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


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 Genco Shipping & Trading Limited’s (the “Company”) quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 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 result of operations of the Company.





Date: August 10, 2009

/s/  John C. WobensmithName:  John C. WobensmithTitle:  Chief Financial Officer





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2525 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2525

   To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to authorize nonprofit 
 institutions of higher education to provide payment to certain third-
                            party entities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 26, 2013

Mr. Salmon (for himself and Mr. Andrews) introduced the following bill; 
   which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to authorize nonprofit 
 institutions of higher education to provide payment to certain third-
                            party entities.

    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 ``Collaborative College Services 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PAYMENT FOR CERTAIN THIRD-PARTY ENTITIES.

    Section 487(a)(20) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
1094(a)(20)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 
``Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, an institution described in 
section 101 may provide payment, based on the amount of tuition 
generated by the institution from student enrollment, to a third-party 
entity that provides a set of services to the institution that includes 
student recruitment services, regardless of whether the third-party 
entity is affiliated with an institution that provides educational 
services other than the institution providing such payment, if--
                    ``(A) the third-party entity is not otherwise 
                affiliated with the institution providing such payment;
                    ``(B) the third-party entity does not make 
                compensation payments to its employees that are 
                prohibited under this paragraph;
                    ``(C) the set of services provided to the 
                institution by the third-party entity include services 
                other than student recruitment services, and the 
                institution does not pay the third-party entity solely 
                for student recruitment services provided by the third-
                party entity; and
                    ``(D) any student recruitment information available 
                to the third-party entity, including personally 
                identifiable information, will not be used by, shared 
                with, or sold to any other person or entity, including 
                any institution that is affiliated with the third-party 
                entity.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 29.9208 Permissive inspection.

Permissive inspection consists of inspecting and certificating tobacco, upon the request of an interested party.
#### § 301.87-10 [Reserved]
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 17, 2018

No. 04-18-00134-CV

IN INTEREST OF I.S.F.P., A CHILD

From the 451st Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13-028

Honorable Bill R. Palmer, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellants’ motion for extension of time is DENIED, and this appeal is DISMISSED. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8.

It is so ORDERED on October 17, 2018.

_____________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

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

court on this 17th day of October, 2018.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk of Court
#### § 29.1050 Prematurity.

A condition of growth and development characteristic of the lower leaves of the tobacco plant. Premature leaves have some appearance of ripeness due to a process of starvation caused by translocation of plant food elements from these leaves to other leaves higher on the stalk.

[42 FR 21092, Apr. 25, 1977. Redesignated at 47 FR 51721, Nov. 17, 1982, 48 FR 29671, June 28, 1983, 49 FR 16756, Apr. 20, 1984, and 51 FR 25027, July 10, 1986]
#### § 29.3029 Green (G).

A color term applied to immature or crude tobacco. Any leaf which has a green color affecting 20 percent or more of its leaf surface may be described as green. (See Rule 18.)

[24 FR 8771, Oct. 29, 1959. Redesignated at 49 FR 16757, Apr. 20, 1984]
OAO 247 (02/08) Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

United States of America )

)

)

)

)

)

v.

Tyrone Plair Case No: 3:99cr77/LAC

USM No: 11232-017

Date of Previous Judgment: 22 June 2004

(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Applicable) Defendant’s Attorney

Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

Upon motion of 9 the defendant 9 the Director of the Bureau of Prisons : the court under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in the term of imprisonment imposed based on a guideline sentencing range that has

subsequently been lowered and made retroactive by the United States Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 994(u), and having considered such motion,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is:

: DENIED. 9 GRANTED and the defendant’s previously imposed sentence of imprisonment (as reflected in 

the last judgment issued) of months is reduced to .

I. COURT DETERMINATION OF GUIDELINE RANGE (Prior to Any Departures)

Previous Offense Level: 35 Amended Offense Level: 34

Criminal History Category: VI Criminal History Category: VI

Previous Guideline Range: 292 to 365 months Amended Guideline Range: 262 to 327 months

II. SENTENCE RELATIVE TO AMENDED GUIDELINE RANGE

9 The reduced sentence is within the amended guideline range.

9 The previous term of imprisonment imposed was less than the guideline range applicable to the defendant at the time

of sentencing as a result of a departure or Rule 35 reduction, and the reduced sentence is comparably less than the

amended guideline range.

: Other (explain): No matter what the guideline range would be with a reduction, if any, to the base offense level, life

imprisonment is still the mandatory sentence required by statute. Based upon the Government’s substantial assistance

motion on behalf of the defendant, he was sentenced to 180 months, a sentence well below the mandatory minimum life.

180 months was and is the appropriate sentence given the facts and circumstances of this case.

III. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Except as provided above, all provisions of the judgment dated 22 June 2004 shall remain in effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Order Date: s/L.A. Collier 13 August 2008

Judge’s signature

Effective Date: Lacey A. Collier, Senior U.S. District Judge

(if different from order date) Printed name and title

Case 3:99-cr-00077-LC Document 130 Filed 08/13/08 Page 1 of 1
Deny and Opinion Filed August 7, 2014 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00957-CV 

IN RE KERRY TIPPS, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the Criminal District Court No. 4 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F99-00280-QK 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices FitzGerald, Francis, and Lewis 

Opinion by Justice FitzGerald 

Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus requesting that the Court order the trial 

court to rule on his motion for forensic DNA testing. The facts and issues are well known to the 

parties, so we do not recount them here. Relator’s petition is not properly supported and fails to 

comply with the rules of appellate procedure. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j), (k); TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7. 

“Those seeking the extraordinary remedy of mandamus must follow the applicable procedural 

rules. Chief among these is the critical obligation to provide the reviewing court with a complete 

and adequate record.” In re Le, 335 S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, 

orig. proceeding). Although the claims pleaded in pro se inmate petitions should be liberally 

construed, the same procedural standards apply to inmates at to other litigants. Barnes v. State, 

832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no writ). If a pro se litigant is not 

required to comply with the applicable rules of procedure, he would be given an unfair advantage 

over a litigant who is represented by counsel. Holt v. F.F. Enterprises, 990 S.W.2d 756, 759 
 –2– 

(Tex. App.—Amarillo 1998, pet. denied). There cannot be two sets of procedural rules, one for 

litigants with counsel and the other for litigants representing themselves. Mansfield State Bank 

v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184-85 (Tex. 1978). Because the record before the court does not 

establish that relator is entitled to relief, we DENY the petition. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8. 

140957F.P05 

/Kerry P. FitzGerald/ 

KERRY P. FITZGERALD 

JUSTICE
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 

15, 2019.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-18-01079-CV

KELLY ETHREDGE AND DONALD ETHREDGE, Appellants 

V.

EUGENE MADISON, Appellee 

On Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No. 3 

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 1119326 

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N 

This is an appeal from a judgment signed December 11, 2018. On January 8, 

2019, appellants filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The 

motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. 

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Hassan, and Poissant
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JEREMIAH G. POSTEMICE,

Plaintiff,

v. CSE NO. 3:19cv3649-MCR-EMT

WARDEN C. MAIORANA, et al.,

Defendants.

______________________________/

O R D E R

The Chief Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation on March 

10, 2020. ECF No. 11. Plaintiff was furnished a copy of the Report and 

Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, 

United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of all 

timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any timely filed 

objections thereto, I have determined the Report and Recommendation should be 

adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The Chief Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 

11, is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:19cv3649-MCR-EMT

2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff=s failure to 

comply with an order of the court.

DONE AND ORDERED this 8th day of April 2020.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Exhibit 21.0

                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant


Advanced Digital Networks, Inc.

A.E. Lander Corp. (formerly Alexander Edwards International, Inc.)

Burrows, Hayes Company, Inc.

CareerEngine, Inc.

Dover, Sussex Company, Inc.

Helmstar Funding, Inc.

Housing Capital Corporation

Matthews & Wright, Inc.

McAdam, Taylor & Co., Inc.

Movieplex Realty Leasing, LLC

Parker, Reld & Co., Inc.

Randel, Palmer & Co., Inc.

Randolph, Hudson & Co., Inc.

Ryan, Jones & Co., Inc.

Shaw Realty Company, Inc.

Snider, Williams & Co., Inc.
#### § 23.3 Coordination.

The chief administrative officer of the administratively responsible State Land Grant University will designate an official who will be responsible for the overall coordination of the authorized programs for the State. The designated official will be responsible for the overall coordination of planning, organizing, funding, conducting and evaluating programs in association with the person responsible for the administration of research programs, the person responsible for the administration of the extension programs, and the administrative head of agriculture of the University (chairman of the State Rural Development Advisory Council).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-2379

JULIAN L. MITCHELL,

Petitioner,

versus

NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND DRY DOCK

COMPANY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’

COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board.

(00-0744)

Submitted: June 25, 2002 Decided: July 12, 2002

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Matthew H. Kraft, INMAN & STRICKLER, P.L.C., Virginia Beach,

Virginia, for Petitioner. Benjamin M. Mason, MASON, COWARDIN &

MASON, P.C., Newport News, Virginia, for Respondents.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Julian Mitchell seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s

decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s denial

of long term disability benefits pursuant to the Longshore and

Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C.A. §§ 901 to 950 (West

2001). Our review of the record discloses that the Board’s decision

is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. See Mitchell

v. Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co., No. 00-0744 (BRB

April 6, 2001). 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
#### § 28.404 Strict Low Middling Color.

Strict Low Middling Color is color which is within the range represented by a set of samples in the custody of the United States Department of Agriculture in a container marked “Original Official Cotton Standards of the United States, American Upland, Strict Low Middling, effective July 1, 1987.”
1 ... T h i s proc ee di n g ar i s es out of C au s e N o. 2007- CI

- 13110, s t y l ed In th e M a tter o f t h e M a rria g e o

f C h a rlo tte P a w el Jo n a s a n d W i l l i a m Ja m es Jon a s, II I , pen di n g i n t h e 408t h Ju di ci al D i s t r i ct Cour t , B ex ar Coun t y , T exas, t he H o no rable M i chael P

. P ed en p res i d i ng. i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No . 0 4- 10 -0 04 70 -C V IN RE WILLIAM JAMES JONAS III, Relator Orig inal Habe as Corpus Proce eding 1 PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Kar en Ang elini, J ustice

Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: J uly 7, 2010 PETI TI ON F OR WR I T OF HAB EAS CORP US DENI ED The c ourt has co n s i d er ed rela tor’s petition for a writ of habe as cor

pus and a motion for

e m e r g e n c y r e l i e f

a n d i s o f t h e o p i n i o n t h e r e l a t o r i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o t h e r e l i e f s o u g h t
. A c c o r d i n g l y, rela tor’s petition for a

writ of habe as cor

pus and re quest for emer g ency relief are denied. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.8(a).

PER C URI AM
#### § 319.75-4 Treatments.

Prior to moving into the United States from the port of entry, a regulated article listed in § 319.75-2(a) shall be treated for possible infestation with khapra beetle in accordance with part 305 of this chapter.

[79 FR 77841, Dec. 29, 2014]
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

GERALD SIMMONS,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 3:20cv5461-MCR-EMT

MARK INCH,

Respondent.

___________________________/

O R D E R

The chief magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on February 

24, 2021. ECF No. 23. The parties were furnished a copy of the Report and 

Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, 

United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of all 

timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any timely filed 

objections thereto, I have determined the Report and Recommendation should be 

adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 

23, is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:20cv5461-MCR-EMT

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, is DENIED IN 

PART AND GRANTED IN PART AS FOLLOWS:

a. The petition is DENIED as to Grounds One through Six, and a 

certificate of appealability is DENIED as to those claims;

b. The petition is GRANTED as to Ground Seven, and the State is 

directed to remove the ten-year mandatory minimum from Simmons’ sentence on 

Count 1.

3. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this 

order and close the case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 8th day of July 2021.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. 4:94cr4026–WS/WCS

FRANK ANTHONY HAROLD,

Defendant.

 

ORDER APPOINTING COUNSEL

Before the court is Frank Anthony Harold’s motion (ECF No. 133) for

appointment of counsel. The court having reviewed the motion, it is ORDERED:

1. Harold’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 133) is

GRANTED.

2. Randolph P. Murrell, Federal Public Defender, shall be APPOINTED to

represent Harold regarding his eligibility, if any, for compassionate release.

DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of June , 2020.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:94-cr-04026-WS-WCS Document 134 Filed 06/03/20 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certificationof CFO Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof KapStone Paper and Packaging Corporation for the quarter ended March 31,2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Andrea K. Tarbox, Vice President and Chief Financial Officerof KapStone Paper and Packaging Corporation, hereby certify pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2)                                  The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of KapStone Paper and Packaging Corporation.

 

Dated: May 11, 2009

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Andrea K. Tarbox                        |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Andrea K. Tarbox                            |
|   |   | Vice President and Chief  Financial Officer |

 

1

----
§ 319.69-5 Types of organic decaying vegetative matter authorized for packing. The following types of organic decaying vegetative matter are authorized as safe for packing: ( a ) Peat;
( b ) Peat moss; and
( c ) Osmunda fiber.
[84 FR 29958, June 25, 2019]
#### § 29.1071 Type 12.

That type of flue-cured tobacco commonly known as Eastern Flue-cured or Eastern Carolina Flue-cured, produced principally in the coastal plains section of North Carolina, north of the South River.

[42 FR 21092, Apr. 25, 1977. Redesignated at 47 FR 51721, Nov. 17, 1982, 48 FR 29671, June 28, 1983, 49 FR 16756, Apr. 20, 1984, and 51 FR 25027, July 10, 1986]
<PAGE>
                                                        Exhibit 10.25.3


NEWARK
                  GUARANTEE OF OPERATOR'S OBLIGATIONS
                     BY NRG GENERATING (U.S.) INC.

In consideration of Owner entering into this Operation and Maintenance
Contract for the Newark Cogeneration Project with our wholly owned
subsidiary company, Power Operations, Inc. ("Operator") NRG Generating
(U.S.) Inc. ("Guarantor") hereby agrees to the following guarantees:

     If Operator fails to perform any of its obligations under this O&M
Contract, or execute any of its liabilities arising therefrom,
Guarantor will, upon written request from Owner, and after having given
Guarantor seven (7) days notice in writing of Owner's intention under
this Contract, to make a claim under this Guarantee, forthwith perform
such obligations or liabilities on the same terms and conditions as
stated in the O&M Contract, mobilizing and using, for that purpose,
sufficient personnel and resources.  Alternatively, Guarantor will
cause a third party acceptable to Owner to perform such obligations or
liabilities, the due and faithful performance of which Guarantor will
guarantee as if such third party were Operator.

     This Guarantee shall apply to this O&M Contract including all
extensions of time, indulgences, variations or alterations as may be
made, given, conceded or agreed upon under this Contract, whether or
not Guarantor receives notice and/or approves of these.

     The Guarantor shall also enter into an agreement to
unconditionally and irrevocably indemnify Owners borrower in full and
for all costs and expenses incurred in connection with the termination
of the Stewart & Stevenson Operations, Inc. Operations and Maintenance
Agreement terminated by the Owner on October 28, 1996.  Such NRG
Guarantee is pursuant to Section 5.32 of the Credit Agreement by and
among NRG Generating (Newark) Cogeneration, Inc. and NRG Generating
(Parlin) Cogeneration, Inc., Credit Suisse, Greenwich Funding
Corporation and any purchasing Lender as Lender and Credit Suisse as
Agent dated May 17, 1996.

     This Guarantee shall be governed by, and construed in accordance
with, the laws of the State of New Jersey and all parties agree to
subject any disputes that may arise under or in connection with this
Guarantee to the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of New Jersey.

<PAGE>

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Guarantee to be
duly executed by its authorized officer as of the date set forth below.

NRG GENERATING (U.S.) INC.

BY:       /s/ Leonard Bluhm

TITLE:    President & CEO

DATE:     November 8, 1996