alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18U.S.C. Section 1350

	The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Quarterly Reporton Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003 (the "Report") for the purposeof complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Act of 1934 (the "ExchangeAct") and section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code. 

	Ann Murtlow, President and Chief Executive Officer and Hamsa Shadaksharappa, SeniorVice President - Financial Services, ChiefFinancial Officer and Secretary of IPALCO Enterprises, Inc. (IPALCO), each certifies that, to thebest of his or her knowledge:the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Exchange Act; and 
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of IPALCO.

 

/s/ Ann Murtlow/s/ Hamsa Shadaksharappa   Ann Murtlow   Hamsa Shadaksharappa   President and Chief Executive Officer   Senior Vice President-Financial Services, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary   July 29, 2003   July 29, 2003
Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) of the Securitiesand Exchange Act of 1934
	The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Quarterly Reporton Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003 (the "Report") for the purposeof complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Act of 1934 (the "ExchangeAct") and section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code. 

	Ann Murtlow, President and Chief Executive Officer and Hamsa Shadaksharappa, SeniorVice President - Financial Services, ChiefFinancial Officer and Secretary of IPALCO Enterprises, Inc. (IPALCO), each certifies that, to thebest of his or her knowledge:the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Exchange Act; and 
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of IPALCO.

 

/s/ Ann Murtlow/s/ Hamsa Shadaksharappa   Ann Murtlow   Hamsa Shadaksharappa   President and Chief Executive Officer   Senior Vice President-Financial Services, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary   November 11, 2003   November 11, 2003
November 1, 2016



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

GENARO TAMAYO , Appellant

NO. 14

- 15

- 00141

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for ob servance.
ERROR — JUDGMENTS.

[Lake Circuit Court,

September Term, 1886.]

Laubie, Frazier and Woodbury, JJ.

#### *H. Cole et al. v. J. W. Alexander, Exr., Etc.

After Assignment of Errors, and Before Final Judgment, the Judgment of Reversal is Valid.

After error has been assigned, a judgment of reversal is valid, even though one of the plaintiffs in error has deceased, and his legal representative has not been made a party to the proceedings in error.

Motion to continue.

Tuttle & Tuttle, for plaintiffs in error.

P. Bosworth, for defendant in error.

*

Judgment in this case, was affirmed by Supreme Court, without report, February 4, 1890.

Eaubie, J.

C. C. Field, one of the plaintiffs in error, has recently deceased. Counsel for plaintiffs in error state that no executor was named in his will, and. that no administrator has yet been appointed. This is conceded by counsel for defendant in error to be true.

The death of said C. C. Field is suggested, and motion made to continue the case, so that an administrator can be appointed and made party to this proceeding.

This is a proceeding in error, and one of plaintiffs in error has died since error was- assigned-, and the common law rule is that the death of a parti* plaintiff, after error has been assigned, will not interfere with the writ of error. This rule is followed in the third Ohio. In Williams v. Englebrecht, 88 O. S., 96, the court held that: “Notwithstanding the death of the plaintiff in error, after assignment of errors, and before final judgment, the judgment of reversal is valid and effective,” and the cause was reversed and remanded. In case of a reversal, the original action can be revived in the court to which it is remanded in the name of the proper representative of the deceased party.

The motion to continue is therefore overruled.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRTY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              OCT-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                            1027
<SECURITIES>                                       299
<RECEIVABLES>                                      530
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (10)
<INVENTORY>                                      2,837
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,818
<PP&E>                                           7,821
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (7,320)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,012
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,561
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        84,380
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,012
<SALES>                                            104
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   324
<CGS>                                              108
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      266
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,295
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (27)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,285)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,285)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,285)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**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 of Illini Corporation (the“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the hereof (the “Report”), I Dennis B.Guthrie, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Dennis  B. Guthrie   |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Dennis B.  Guthrie.      |
| Chief  Financial Officer |
| May 14, 2004             |

 

----
F r o m : " H i gg i n s , C o rt n e y " < C o rt n e y

_ H i gg i n s @ o mb

. e o p
. g o v> T o : B r i a n S h r a g er

/ R T P/ U S E P A / U S @ E PA C c : Ro b ertJ W a y l a n d /R

T P/ U S E PA

/ U S @ E P A , T h o m a s G i l l i s / D C/ U S E PA

/ U S @ E PA D at e : 12/ 0 1/2 0 11 0 6 : 54 P M S u b j e c t : 206 0

- A R 13 M a j o r S o u r c e Bo i l er spre a mb l e

H i B r i a n , C a n yo u h a v e t h e atta ch e d c l e a n pre a mb l e a n d R I A u p l o a d e d i n t o R O C I S ? I 'v e o p e n e d i t u p f

o r a m e n dm e n t

. T h a n k s , C o rt n e y 202

. 395

. 78 5 6

- ---- O r i g i n a l M e s s a g e - - --- F r o m : Sh r a g er
. B r i a n @ e p a m a i l

. e p a
. g ov [ m a i l t o: Sh r a g er
. B r i a n @ e p a m a i l

. e p a
. g ov ] S e n t : T hu r s d a y , D e c e m b e r 01 , 2 011 3 : 09 P M T o : H i gg i n s , C o rt n e y C c : W a y l a n d

. Ro b ert

j @ e p a m a i l

. e p a
. g ov S u b j e c t : R E : I n t er a g e ncy c o mm e n t s un d er E Os 1 28 6 6 a n d 135 6 3

-- M a jo r S o u r c e B o i l er spre a mb l e

C o rt n e y , Atta c h e d , p l e a s e f i n d a red l i n e v er s i o n o f t h e p re a mb l e a n d r u l e a n d a c l e a n v er s i o n
. I w i l l s e n d t h e re v i s e d R I A u pd at e m e m o i n a s e p a r at e e - m a i l

. ( S e e atta c h e d f i l e : E O 128 6 6 N E S H A P B o i l er M a j o r S o u r c e Re c o n s i d er at i o n 206 0

_ A R13 P r o p o s a l 2 011 1 201 -C l e a n
. d o c )( S ee atta c h e d f i l e : E O 1 286 6 N E SH AP B o i l er M a j o r S o u r c e Re c o n s i d er a t i o n 2 0 60

_ A R13 Pr o p os a l 201 1 120 1

- R

e d l i n e
. d o c ) ( S e e atta c h e d f i l e : E O 128 6 6 N E S H A P B o i l er M a j o r S o u r c e R e c o n s i d er at i o n 206 0

_ A R13 P r o p o s a l 2 011 1 201 -C l e a n
. d o c )( S ee atta c h e d f i l e : b o i l er s r i a p r o p o s a l re c o n 111 2 01

. d o c x )



### P a g e 1 o f 1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARCO MARTINEZ-SEREN, AKA Marco 

Martinez Seren, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 19-72927 

Agency No. A200-115-388 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 19, 2022**

Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Marco Martinez-Seren, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to 

reopen and remand removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252. We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen and remand for abuse 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JAN 24 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-72927 

of discretion. Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005). We 

deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Martinez-Seren’s motion to 

reopen and remand to apply for cancellation of removal where he failed to

establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought. See Garcia v. Holder, 621 

F.3d 906, 912 (9th Cir. 2010) (providing that a motion to reopen will not be 

granted absent a showing of prima facie eligibility for relief based on 

demonstrating “a reasonable likelihood that the statutory requirements for relief 

have been satisfied” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 

We reject as unsupported by the record Martinez-Seren’s contentions that 

the BIA ignored evidence or otherwise erred in its analysis of his motion.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
1 ... T h i s pr oce edi n g ar i s es ou t of Cau s e N o. 2008- CI

- 18479, s t y l ed D e d ic M a n c h a , e t a l. v . T a n g o T ra n sp o rt, In c. a n d Jim A va ra , p end i ng in t he 1 5 0 t h J ud i ci al D i st ri ct C o urt , B exar C o unt y , T exas, t he H o no rable Janet Li t t l ejo hn pr es i di n g . H owe v er , t h e or der compl ai n ed of w as s i g n ed by t h e H on or abl e D av i d A. B er ch el man n , pr es i di n g j u dg e of the 3 7 th J u d ic ia l D istric t C o u rt, B e x a r C o u n ty, T e x a s. 

### i i i i i i



# MEM ORA ND UM OP INION
No. 04-09-00804- CV
IN RE TANG O TRANSPORT, L.L.C. d/b /a TANGO TRANSP ORT, INC.

Orig inal Mandamus Proce eding 1


## PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Kar en Ang elini, J ustice Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: Dece mber 23, 2009
PETI TI ON F OR WR I T OF MANDAMUS DEN I ED On Dec ember

15, 2009, rela tor fil ed a petition for wr it of mandamus and a motion for

emer g ency

stay . The c ourt has conside red r elator’ s petition for writ of manda mus and is of the opinio n th a t r e lato r is n o t e n ti tl e d to th e r e li e f s o u g h t. A c c o r d in g ly , th e p e ti ti o n f o r w r it of mandamus and the motion for emer g ency stay are DENI ED. See T EX


## . R. A PP


## . P. 52.8(a).

PER CU RI AM
#### § 1.921 Analysis of costs.

VA collection procedures should provide for periodic comparison of costs incurred and amounts collected. Data on costs and corresponding recovery rates for debts of different types and in various dollar ranges should be used to compare the cost effectiveness of alternative collection techniques, establish guidelines with respect to points at which costs of further collection efforts are likely to exceed recoveries, assist in evaluating offers in compromise, and establish minimum debt amounts below which collection efforts need not be taken.

(Authority: 31 U.S.C. 3711-3719; 38 U.S.C. 501)

[69 FR 62196, Oct. 25, 2004]
Exhibit 32.1

PRESIDENT CERTIFICATION

I,
Richard T. Miller, certify that:



| | (1) | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of TCW Direct Lending
VIII LLC; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                              
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------------
|Date: April 28, 2022 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Richard T. Miller        
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Richard T. Miller            
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | President                    
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
#### George H. Elliott, Respondent, *v.*Mary Vermilyea, Appellant.

(City Court of New York, General Term,

April, 1899.)

Order of discontinuance — Appeal.

A special term order discontinuing an action in the City Court of New York, made on the plaintiff’s motion and granting costs to bis attorneys, is not an order merely allowing costs of a .motion and therefore is appealable to the General Term of said court.

Appeal from a Special Term order granting, a discontinuance.

John Patterson, for appellant.

Johnes & Travis (C. E. Travis, of counsel), for respondent.

Hascall, J.

This is an appeal from an order of the Special Term, made September 21, 1898, granting discontinuance of the action, upon plaintiff’s motion, with $10 costs to the plaintiff’s attorneys.

The respondent contends that this is *“*an appeal from an order allowing costs of motion,” and therefore not appealable, under the cases of Lennox v. Eldred, 65 Barb. 526, and others.

We do not agree with him. We think that the order was inadvertently signed, as it is not usual, and, certainly in this case, not proper to nharge defendant with the costs of granting a favor to plaintiff. Moreover the order reads “ with ten dollars ($10) costs to the plaintiff’s attorneys,” and this makes it still more evident that the order was prepared by attorneys for presentation for signature in the hurry of chambers’ business, as costs are awarded to a party and not to the attorney. Ordinarily, if imposed at all, motion costs are awarded against the plaintiff, who desires to retire his suit, and are to compensate defendant for being needlessly taken into court. In the case at bar, it is apparent that the order under criticism is too harsh and arbitrary to be within sound discretion. Fleischman v. Fleischman, 61 N. Y. St. Repr. 627.

The order appealed from is modified by striking out the provision therein giving the plaintiff “ costs against the defendant to be paid to the plaintiff’s attorneys,” and by inserting in lieu thereof, $10 costs of motion to defendant, and, as so modified, affirmed, with $10 costs of this appeal beside disbursements for printing, to be taxed.

Eitzsimons, Oh. J., concurs.

Order modified, and as modified, affirmed, with $10 costs.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

RICARDO JOSE CALDERON LOPEZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

HOWARD M. KAUSNER, dba Amor Arm Apartments, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________

2024-2011

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Central District of California in No. 2:05-cv-00397-NMVBK, Judge Nora M. Manella.

______________________

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Ricardo Jose Calderon Lopez brought suit against the 

various appellees in California state court and then sought 

to remove the case to federal court. The appellees moved 

to dismiss. On May 23, 2005, the district court ordered that 

the last such motion was submitted for consideration, and 

on May 24, 2005, the district court granted the motions. 

On June 17, 2024, Mr. Calderon Lopez filed a notice of appeal directed to this court from a decision entered 

“05/23/2005” in the district court action.

Case: 24-2011 Document: 6 Page: 1 Filed: 07/24/2024
2 CALDERON LOPEZ v. KAUSNER

“[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case 

is a jurisdictional requirement,” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 

205, 214 (2007), and, in order to be timely, a notice of appeal must generally be filed within 60 days after entry of 

final judgment when the case involves United States agencies and officers, 28 U.S.C. § 2107; Fed. R. App. P. 4. Here, 

Mr. Calderon Lopez’s notice of appeal, filed over 19 years 

after the district court’s May 23, 2005 decision, is clearly 

untimely. For at least this reason, we and any other court 

of appeals lack jurisdiction.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Each party shall bear its own costs.

July 24, 2024

 Date

FOR THE COURT

Case: 24-2011 Document: 6 Page: 2 Filed: 07/24/2024
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 103 (Friday, May 27, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 30990]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13184]

[[Page 30990]]

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

Department of Transportation

Office of the Secretary

Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity 
and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B (Formerly Subpart 
Q) During the Week Ending April 30, 2011

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart 
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural 
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et seq.).
    The due date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motions to 
Modify Scope are set forth below for each application. Following the 
Answer period DOT may process the application by expedited procedures. 
Such procedures may consist of the adoption of a show-cause order, a 
tentative order, or in appropriate cases a final order without further 
proceedings.
     Docket Number: DOT-OST-2011-0088.
    Date Filed: April 27, 2011.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: May 18, 2011.
    Description: Application of Exec Direct Aviation Services Ltd. 
requesting an exemption and a foreign air carrier permit to provide 
charter foreign air transportation of property and mail between Jamaica 
and the United States via intermediary points, and to points beyond the 
United States.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2011-13184 Filed 5-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
```
#### Charles H. Nicoll, Appellant, *v.*R. Ogden Doremus, Respondent.

Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment rendered in the Municipal Court, first district, borough of Manhattan, in favor of the defendant for costs.

William C. Timm, for appellant.

Dudley R. Horton, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Judgment affirmed, with costs to. respondent.

Present: Freedman, P. J.; MacLean and Leventritt, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
§ 9.1 Applicability and purpose. ( a ) *General.* The standards of care set forth in this part apply to the chimpanzee sanctuaries that are contracted (or subcontracted) to the Federal Government to operate the federally supported chimpanzee sanctuary system authorized by section 481C of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 287a-3a).
( b ) *What is the purpose of the federally supported chimpanzee sanctuary system and the authority for establishing these standards of care regulation?* The Chimpanzee Health Improvement, Maintenance, and Protection Act (Pub. L. 106-551, referred to as the “CHIMP Act” or “Chimpanzee Retirement Act”) was enacted by Congress to provide for the establishment and operation of a sanctuary system to provide lifetime care for chimpanzees that have been used, or were bred or purchased for use, in research conducted or supported by the agencies of the Federal Government, and that are determined to be no longer needed for such research. The CHIMP Act also mandates that standards of care for chimpanzees in the sanctuary shall be developed to ensure the well-being of chimpanzees and the health and safety of the chimpanzees.
( c ) *To what chimpanzee sanctuaries do the standards of care in this part apply?* The standards of care set forth in this part apply to only those sanctuaries that are contracted or subcontracted to the Federal Government to operate the federally supported chimpanzee sanctuary system.
§ 1.1000 Garnishment of payments after disbursement. ( a ) Payments of benefits due under any law administered by the Secretary that are protected by 38 U.S.C. 5301(a) and made by direct deposit to a financial institution are subject to 31 CFR part 212, Garnishment of Accounts Containing Federal Benefit Payments.
( b ) This section may be amended only by a rulemaking issued jointly by the Department of the Treasury and the agencies defined as a “benefit agency” in 31 CFR 212.3.
[76 FR 9961, Feb. 23, 2011]