alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF THECHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OFGLOBAL PARTNERS LPPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the accompanying report on Form 10-Qfor the period ended June 30, 2009 of Global Partners LP (the “Partnership”)and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Thomas J. Hollister, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer ofGlobal GP LLC, the general partner of the Partnership, hereby certify, pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.               The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.               The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Partnership.

 

 
| Dated:  August 7, 2009 | By:    | /s/  Thomas J. Hollister                                                      |
|-----------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                        |   |       Thomas J. Hollister                                 |
|                        |   |       Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer |
|                        |   |       of Global GP LLC, general partner                   |
|                        |   |       of Global Partners LP                               |

 

----
### NUM BER 13-0 8-00 332- CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I -E DI NBURG

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ M A JORC A RVE L BA LD WIN , A pp ellan t, v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ On A p p ea l fro m th e 36 th D is tr ic t C o u rt of A rans as Co un ty , T exas .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ M EM ORA ND UM OPIN ION Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Ga rza an d Vela

M emo rand um Opin ion Pe r Cu riam Appel lan t, Ma

jor C ar v el Bal dw in, by

and throug h his attor ney , has f il ed a motio n to dis mis s h isappeal b e ca u se h e n o l ong er des ires to prosec ute i t. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 42. 2(a). W ithou t passin g on th e me rits of the case , we gran tt h e m o t io n t o dism iss pursuantto Tex as Rul e of Appel lat e Procedu re 42.2 (a ) a n d di smi ss the appeal
. Hav ing dis mis sed the a ppeal at appel lan t' s req uest , no moti on for re hear ing w ill b e ent ertai ned,2

and our mandate w il l is sue forthw it h. PERC UR IAM
Do not p ubl is h. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 4 7.2( b)
. Me moran dum Opi nio n del ivered and filed thi s 1 1th d ay

of June, 2009.
#### R. Williams, appellee, v. Mrs. Philip R. O’Brien, appellant.

Gen. No. 33,336.

Opinion filed January 2, 1930.

Hicks & Folonie, for appellant. Julius L. Handelman, for appellee.

^Mr. Justice Ryner

delivered the opinion of the court.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsRSRM-9 (360L009): Ballistics mass propertiesThe propulsion performance and reconstructed mass properties data from Thiokol's RSRM-9 motors which were assigned to the STS-36 launch are presented. The SRM propellant, TP-H1148, is a composite type solid propellant, formulated of polybutadiene acrylic acid acryonitrile terpolymer binder (PBAN), epoxy curing agent, ammonium perchlorate oxidizer and aluminum powder fuel. A small amount of burning rate catalyst (iron oxide) was added to achieve the desired propellant burn rate. The propellant evaluation and raw material information for the RSRM-9 are included. The propellant grain design consists of four segments. There is a forward segment with an eleven point star with a transition into a tapered circular perforated (CP) configuration. There are two center segments that result in a double tapered CP configuration and an aft segment with a triple taper CP configuration and a cutout for the partially submerged nozzle. The ballistic performance presented is based on the Operational Flight Instrumentation (OFI) 12.5 sample per second pressure data for the steady state and tail off portion of the pressure trace. No high sample rate pressure gauges, Development Flight Instrumentation (DFI), were used on this flight and therefore no ignition data is presented.Document ID19900016748Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsDrendel, Albert S.*(Thiokol Corp. Brigham City, UT, United States)*Richards, M. C.*(Thiokol Corp. Brigham City, UT, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateMarch 20, 1990Subject CategorySpacecraft Propulsion And PowerReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:183944NASA-CR-183944TWR-17548-10Accession Number90N26064Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS8-30490Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900016748.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### Charles HERBAND, Appellant, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF UNITED STATES, respectively, his legal representative locally the Warden of the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, at Springfield, Missouri.

No. 14984.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

Feb. 9, 1954.

Charles Herband, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsGeometric programming prediction of design trends for OMV protective structuresThe global optimization trends of protective honeycomb structural designs for spacecraft subject to hypervelocity meteroid and space debris are presented. This nonlinear problem is first formulated for weight minimization of the orbital maneuvering vehicle (OMV) using a generic monomial predictor. Five problem formulations are considered, each dependent on the selection of independent design variables. Each case is optimized by considering the dual geometric programming problem. The dual variables are solved for in terms of the generic estimated exponents of the monomial predictor. The primal variables are then solved for by conversion. Finally, parametric design trends are developed for ranges of the estimated regression parameters. Results specify nonmonotonic relationships for the optimal first and second sheet mass per unit areas in terms of the estimated exponents.Document ID19900014146Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsMog, R. A.*(Science Applications International Corp. Huntsville, AL., United States)*Horn, J. R.*(NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, AL, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJune 1, 1990Subject CategorySpacecraft Design, Testing And PerformanceReport/Patent NumberM-632NASA-TM-4206NAS 1.15:4206Accession Number90N23462Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900014146.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### Norden Restaurant Corporation, Respondent, v Sons of the Revolution in the State of New York, Appellant.

Motion insofar as it seeks reargument denied, and, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, granted and the following question certified: "Was the order of the Supreme Court, as affirmed by this court, properly made?” Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Fein, Sullivan and Ross, JJ.
EXHIBIT 99.1

                  SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF FRANK AIELLO


                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

     In connection with the Periodic Report of Cal Alta Auto Glass, Inc.,(the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Frank
Aiello, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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.


Date: August 10, 2005        By: /s/ Frank Aiello
                                                       -------------------
                                                        Frank Aiello
                                                        President
RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

2003-1904.

#### State v. Ferguson.

Montgomery C.P. No. 2002-CR-00353. Reported at 108 Ohio St.3d 451, 2006-Ohio-1502, 844 N.E.2d 806. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the date previously set by this court for the execution of sentence in this case is hereby modified. Said sentence shall be carried into execution on Tuesday, August 8, 2006.
EXHIBIT
32.1





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 DigitalPost Interactive, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mike
Sawtell, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001,
that:





The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 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.





Dated:
August 14, 2008








/s/
Mike Sawtell


----------------


Mike
Sawtell


Chief
Executive Officer
#### § 15f.28 When I or someone else has to do something within a certain number of days, how will USDA or the ALJ count the days?

Unless otherwise specifically noted, a “day” refers to a calendar day and a document that must be filed by a certain date must either be postmarked on that date or received by the Docketing Clerk on that date. For documents that must be or are “filed” under these regulations, you count the number of days after filing starting with the day after the filing date as day one. For other time periods, you calculate the time period by counting the day after receipt by the party as day one. If the last day of a time period expires on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a Federal holiday, the last day of the time period will expire on the next business day.
2006-0174.

#### State v. Parks.

Columbiana App. No. 04 CO 19, 2005-Ohio-6926. This cause is pending before the court as a discretionary appeal and claimed appeal of right. On February 8, 2006, appellant filed a notice that a motion to certify a conflict was pending in the court of appeals and, pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4XA), this court stayed consideration of the jurisdictional memoranda filed in this appeal. Whereas appellant has neither notified this court that the court of appeals determined that a conflict does not exist as provided by S.CtPrae.R. IV(4)(B) nor filed a copy of the court of appeals’ order certifying the existence of a conflict as provided by S.CtPrae.R. IV(4)(C),

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that appellant show cause within fourteen days of the date of this entry why this court should not proceed to consider the jurisdictional memoranda in this appeal pursuant to S.CtPrae.R. 111(6).
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 220 (Tuesday, November 16, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69960-69971]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28765]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal Nos. 10-43]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 
601-3740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a copy of a letter to the 
Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 10-43 with 
attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of 
Technology.

    Dated: November 9, 2010.
Morgan F. Park,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P

[[Page 69961]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16NO10.056


[[Page 69962]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16NO10.057


[[Page 69963]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16NO10.058


[[Page 69964]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16NO10.059


[[Page 69965]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16NO10.060


[[Page 69966]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16NO10.061


[[Page 69967]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16NO10.062


[[Page 69968]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16NO10.063


[[Page 69969]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16NO10.064


[[Page 69970]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16NO10.065


[[Page 69971]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16NO10.066

[FR Doc. 2010-28765 Filed 11-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
Billings Flying Service, Inc.

6309 Jellison Road

Billings, MT 59101

Hangar Phone: 406-252-6937 Owners:

Facsimile: 406-259-4166 Al Blain

Al Blain’s Cell: 406-698-4419 Gary Blain

Gary Blain’s Cell: 406-671-2789

Email: billingsflyingserv@usadig.com Website: billingsflyingserviceinc.com

To whom it may concern,

Billings Flying Service, Inc. is the holder of exemption number 11180. In that 

exemption the FAA recognizes that it is reasonable and safe to train pilots in 

restricted category aircraft. 

As support for our exemption we used exemption number 10863. Under that 

exemption the FAA allowed Sikorsky helicopters to train pilots that are not 

employed by them. The BFS exemption is limited to company employed pilots 

because we did not request to train non-company employed pilots. I am writing to 

request this be added back into our exemption so we are allowed to train both 

company employed and non- company pilots in our restricted category aircraft.

Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing from you.

Jeff Cook

Jeffcook13@gmail.com

406-579-1195
EX-10.15



 EXHIBIT 10.15 
 SUMMARY OF NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS’ COMPENSATION FOR FISCAL 2013 

Base Salaries.    Following are the current annual base salaries for the executive officers employed the
Company as of April 5, 2013, who will be included in the Company’s Proxy Statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the Company’s 2013 Annual Meeting of Shareholders (the “Named Executive
Officers”): 
  

							
	     Named Executive Officer    
	  	 Title
	  	Annual Base
Salary	 
	 Gary H. Schoenfeld
	  	President, Chief Executive Officer and Director	  	$	1,050,000	  
	 Michael W. Kaplan
	  	Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer	  	$	437,746	  
	 Paula M. Lentini
	  	Senior Vice President, Retail	  	$	437,746	  
	 Christine Lee
	  	Senior Vice President, Women’s Merchandising	  	$	427,462	  
	 Craig E. Gosselin
	  	Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Human Resources	  	$	371,305	  

 Annual Bonuses.    The Company provides each of the Named Executive Officers
with an annual incentive bonus opportunity pursuant to a broad-based bonus plan which covers the other executives of the Company and the non-retail managers of the Company. Actual bonus amounts are determined by a combination of (i) the
Company’s achievement of pre-set financial targets, and (ii) the individual’s achievement of personal and/or department goals. All bonuses are approved by the Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors.
Mr. Schoenfeld’s target incentive bonus is 100% of his base salary with a maximum incentive bonus of 200% of his base salary. All other Named Executive Officers have a target incentive bonus of 50% of his or her base salary with a maximum
incentive bonus of 100% of his or her base salary. The terms of the fiscal 2013 bonus plan are more particularly set forth in the Company’s Current Report on form 8-K which was filed with the SEC on March 26, 2013. 

Additional Compensation.    The Named Executive Officers are also entitled to participate in various Company
plans, including equity plans, and may be subject to other written agreements, in each case as set forth in exhibits to the Company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In addition, the Named Executive Officers may be eligible
to receive perquisites and other personal benefits as disclosed in the Company’s proxy statements filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Company’s annual meetings of shareholders.
(January 24, 1980)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Bullock, Appellant. (Action No. 1.) The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Bullock, Appellant. (Action No. 2.)

Appeals from judgments of the County Court of Albany County, rendered July 20, 1978 and August 15, 1978, upon verdicts convicting defendants of the crime of robbery in the first degree. As a result of an incident which occurred on the night of January 23, 1978 wherein a quantity of currency was allegedly forcibly stolen from one Alice Brien while she was in her second floor apartment at 102 Dove Street in the City of Albany, defendants were indicted for the crimes of burglary in the first degree (Penal Law, § 140.30, subd 3), robbery in the first degree (Penal Law, § 160.15, subd 3) and robbery in the second degree (Penal Law, § 160.10, subd 1). At their subsequent joint trial, however, only two robbery counts were submitted to the jury, which ultimately found both defendants guilty of robbery in the first degree. Thereafter, defendant James Bullock was sentenced, as a second felony offender, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 10 to 20 years, and defendant William Bullock was sentenced, as a persistent felony offender, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 20 years to life. Although defendants subsequently filed separate appeals, they present basically the same arguments in seeking relief from this court, and, accordingly, we will consider their appeals together. Initially, we find without merit the contention of defendants that the evidence at the trial was insufficient to support the convictions of robbery in the first degree. On this issue defendants’ major premise is that the People failed to adequately prove that, in the commission of the robbery, the perpetrators thereof used or threatened the immediate use of a dangerous instrument (see Penal Law, § 160.15, subd 3). We reject this argument. The evidence indicates that Alice Brien began screaming when confronted by the robbers and that one of the latter, in an effort to silence her, told her to "shut up” while brandishing a knife for her to see. In our view this evidence was sufficient to establish the threatened use of a dangerous instrument, and the other elements of the subject crime were also adequately proven. Accordingly, defendants’ convictions need not be overturned because of a lack of evidence. As for defendants’ further complaints that the prosecution’s summation denied them a fair trial and that their sentences were unduly harsh and excessive, these likewise are lacking in substance. Any improprieties in the summation were effectively cured by the trial court in its rulings on objections to the summation and in its charge to the jury (cf. *People v Jackson,*30 AD2d 983, affd 28 NY2d 757), and no abuse of discretion has been shown as to the sentences, which were imposed in accordance with the pertinent statutory guidelines (cf. *People v Jordan,*59 AD2d 626). Lastly, we have considered the *pro se*arguments of defendant James Bullock, and they are also without merit. Judgments affirmed. Greenblott, J. P., Kane, Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1
 
 PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION
 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 
 In connection with the quarterly report of Eagle Bulk Shipping Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Sophocles Zoullas, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (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.
 
 A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.
 
 Date: November 9, 2010
 
 /s/ Sophocles Zoullas
 Sophocles Zoullas
 Principal Executive Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 29, 2019

No. 04-19-00234-CV

Johnathan David RICE and Diana Rice,

Appellants

v.

LEWIS ENERGY GROUP, L.P.; Lewis Petro Properties, Inc.; Lewis Resource Management, 

LLC; Segundo Navarro Drilling, Ltd.; and Tercero Navarro, Inc.,

Appellees

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015-CI-08936

Honorable Peter A. Sakai, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On July 24, 2019, we granted Appellants’ motion to abate the appeal and remand the 

cause to the trial court for it to make findings of fact and conclusions of law as required. The 

trial court made findings of fact and conclusions of law as ordered, and they were filed on 

August 26, 2019.

We REINSTATE the appellate timetable. Appellants’ brief is due on September 25, 

2019.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 29th day of August, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
#### § 1709.115 Availability of application materials.

Application materials, including copies of the grant announcement and all required forms and certifications will be available by request from the Agency and by such other means as the Agency may determine. In addition, the Agency may make available an application guide and other materials that may be of assistance to prospective applicants.