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 the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of SkyTerra Communications, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Scott Macleod, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge: 

(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. 

 

|                                                  |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| /s/ Scott Macleod                                     |
| Scott Macleod                                         |
| Executive Vice President

and Chief Financial Officer |

November 6, 2009
#### Leo O’Dea, as Guardian ad Litem of Gregory O’Dea, an Infant, et al., Respondents, *v.*City of Albany, Appellant.

Third Department,

December 22, 1966.

*12
      *Towner, Erway $ Lyons (James B. Canfield*of counsel), for appellant.

*Scheiberling, Rogan & Maney*for respondents.

Brink, J.

This is an appeal from an order of Special Term denying defendant’s motion to compel the infant plaintiff to disclose the name of a witness on an examination before trial.

The infant plaintiff, while at a playground located in the City of Albany, was struck in the back of the head by a portion of a maypole which the boy behind him was swinging on. The portion of the equipment held by the other boy apparently hit the infant plaintiff after the boy let go of it.

On the examination before trial, the plaintiff was asked the name of the other boy and, on advice of counsel, refused to answer the question.

The appellate courts of this State have generally denied pretrial discovery of witnesses. However, even before the enactment of the CPLR, exceptions to the general rule have been permitted. In one class of cases when no current employee could testify, the names of former employees who actually participated in the event were made available. *(Milberg*v. *Lehrich,*2 A D 2d 861; *Gutley*v. *Huron Stevedoring Corp.,*274 App. Div. 1061; *Morris*v. *E. A. Labs., Inc.,*263 App. Div. 540.)

In the case of *Pistana*v. *Pangburn*(2 A D 2d 643), decided in this Department, another exception was established. In that case, the plaintiff was permitted to inquire as to the name of a bystander who became an active participant in the event when he went into the water to rescue a girl from drowning. In that ease the court stated: “We think it fits within the area of examination before trial of the event itself ”. It cannot be said that this type of disclosure has been further limited under the CPLB *(Rios*v. *Donovan,*21 A D 2d 409, 414).

When the witness, whose name is sought, is an active participant in the incident upon which the litigation is based, the wit*13ness is so closely related to the accident that his testimony becomes essential in establishing the happening of the accident. Under these circumstances, the identity of such a witness should fall within the scope of permissible discovery on an examination before trial.

The order should be reversed, on the law, and the motion granted.

Gibson, P. J., Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, on the law, without costs, and motion granted.
#### § 400.57 [Reserved]
§ 3201.90 Deodorants. ( a ) *Definition.* Products that are designed for inhibiting or masking perspiration and other body odors and that are often combined with an antiperspirant.
( b ) *Minimum biobased content.* The Federal preferred procurement product must have a minimum biobased content of at least 73 percent, which shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon in the product as a percent of the weight (mass) of the total organic carbon in the finished product.
( c ) *Preference compliance date.* No later than November 19, 2013, procuring agencies, in accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for qualifying biobased deodorants. By that date, Federal agencies that have the responsibility for drafting or reviewing specifications for products to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications require the use of biobased deodorants.
[77 FR 69386, Nov. 19, 2012]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Balance Sheet at December 31, 1996 and the Statement of Operations for the
Year Ended December 31, 1996 and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          65,438
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  338,190
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               403,628
<PP&E>                                       8,535,904
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,895,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,044,532
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              270
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,044,262
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,044,532
<SALES>                                      1,312,524
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,317,978
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               383,304
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                934,674
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            934,674
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   934,674
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    42.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    42.06
        

</TABLE>
4.1403 Contract clause.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the contracting officer shall insert the clause

at 52.204-10, Reporting Executive Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract Awards, in all

solicitations and contracts of $30,000 or more.

(b) The clause is not prescribed for contracts that are not required to be reported in the Federal

Procurement Data System (FPDS) (see subpart 4.6).

Parent topic: Subpart 4.14 - Reporting Executive Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract Awards
161 So.2d 280

#### Joel R. WILSON v. Sidney C. EMFINGER, Jr., and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.

No. 47101.

March 16, 1964.

In re: Sidney C. Emfinger, Jr., and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Tensas. 159 So.2d 332.

The application is denied. According to the facts, as found to he by the Court of Appeal, there appears no error of law in the judgment complained of.
ALPHONSO TARODD TANNER

,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Respondent.

___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF I F FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 4915

Opinion filed January 20, 2015.

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

-- Original Jurisdiction

.

Alphonso Tarodd Tanner, pro se , Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM

.

DISMISSED. See Baker v. State , 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004).

PADOVANO, CLARK, and MARSTILLER, JJ.,

, CONCUR.
# L_2021145EN.01004201.xml

| 28.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 145/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 145/42

---

Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/646 of 19 April 2021 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) 2019/2144 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards uniform procedures and technical specifications for the type-approval of motor vehicles with regard to their emergency lane-keeping systems (ELKS)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 133 of 20 April 2021
  )

On page 40, in Annex I, Part 2, Technical specifications, point 3.6.2, Lane keep, in the table:

for:

| ‘No | Scenario description |
| --- | --- |
| 1. | Solid line – Departure to right side of the vehicle |
| 2. | Solid line – Departure to left side of the vehicle



  ’ |

‘No

Scenario description

1.

Solid line – Departure to right side of the vehicle

Image 1

2.

Solid line – Departure to left side of the vehicle

Image 2
  ’

read:

| ‘No | Scenario description |
| --- | --- |
| 1. | Solid line – Departure to right side of the vehicle |
| 2. | Solid line – Departure to left side of the vehicle



  ’ |

‘No

Scenario description

1.

Solid line – Departure to right side of the vehicle

Image 3

2.

Solid line – Departure to left side of the vehicle

Image 4
  ’

---
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-05-00756-CR

Paul Michael Brown, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 147TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 953380, HONORABLE WILFORD FLOWERS, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

In August 1995, Paul Michael Brown was convicted of engaging in organized

criminal activity and sentenced to fifty years in prison. In November 2005, Brown filed a “motion

requesting trial court’s permission to seek out-of-time appeal.” The motion was treated as a notice

of appeal and forwarded to this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(e).

It is obviously too late to perfect a direct appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a). We

also note that the trial court has certified that this is a plea bargain case and Brown has no right of

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). If Brown is entitled to an out-of-time appeal, it must be granted

by the court of criminal appeals in a post-conviction habeas corpus proceeding. See Tex. Code Crim.

Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 (West 2005).
2

The appeal is dismissed.

__________________________________________

Bea Ann Smith, Justice

Before Justices B. A. Smith, Patterson and Puryear

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: December 6, 2005

Do Not Publish
## ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF 

## ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 1110 West Washington Street• Phoenix, Arizona 85007

(602) 771-2300 • www.azdeq.gov Janice K. Brewer Governor

SUBMITTED VIA EMAILAND FEDEX 

## JUL 022Q14
Mr. Jared Blumenfeld Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Region IX Mail Code: ORA-1 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105
Re: Submittal of the MAG 2014 Eight-Hour Ozone Plan

— Submittal of Marginal Area Requirements forthe MaricopaNonattainmentArea
DearM~~i~&nfeld: Consistentwith provisions ofArizona Revised Statutes

## §§ 49-104, 49-404, 49-406 andthe Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, 

## §§ 51.102 through 51.104 and Appendix V to Part 51, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) hereby adopts and submits to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the MAG 2014 Eight-Hour Ozone Plan

- Submittal of MarginalArea Requirementsforthe Maricopa NonattainmentArea as a revision to the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). Pursuant to A.R.S. 

## § 49-406, the plan was developed by the MaricopaAssociation ofGovernments (MAG). The Maricopa area was designated as a marginal nonattainment area for the 2008 eight-hour ozone standard on May 21, 2012. This plan addresses the Marginal Area requirements, such as an Emissions Statement, Baseline Emissions Inventory, Periodic Emission Inventory, Corrections to Pre-1990 Reasonable Available Control Technology, New Source Review, Correctionto Pre-1990 Previously Required Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Programs, and Transportation Conformity. The SIP revision consists of copies of the authorizing statutes cited above (Enclosure 1). Enclosure 2 contains the SIP Completeness Checklist demonstrating that this submission satisfies the requirements of40 C.F.R. Part 51 Appendix V. Enclosure 3 contains one paper Southern Regional Office 400 West Congress Street • Suite 433 • Tucson, AZ 85701

(520) 628—6733 Henry R. Darwin Director

Printed on recycled paperPage2of2

copy and an electronic copy ofthe MAG 2014 Eight-Hour Ozone Plan-Submittal ofMarginal Area Requirements for the Maricopa Nonattainment Area SIP revision. If you have any questions, pleasecontactme at (602) 771-2288. Sincerely,

Division
cc. Colleen McKaughan, EPA Region IX Dennis Smith, w/o enclosures, MAG Dennis Dickerson, w/o enclosures, Maricopa CountyAirQuality Department Air Director
#### SCHUTTLER, Respondent, v. DAIMLER MFG. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 22, 1906.)

Action by Catherine Schuttler, as administratrix, etc., of Ralph Schuttler, deceased, against the Daimler Manufacturing Company.

No opinion. Orders affirmed, without costs.
#  Federal Acquisition Regulation

- Part 13 - Simplified Acquisition Procedures 
- Part 14 - Sealed Bidding 
- Part 15 - Contracting by Negotiation 
- Part 16 - Types of Contracts 
- Part 17 - Special Contracting Methods 
- Part 18 - Emergency Acquisitions 

**Parent topic:**Subchapter C - Contracting Methods and Contract Types
Editorial Note on Part 4290
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 4290 appear at 85 FR 16522, Mar. 24, 2020.

§ 4290.1100 Type of Leverage and application procedures. ( a ) *Type of Leverage available.* You may apply for Leverage from the Agency in the form of a guarantee of your Debentures.
( b ) *Applying for Leverage.* The Leverage application process has two parts. You must first apply for the Agency's conditional commitment to reserve a specific amount of Leverage for your future use. You may then apply to draw down Leverage against the commitment. *See* §§ 4290.1200 through 4290.1240.
( c ) *Where to send your application.* Send all Leverage draw-down applications to Funding Control Officer, Investment Division, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., Suite 6300, Mail Code 7050, Washington, DC 20416.
### ' l ~ y

rD q E,4 - '., 

### n .

~ e i < ~; c 

## 1 ~

t' 1 ~r"'~ iP JAPPENDIX F

START-3 SITE LOGBOOK
# 23.000 Scope.

This part prescribes *acquisition* policies and procedures supporting the Government’s program for ensuring a *drug-free workplace*, for protecting and improving the quality of the environment, and to foster markets for sustainable technologies, materials, *products*, and services, and for encouraging the safe operation of vehicles.

**Parent topic:**Part 23 - Environment, Energy and Water Efficiency, Renewable Energy Technologies, Occupational Safety, and Drug-Free Workplace
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Zoo Entertainment, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:




The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2010 (the “Form 10-Q/A”) of the Company 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 Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date: May 16, 2011





/s/ Mark SeremetMark Seremet

President and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)





Date: May 16, 2011





/s/ David FremedDavid FremedChief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Irving Saltz, Appellant. Martin P. Catherwood, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

Staley, Jr., J.

Appeal by the claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determining that claimant was ineligible for benefits effective November 18, 1964 for lack of total unemployment. (Labor Law, §§ 522, 591.) Claimant was one of the original organizers of a corporation founded for the purpose of constructing a professional building for doctors and dentists. Claimant became vice-president, and was engaged in promoting the success of the enterprise, arranging for financing, construction and rental of the building. From the period from January 1, 1963 through October, 1963, he was paid the sum of $5,100 and then, because of lack of funds, his salary was discontinued. Although the future of the venture remained in doubt, he continued as a vice-president of the corporation, attended meetings of the directors and investors, and retained the possibility of participating in the venture, if the building was ultimately constructed, it was the original intention to issue corporate stock to claimant, but no stock was ever issued. Even though claimant’s salary was discontinued, he retained the possibility of financial gain in the event the corporation was successful in completing the venture. Under these circumstances, the decision of the board that claimant was not totally unemployed, and thus ineligible for benefits, must be upheld. *(Matter of Lieberman [Esmarco Contractors],*20 A D 2d 835; *Matter of Reitman [Catherwood],*27 A D 2d 678.) *969Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Staley, Jr., J.
**Exhibit 32.2**

****CERTIFICATIONS 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 Annual Report of Comverge, Inc. a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Michael Picchi, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 as adopted pursuant to            §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350), 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.

 

|                                                                                    |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| /s/ Michael D. Picchi                                                                   |
| Michael D. Picchi

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

March 10, 2009 |

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Comverge, Inc. and will be retained by Comverge, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
17.108 Congressional notification.

(a) Except for DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard, a multi-year contract which includes a cancellation

ceiling in excess of $15 million may not be awarded until the head of the agency gives written

notification of the proposed contract and of the proposed cancellation ceiling for that contract to the

committees on appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate and the appropriate

oversight committees of the House and Senate for the agency in question. Information on such

committees may not be readily available to contracting officers. Accordingly, agencies should

provide such information through its internal regulations. The contract may not be awarded until the

thirty-firstday after the date of notification.

(b) For DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard, a multi-year contract which includes a cancellation ceiling

in excess of $150 million may not be awarded until the head of the agency gives written notification

of the proposed contract and of the proposed cancellation ceiling for that contract to the committees

on armed services and appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate. The contract may

not be awarded until the thirty-firstday after the date of notification.

Parent topic: Subpart 17.1 - Multi-year Contracting
(December 13, 1979)

#### Joan Trezevant et al., Respondents, v New Rochelle Hospital Medical Center et al., Defendants, and Nadia H. Comvalius et al., Appellants.

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on October 30, 1978, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Nadel, J., at Special Term. Respondents shall recover of appellants $50 costs and disbursements Respondent. this appeal. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Birns, Fein, Lupiano and Ross, JJ.
AURORA LOAN SERVICES
A Lehman Brothers Company



Depositor:  Structured Asset Securities Corporation
            745 Seventh Avenue, 8th Floor
            New York, NY 10019


Trustee:    Citibank, N.A.
            388 Greenwich Street, 14th Floor
            New York, NY 10013
            Attention Citibank Agency & Trust

Securities Administrator:


Subject:        Annual Officer's Certification
Fiscal Year:    2006
Securitization: SAS 2006-S3

I, E. Todd Whittemore, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Aurora
Loan Services LLC (the "Master Servicer"), do certify the following for the
Calendar Year 2006:

1.    A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year (or portion thereof) and of its performance under the Agreement
for such period has been made under my supervision.

2.    To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer
has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material
aspects throughout 2006 (or applicable portion thereof), or, if there has been
a failure to fulfill any such obligation in any material respect, I have
specifically identified to the Depositor, and the Trustee each such failure
known to me and the nature and status thereof, including the steps being taken
by the Master Servicer to remedy such default.


                             Certified by: AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC




                                           By:/s/ E. Todd Whittemore
                                              ------------------------------
                                           Name:  E. Todd Whittemore
                                           Title: Executive Vice President