alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Certification by Chief Financial Officer
 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 Capital Bank Corporation (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Christopher G. Marshall, 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 of 2002, to my knowledge that:
 
 The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 /s/Christopher G. Marshall
 Christopher G. Marshall
 Chief Financial Officer
 May 16, 2011
 
 This Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 

In re:

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO 

RICO

AS REPRESENTATIVE OF

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO 

RICO

Debtor

PROMESA, Title III

Case No. 17-BK-3283 (LTS)

MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY WITHDRAW OF PROOF OF CLAIM

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

COMES NOW, Mitsubishi Motor Sales of Caribbean, Inc. ("MMSC"), by and through 

the undersigned attorneys, and very respectfully states and prays as follows:

1. On June 29, 2018, MMSC submitted its Proof of Claim before this Honorable 

Court. See, Claim No. 78451 and Schedule No. 1181629.

2. MMSC hereby respectfully informs this Honorable Court that it is voluntarily 

withdrawing and desisting from its Proof of Claim.

3. Consequently, MMSC respectfully requests this Honorable Court to determine 

that MMSC's Proof of Claim has been voluntarily withdrawn and dismissed for all pertinent 

legal matters in the instant case.

WHEREFORE, MMSC respectfully requests this Honorable Court to take notice of all 

of the aforementioned and, consequently, determine that MMSC's Proof of Claim has been 

voluntarily withdrawn and dismissed for all pertinent legal matters in the instant case.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3766 Filed:08/14/18 Entered:08/14/18 13:07:01 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 2
Case No. 17-BK-3283 (LTS)

Motion for Voluntary Withdraw of Proof of Claim

Page 2 

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that on his same date, we electronically filed the foregoing 

motion with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of 

such filing to all CM/ECF participants in this case. We further certify that, on this same date, we 

served the foregoing upon all the Standard Parties as identified and defined at ¶ II of the CMP 

Order, as amended on April 4, 2018, (Docket No. 2839 of Case No. 17-03283) "Order Further 

Amending Case Management Procedures".

In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 14

st day of August 2018.

BELK & GROVAS LAW OFFICES

PO Box 194927

San Juan, PR 00919-4927

Tel. (787) 754-2424/Fax (787) 754-2454 

E-mail: belkgrovas@gmail.com

BY: S/James Belk-Arce

JAMES BELK-ARCE

USDC-PR No. 130506

BY: S/Carlos J. Grovas-Porrata

CARLOS J. GROVAS-PORRATA

USDC-PR No. 209714

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3766 Filed:08/14/18 Entered:08/14/18 13:07:01 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 

## MAR 14 2011 Barry Wallerstein, Env.D. Executive Director South Coast AQMD 21865 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Re: Final Technical System Audit Report onthe South Coast Air Quality Management District AmbiwalityMonitoring Program, April 13

- 16, 2010
Dear

## a::_:~stein: I am writing to transmit EPA's report on the findings ofourTechnical System Audit (TSA) ofSCAQMD's ambient air monitoring program. This audit was performed in accordance with40 CPR Part 58, Section 2.5, which requires that EPA conduct technical system audits of Primary Quality Assurance Organizations every three years. EPAreviewed SCAQMD's ambient air monitoring program, including network management, field operations, laboratory operations, quality assurance, and data management procedures. Overall, we found that SCAQMD has a robust air monitoring program that generally meets or exceeds EPArequirements. As with any audit, this TSA uncovered some program areas within the agency that canbe improved. We look forward to working together as you develop a corrective action response to our audit findings, which is due within 60 days of receipt ofthe final TSAreport. I wantto thank you and your stafffor the full cooperation andparticipation we were given during the audit. The results ofthis audit contribute to EPA's overall understanding of ambient monitoring in your District. Please contact me ifyou have questions oryour staffmay contact Meredith Kurpius at (415) 947-4534 orMatthew Lakin at (415) 972-3851. Sincerely,



# jU/Yl

Deborah Jord Director, Air Division Enclosure

cc: Dr. Chung S. Liu, SCAQMD Rudy Eden, SCAQMD Dr. Phillip M. Fine, SCAQMD Dr. JasonC. Low, SCAQMD Printed on Recycled Paper
§ 27.305 Strength and deformation. ( a ) The structure must be able to support limit loads without detrimental or permanent deformation. At any load up to limit loads, the deformation may not interfere with safe operation.
( b ) The structure must be able to support ultimate loads without failure. This must be shown by— ( 1 ) Applying ultimate loads to the structure in a static test for at least three seconds; or
( 2 ) Dynamic tests simulating actual load application.
#### § 25.1563 Airspeed placard.

A placard showing the maximum airspeeds for flap extension for the takeoff, approach, and landing positions must be installed in clear view of each pilot.
-APARTMENT OF 

ANGPORIATIO N 

::KEr OPERATIONS2m NOV - 3 A q: 2S SERVED NOVEMBER 2,2010 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

CORPORATE AIR 

FAA DOCKET NO. CPIONMOOIO 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS NO. FAA-2010-0975 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2008NM700126) has been assigned to 

Administrative Lav^ Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other communications 

regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other 

persons on the attached Service List. 

Ronnie A 

Chief Administrative 

Attachment - Service List 
FAA Docket No. CPlONMOOl© 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE TLIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Cynthia Chandler-Snell, Respondent's Counsel 

Senior Attorney, Federal Express, Inc. 

3620 Hacks Cross Road 

Building B, 3'" Floor 

Memphis, TN 38125-8800 

TEL: 901-434-8361 

FAX: 901-434-8283 

iScott R. Morris, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorpey, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Jkorthwest Mountain Region, ANM-7, FAA 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Renton,WA 98057 

TEL: 425-227-1417 ^ ,,, 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor 202-366-2139 

Legal Assistant 202-366-5121 g:^ 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

* Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the toVLo^^^address: 

Hearing Docket, Federal Aviation Administration, i600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wrijfe^uilding - Room 

2614, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Cleric, AGC-430.
BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Agreements Adopted by the Traffic 

Conferences of the International Air 

Transport Association 

OST-2010- OtLe ^ 

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF AGREEMENTS 

BY THE 

INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION 

lATA AGREEMENT APPROVED & IMMUNIZED 

DOCKETOST- //> - 0Zln l ACTK :DATE Qc^' ^ ^ i ^of o 

This approval and grant of antitrust immunity is subject, where applicable, 

to conditions previously imposed. 

This action is etfectivc after 7 days unless a petition is filed under 

14 CFK 385.30 or a review is undertaken on the Department's own motion. 

In view of the agreement's noncontroversial nature and the availability of . 

the above/tJr^cedure, the ^-^l^y ped^jj) 14 C^R 303.42 is waived. 

25 October 2010 

Communications with respect to 

this document should be sent to 

Douglas Lavin 

Regional Vice President - North America 

International Air Transport Association 

lATA Washington, 

1776 K St. N.W. #12" Floor 

Washington DC 20006
Exhibit
      32.2




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




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of NT Holding Corp. on Form 10-QSB for
      the
      period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof, I, James Loo, Chief Financial Officer 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 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:
      May
      15, 2006









/S/
      James Loo


James
      Loo


Chief
      Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4072 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4072

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate the clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Bend, 
   Oregon, as the ``Robert D. Maxwell Department of Veterans Affairs 
                               Clinic''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF ROBERT D. MAXWELL DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 
              AFFAIRS CLINIC.

    (a) Designation.--The clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs 
located at 2650 NE Courtney Drive, Bend, Oregon, shall after the date 
of the enactment of this Act be known and designated as the ``Robert D. 
Maxwell Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic'' or the ``Robert D. 
Maxwell VA Clinic''.
    (b) Reference.--Any reference in any law, regulation, map, 
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the clinic 
referred to in paragraph (1) shall be considered to be a reference to 
the Robert D. Maxwell Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic.

            Passed the Senate September 17, 2020.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
116th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 4072

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To designate the clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Bend, 
   Oregon, as the ``Robert D. Maxwell Department of Veterans Affairs 
                               Clinic''.
```
221021 EXHIBIT A. APPEARANCE SHEET VERSION OCTOBER 21, 2022 1

EXHIBIT A1

PARTY APPEARANCE SHEET

Name of Party 

ATTORNEY 1 Appearance Method In Person NY/PR or CourtSolutions Speaking Line2

Name

Law Firm

Email

Phone Number

Docket Entry No. of

Notice of Appearance

ATTORNEY 2 Appearance Method In Person NY/PR or CourtSolutions Speaking Line

Name

Law Firm

Email

Phone Number

Docket Entry No. of

Notice of Appearance

ADDITIONAL 

ATTORNEY 

OBSERVATION

Complete the below 

information for each 

attorney appearing for 

observation purposes. 

Name

• CourtSolutions 

Listen Only

• In Person – NY

• In Person – PR

Law Firm

Email 

Phone Number 

Pursuant to the Hearing Procedures Order ¶ 6, in-person participation by counsel will be prioritized 

in the following manner: the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico and the 

Puerto Rico Fiscal Agency and Financial Advisory Authority shall each be permitted 4 attorneys

present in the courtroom, and each other party-in-interest shall be permitted 2 attorneys present in 

the courtroom.

Space permitting, additional attorneys who wish to view but not participate in the hearing may gain 

admittance to the New York Courtroom and San Juan Courtroom, on a first-come first-served 

basis. All attorneys who wish to observe in person must be listed on this appearance sheet. 

1 This Party Appearance Sheet must be attached to a party in interest’s Informative Motion as 

Exhibit A. 2 Pursuant to the Hearing Procedures Order ¶ 2, attorneys intending to appear by CourtSolutions 

must also separately register on the CourtSolutions website. 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22668-1 Filed:10/21/22 Entered:10/21/22 13:54:23 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 1 of 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

ANTHONY L. TILLMAN a/k/a NAZIR EL
,
Defendant Below

Appellant,

v.

US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
,
Plaintiff Below

Appellee

. § § No

. 250, 2018 § § § § Court Below : Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § C.A. No. N17L

- 07

- 05 7 § § §

Submitted: J une 18 , 2018 Decided: July 25 , 201 8 Corrected: August 10, 2018

Before STRINE
, Chief Justice; SEITZ and TRAYNOR
, Justices.

O R D E R

U pon consideration of the rule to show cause, the appellant’s response,

and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that:

(1) The appellant, Anthony L. Tillman , filed this appeal from an
order of the Superior Court, docketed April 25, 2018 , d enying his motion to

set aside a Sheriff’s sale because the motion had no factual or legal basi s.
(2) Along with his notice of appeal
, Tillman also filed a n “ Affidavit

of F inancial S tatement ,” apparently seeking to proceed in forma pauperis

(IFP). The Senior Court Clerk wrote to Tillman on May 9 , 2018 and directed2

him to file a motion to proceed IFP in compliance with Supreme Court R ule
20(h) or else pay the filing fee by May 24 , 2018

. Tillman did not file his

motion or pay the filing fee as instructed in the Clerk’s letter. Accordingly,

on May 29 , 2018, the C lerk issued a notice to Tillman to show cause why his
appeal should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute.

( 3 ) Tillman filed a response to the notice to show cause on J une 18
,
2018

. While it is not entirely clear, Tillman appears to contend that the

Court’s official IFP form o nly applies to corporations and that the Court
cannot legally compel him to file the required form or inquire into his financial

status.
( 4 ) We reject Tillman ’ s argument

. P ermission to proceed as a
pauper without prepayment of the filing in a civil matter is a matter of
privilege
, not a right. 1 Neither Rule 20, Official Form Q n or 10 Del. C. ch. 88

bar s an indigent person access to courts in Delaware or otherwise violates an y
person’s constitutional rights

. 2 We find no merit to Tillman ’s argument that

it is illegal for the Court to inquire into his financial status in order to
determine his ability to pay a fee.

1 See Walls v. Phelps , 2014 WL 279472, * 2 (Del. Jan. 23, 2014) ( citing Abdul

- Akbar v. McKelvie , 239 F.3d 307, 314 (3d Cir. 2001)).
2 Id.3

(5 ) Under the circumstances, we dismiss this appeal for Tillman ’s
failure to prosecute it diligently by refusing to comply with the Court’s May

9 , 2018 directive to file an IFP motion in compliance with the Court’s rules
or else pay the filing fee

. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is

DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor Justice
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 96-4335 MARION W. CHILDERS, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (CR-95-13) Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 9, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL James M. Pool, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. William D. Wilmoth, United States Attorney, Sam G. Nazzaro, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________OPINION PER CURIAM:Marion W. Childers pled guilty to conspiring to possess methamphetamine with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C.A.§ 846 (West Supp. 1996), and to possessing a firearm while a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(1) (West Supp. 1996). He appeals his 108-monthsentence, alleging that the district court erred in enhancing his sentence for possession of a firearm. United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(1) (Nov. 1995). We affirm.When a search warrant was executed at Childers' residence, authorities seized a loaded pistol, a loaded rifle, and $18,000 in cash. In his plea agreement, Childers stipulated that an enhancement under USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1) would be appropriate. The district court madethe two-level enhancement, which is called for if a firearm was possessed by a defendant convicted of a drug offense unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense. USSG § 2D1.1, comment. (n.3); see also United States v. Apple , 962 F.2d335, 338 (4th Cir. 1992) (government required to prove only possession during commission of offense). While Childers' attorney attempted to persuade the court that the rifle was purely for sporting purposes, for which the guideline makes an exception, Childers made no showing which would have permitted the district court to find thatthe pistol was unconnected with the offense. Moreover, the court correctly decided that the Supreme Court's recent decision in Bailey v. United States , ___ U.S. ___, 64 U.S.L.W. 4039 (U.S. Dec. 6, 1995) (Nos. 94-7448/7492), does not preclude a sentence enhancement forpossession of a firearm even when there is no evidence that the defendant actively employed it. See United States v. Hawthorne , 94 F.3d 118, 122 (4th Cir. 1996).The sentence is therefore affirmed. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presentedin the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-40732

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MILLARD DEAN LOFTIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Texas

(5:94-CV-76)

April 23, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, GARWOOD and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Millard Dean Loftis appeals the denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255, contending that he received ineffective assistance of counsel; the district court gave

improper reasons and employed an incorrect analysis when departing upward from the

applicable guideline sentencing range; the government did not notify him of its intention to

seek an up ward departure; and the district court denied him the right of allocution at

sentencing. Our review of the record and briefs discloses no reversible error.1 Varnado v. Lynaugh , 920 F.2d 320 (5th Cir. 1991).

2 Smith v. Estelle , 711 F.2d 677 (5th Cir. 1983), cert

. denied , 466 U.S. 906 (1984).

3 See Loftis v. United States

, No. 5:94-CV-076 (E.D.Tex., Aug. 23, 1995) (unpublished

order).

2 We will not consider the contentions of ineffective assistance of counsel which Loftis

raises for the first time on appeal. 1 His contention that he was denied his right of allocution

is not persuasive for it lacks a factual basis. His further contention that counsel was

ineffective for failing to raise his fourth amendment contentions on direct appeal is likewise

unconvincing; Loftis pleaded guilty and thus waived the suppression issues. 2 As to Loftis’s

remaining contentions, we affirm fo r essentially the facts found, authorities cited, and

reasons given by the learned district judge. 3

AFFIRMED.