fino has been paid íbrmcT^hís111’ right is indefeasible, and a subsequent tbc'fine^'by the Governor, will not give finei'a r'ivlit of action to recoverback irom tne informer the amount of the fine so paid to him.

Payne, for plaintiff.

We think Bosworth had no right to recover. The fines having been collected and paid over to the inf°rltlC1’'before the remission, his right thereto be-came absolute and indefeasible. Thefe was nothing left upon which the remission could take effect. A remission is not in the nature of nor does it operate like the reversal of a judgment. It is more like, and operates as a release. After the payment of a> debt or demand, a release of it operates nothing. So a^ter the payment of the fines to the prosecutor to whom they belonged, the governor’s power of remission was either gone or of none effect.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and cause remanded, with directions for new trial and further proceedings consistent herewith,
(115 App. Div. 176)

#### WERNER v. JACKSON et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 19, 1906.)

Lis Pendens—Cancellation.

On a motion to cancel on giving security a lis pendens filed in a suit for specific performance, the court cannot look into the facts as on a trial, nor search the complaint as on a demurrer, it being sufficient to require a denial of the motion if the complaint shows on its face a suit affecting title to real estate.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 33, Cent. Dig. Lis Pendens, § 33.]

Appeal from Special Term, New York County.

Action by Sigmund Werner against James M. Jackson and others. Appeal by plaintiff from an order canceling a lis pendens on giving security. • Reversed.

Argued before O’BRIEN, P. J., and INGRAHAM, .CLARKE, and HOUGHTON, JJ.

Paul Gross (Herman Kahn, of counsel), for appellant.

Henry Bogert, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of Special Term canceling a lis pendens upon giving security. The judgment demanded by the complaint was that the defendant be decreed to specifically perform a contract for the conveyance of real estate in the city of New York, and that in the alternative the plaintiff be decreed or adjudged to have a lien for the amount deposited upon the execution of the contract. It has been determined in this department that the right of the plaintiff to retain the notice of pendency of action in an action for a decree for specific performance of the contract for a conveyance of real property must be determined upon the allegations of the complaint, or facts clearly established, and that upon such a motion, as in the case at bar, we are not authorized to look into the facts as upon a trial nor to search the complaint as upon a demurrer. Tishman v. Acritelli, 111 App. Div. 237, 97 N. Y. Supp. 668; Lindheim & Co. v. Central Co., 111 App. Div. 275, 97 N. Y. Supp. 619; Wolinsky v. Okun, 111 App. Div. 536, 97 N. Y. Supp. 943; McCrum v. Lex Realty Co., 113 App. Div. 58, 98 N. Y. Supp. 1021.

Upon those authorities the order should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with $10 costs.
#### UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Richard Allen CLAPPER, Seaman, United States Navy, Service No. 1194659 v. Admiral Kenneth VETH, Commanding Officer, United States Naval Base, Philadelphia, Pa.

Civ. A. No. 70-132.

United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

June 9, 1970.

Dante W. Renzulli, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa., for relator.

Louis C. Bechtle, U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BODY, District Judge.

Relator enlisted in the United States Navy and commenced his two year tour of active duty on July 10, 1967. On or about July 1, 1968 he was ordered to report to McGuire Air Force Base, New Jersey for transportation to the U.S.S. Independence (CV A-62). Thereafter relator was arrested on December 23, 1969 and formally charged with violation of 10 U.S.C. § 886 (unauthorized absence). Pending the convention of a naval court-martial, relator was detained at the Philadelphia Naval Station in an “arrest” status from December 24, 1969 until January 16, 1970 and in a “hold” status from that date until approximately April 27, 1970. On or about the latter date, relator absented himself without leave from the Philadelphia Naval Station and his whereabouts are presently unknown.

Before the Court for consideration is relator’s petition for. a writ of habeas corpus, filed on January 9, 1970. He asserts therein that he is entitled to a release from active duty and that his detention by the naval authorities is therefore unlawful. Unmindful of relator’s absence from the Philadelphia Naval *1399Station, the Court ordered that a hearing and argument in the above-captioned matter be held on June 3, 1970. Relator was not present at that hearing, nor was his counsel prepared to proceed in his absence. Rather, a continuance was orally requested and denied by the Court.

 A condition precedent to this Court’s authority to grant habeas corpus relief herein is the requirement that relator be “in custody” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Notwithstanding the expanding scope of that concept, it is clear that relator cannot bring himself within its present purview.1 Moreover, his unavailability and lack of preparedness under the above circumstances render the petition frivolous and therefore subject to dismissal.

For the above reasons, relator’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus will be denied.

1

. See R. Sokol, Federal Habeas Corpus §. 6.1 (2d ed. 1969).
#### § 1781.22 Subsequent loans.

Subsequent loans will be processed in accordance with this part.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**AFFINITY GROUP HOLDING, INC.**

 

**STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

I, Thomas F. Wolfe, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officerof Affinity Group Holding, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”),hereby certify as follows:

 

1.        This statementis provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 in connection with theCompany’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30,2008 (the “Periodic Report”);

 

2.        The PeriodicReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

3.        The informationcontained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company as of dates andfor the periods indicated therein.

 

 
| Date: November 14, 2008 |                      |
|------------------------------|---------------------------|
|                         |                      |
|                         |                      |
|                         | /s/ Thomas F. Wolfe       |
|                         | Thomas F. Wolfe           |
|                         | Senior Vice President and |
|                         | Chief Financial Officer   |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906,or such other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thewritten statement as required by Section 906, has been provided toAffinity Group Holding, Inc. and will be retained by Affinity GroupHolding, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.

 

----
§ 1780.81 Policies related to use of bond counsel. The applicant is responsible for preparation of bonds and bond transcript documents. The applicant will obtain the services and opinion of recognized bond counsel experienced in municipal financing with respect to the validity of a bond issue, except for issues of $100,000 or less. With prior approval of the approval official, the applicant may elect not to use bond counsel. Such issues will be closed in accordance with the following: ( a ) The applicant must recognize and accept the fact that application processing may require additional legal and administrative time;
( b ) It must be established that not using bond counsel will produce significant savings in total legal costs;
( c ) The local attorney must be able and experienced in handling this type of legal work;
( d ) The applicant must understand that it will likely have to obtain an opinion from bond counsel at its expense should the Agency require refinancing of the debt;
( e ) Bonds will be prepared in accordance with this regulation and conform as closely as possible to the preferred methods of preparation stated in § 1780.94; and
( f ) Closing instructions must be issued by OGC.
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 .*

§ 1421.13 Special loan deficiency payments. ( a ) ( 1 ) Eligible producers of unshorn pelts produced from live sheep and hay and silage derived from an eligible loan commodity as provided in § 1421.5 are eligible to request unshorn pelt, hay, and silage quantities for a LDP under subpart C of this part.
( 2 ) Unshorn pelts, hay, and silage derived from an eligible loan commodity are not eligible to be pledged as collateral to obtain a MAL under subpart B of this part.
[71 FR 32424, June 6, 2006, as amended at 74 FR 15654, Apr. 7, 2009; 80 FR 129, Jan. 2, 2015]