alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32

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 Arch Chemicals, Inc., a Virginia corporation (the Company), for the period ending
March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers 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 such officers knowledge, 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 as of and for the
periods presented in the Report.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The foregoing certification is provided solely for purposes of complying with the provisions
of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not intended to be used or relied upon for any other purpose.



|                   |  |                        
|------------------ |  | -----------------------
|Dated: May 7, 2010 |  | /s/ Michael E. Campbell
|                   |  | Michael E. Campbell    
|                   |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                   | 
|Dated: May 7, 2010 |  | /s/ Steven C. Giuliano 
|                   |  | Steven C. Giuliano     
|                   |  | Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Arch Chemicals, Inc. and will be retained by Arch Chemicals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                            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 Avenue A, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form 10-Q"), I, Michael Vernon, the
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S)1350,
as adopted pursuant to (S)906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:

     (1) The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

     (2) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated: August 14, 2002

                                          /s/ Michael Vernon
                                          -------------------------------
                                           Michael Vernon
                                           Chief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

RAMEZ ZIADEH, ACTING SECRETARY OF 

THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AND ACTING 

CHAIRPERSON OF THE 

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD

v.

PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATIVE 

REFERENCE BUREAU, VINCENT C. 

DELIBERATO, JR., DIRECTOR OF THE 

LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE BUREAU, AND 

AMY J. MENDELSOHN, DIRECTOR OF 

THE PENNSYLVANIA CODE AND 

BULLETIN

APPEAL OF: CONSTELLATION ENERGY 

CORPORATION AND CONSTELLATION 

ENERGY GENERATION, LLP, 

Possible Intervenors

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 81 MAP 2022

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 12th day of October, 2022, the Notice of Appeal is QUASHED. 

See In re Barnes Foundation, 871 A.2d 792, 794 (Pa. 2005) (“Pennsylvania law does 

allow for an appeal as of right from an order denying intervention in circumstances that 

meet the requirements of the collateral order doctrine.”); Geniviva v. Frisk, 725 A.2d 1209, 

1214 (Pa. 1999) (explaining that, for a right to be too important to be denied review for 

purposes of the collateral order doctrine, the right must be “deeply rooted in public policy 

going beyond the particular litigation at hand”). 

The Combined Application to Consolidate and Expedite Appeals is DISMISSED

as moot.
#### § 298.35 Limitations on carriage of mail.

An air taxi operator or commuter air carrier is not authorized to carry mail except pursuant to contract with the U.S. Postal Service entered into pursuant to section 5402 of the Postal Reorganization Act (39 U.S.C. 5402).
Exhibit 32.1





Certification
by Chief Executive 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 endedJune 30, 2009as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, B. Grant Yarber,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, 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/B. Grant
      Yarber


B. Grant Yarber


President and Chief Executive
Officer


August 7, 2009





This Certification is being furnished
solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, 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, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this 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.
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

west

NWYANW'4
Sec. 1, T. 345S., R. 25 E.

0/900 1800'epm

2

SWYUSE%

Sec. 31, T. 33S., R. 26 E..

ea

0-900 cpm

Scale, in feet

oO

20

_- Aluminum
|/~ phosphate

TOES

3

WASEVANW,
Sec. 4, T. 34S., R. 26.

0_-s900¢pm

Lithologic symbols

Sand

fi

Organic material

A

tron. cementation or
staining; hardpan"

No recovery, core lost

A mixture of symbols indicates
a mixed lithology

4
SW4SEY
Sec. 34, T. 335.,R. 26E.

© 900 1800 cpm

—]

EXPLANATION
Other symbols

Lithologic correlation
Stratigraphic correlation
Limits of aluminum and
calcium phosphate zones
Alternating symbols indicate two or

three of the above correlations
follow the same line

r{
Section of core from which fossils were
identified
a7

Sample number and interval sampled
from lot 2546

5

NEMSE%
Sec. 35, T. 335S., R. 26 E.

© 900cpm

54

Surface? 200 ¢PTM

Troce of gamma-ray log showing
intensity of radiation; cpm =
counts per minute

6
NEMSE

\\ Sec. 31, T. 335., R. 27E.

© 900epm

CROSS SECTION 11, LAND-PEBBLE PHOSPHATE DISTRICT, FLORIDA

7
NWUSEY

Sec. 32, T. 335., R. 27 E.

0800epm

East

8

Sh

BULLETIN 1046 PLATE 26

Elevation, in feet

Sec. 33, T. 335S., R. 27 E.

© 900 cpm

PLEISTOCENE
Terrace sand

PLIOCENE
Bone Valley formation

TUPPER (7) TO Mi
| MidceNe oon
Unnamed sand and limestone

|MIDDLE MIOCENE
Hawthorn formation

r-130

120

}- 100

+-80

;- 40

;-20

Sea level

466352 © -59 (In pocket)
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Presidio Trust

# AGENCY:

The Presidio Trust. 

# ACTION:

Public notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces the Presidio Trust's receipt of and availability for public comment on an application from Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company, dba Cellular One, for a wireless telecommunications facilities site in The Presidio of San Francisco (the “Project”). The proposed location of the Project is in the parking area located directly below the Doyle Drive overpass in the vicinity of the intersection of Halleck and Vallejo Streets, San Francisco, California (the “Project Site”). 

The Project involves (i) placing a single utility pole and a one-story equipment building at the Project Site (alternatively, the equipment may be housed in an existing building, obviating the need for an equipment building), and (ii) removing five existing utility poles and lines, burying the lines underground. The utility pole will be approximately 50 feet tall. The one-story equipment building will be 9 feet by 15 feet. Power for the Project will be provided through underground coaxial cables connected to existing power sources. Connection to telephone lines will be through existing telephone lines. 

*Comments:*                         Comments on the proposed Project must be sent to Devon Danz, Presidio Trust, 34 Graham Street, PO Box 29052, San Francisco, CA 94129-0052, and be received by June 7, 2000. A copy of Cellular One's application is available upon request to the Presidio Trust.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Devon Danz, Presidio Trust, 34 Graham Street, PO Box 29052, San Francisco, CA 94129-0052. Telephone: 415-561-5300. 

Dated: May 2, 2000. 

Karen A. Cook, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 00-11384 Filed 5-5-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-4R-P
§ 156.6 State program responsibilities. ( a ) A participating State shall comply with the terms of the State block grant agreement.
( b ) A participating State shall ensure that each person or entity, to which the State distributes funds received pursuant to the State block grant pilot program, complies with any terms that the State block grant agreement requires to be imposed on a recipient for airport projects funded pursuant to the State block grant pilot program.
( c ) Unless otherwise agreed by a participating State and the Administrator in writing, a participating State shall not delegate or relinquish, either expressly or by implication, any State authority, rights, or power that would interfere with the State's ability to comply with the terms of a State block grant agreement.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Anthony Gallagher, against Carol Construction Company et al., Respondents. State Industrial Board, Appellant.

(Argued September 30, 1936;

decided November 24, 1936.)

*128
      *John J. Bennett, Jr., Attorney-General (Leon Freedman*of counsel), for appellant.

*Dickinson S. Talley*for respondents.

Crouch, J.

Claimant, for accidental injuries arising out of and in the course of his employment, was awarded compensation in the sum of $4,830. The employer and carrier were credited with $2,000, the amount of a judgment recovered and collected by claimant in a third party action, and were directed to pay the claimant the balance of $2,830.

The award was reversed and the claim dismissed by the Appellate Division upon the stated ground that the judgment of $2,000 was the result of a compromise of the third party action within the purview of section 29 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 67); and that since it was made without the written approval of the insurance carrier, no deficiency compensation was recoverable.

The alleged compromise was this: On the trial of the action the plaintiff had a verdict for $5,000; upon a motion by the defendant to set aside the verdict as excessive and for a new trial, an order was entered granting the motion unless the plaintiff should stipulate a *129reduction to $2,000. The stipulation was given and judgment for that amount was entered.

*Matter of Roth*v. *Harlem Funeral Car Co.*(268 N. Y. 661), cited by the court below, is no authority under the facts here. What was paid by the third party there was paid, not because of any judicial determination, but by way of an agreed settlement out of court. No verdict was recorded, and no judgment thereon was entered. The contrary is true here. The judgment for $2,000 was rendered in accordance with immemorial common law practice after a full and constitutional jury trial. The optional order of remittitur and the stipulation of plaintiff pursuant thereto did not constitute a waiver of a jury trial. They were integral incidents of a jury trial actually had which eventuated by constitutional practice in a judgment actually entered *(Arkansas Val. L. & C. Co.*v. Mann, 130 U. S. 69; *Chouteau*v. *Suydam,*21 N. Y. 179; *Holmes*v. *Jones,*121 N. Y. 461; cf. *Dimick*v. *Schiedt,*293 U. S. 474; and see generally: Scott on Fundamentals of Procedure in Actions at Law, p. 108 *el seq.;*Correction of Damage Verdicts by Remittitur and Additur, 44 Yale Law Journal, p. 318.) We think the compromise provision of section 29 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law was not intended to apply to the procedure here in question. Plaintiff’s stipulation consenting to take that portion of the verdict judicially determined as being not excessive, does not fall within any recognized meaning of the word *“*compromise.”

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the award of the State Industrial Board reinstated, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division.

Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran and Finch, JJ., concur.

Ordered accordingly.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

SCOTT MORTIMER

v.

ANDRITZ HERRVOSS STAMCO (WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD)

PETITION OF: SCOTT MORTIMER :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 44 WAL 2024

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 25th day of June, 2024

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
#### § 31.55 Deflation means.

There must be a means to allow emergency deflation of the envelope so as to allow a safe emergency landing. If a system other than a manual system is used, the reliability of the system used must be substantiated.

[Amdt. 31-2, 30 FR 3377, Mar. 13, 1965]
#### Spencer Whedon, as Administrator with the Will Annexed of Letitia S. Whedon, Deceased, Respondent, v. LeGrand S. Whedon, Appellant.

(Argued September 28, 1936;

decided September 29, 1936.)

*498
      *Jules C. Randal*for motion.

*Clarence R. Runals*opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion.
§ 235.3 Reports by air carriers on incidents involving animals during air transport. ( a ) Each covered carrier shall, within 15 days after the end of the month to which the information applies, submit to the United States Department of Transportation's Aviation Consumer Protection Division a report on any incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal during air transport provided by the air carrier, including incidents on flights by that carrier that are operated with aircraft having 60 or fewer seats. The report shall be made in the form and manner set forth in reporting directives issued by the Deputy General Counsel for the U.S. Department of Transportation and shall contain the following information: ( 1 ) Carrier and flight number;
( 2 ) Date and time of the incident;
( 3 ) Description of the animal, including name, if known;
( 4 ) Name and contact information of the owner(s), guardian, and/or shipper of the animal;
( 5 ) Narrative description of the incident;
( 6 ) Narrative description of the cause of the incident;
( 7 ) Narrative description of any corrective action taken in response to the incident; and
( 8 ) Name, title, address, and telephone number of the individual filing the report on behalf of the air carrier.
( b ) Within 15 days after the end of December of each year, each covered carrier shall submit the following information (this information may be included in any report that the carrier may file for the loss, injury, or death of animals during the month of December): ( 1 ) The total number of incidents involving an animal during air transport provided by the air carrier for the entire calendar year, including incidents on flights by that carrier that are operated with aircraft having 60 or fewer seats. The report shall include subtotals for loss, injury, and death of animals. Report “0” for any category for which there were no such incidents. If the carrier had no reportable incidents for that calendar year, it shall report “0” in each category. Covered carriers shall use the following data table when reporting the total number of animal incidents during air transport provided by the air carrier for the entire calendar year: Total number in the calendar year Deaths Injuries Loss
( 2 ) The total number of animals transported in the calendar year. If the carrier did not transport any animals for that calendar year, it shall report “0.”
( 3 ) The December report must contain the following certification signed by the carrier's authorized representative: “I, the undersigned, do certify that this report has been prepared under my direction in accordance with the regulations in 14 CFR part 235. I affirm that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, this is a true, correct and complete report.”
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES

v.

Airman First Class KURT J. PALMIERI

United States Air Force

ACM S32326

14 June 2016

Sentence adjudged 18 May 2015 by SPCM convened at Ramstein Air Base, 

Germany. Military Judge: Christopher Leavey (sitting alone).

Approved Sentence: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 45 days,

forfeitures of $31.00 pay per month for 3 months, and reduction to E-1.

Appellate Counsel for the Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Joy L. Primoli and 

Major Lauren A Shure.

Appellate Counsel for the United States: Gerald R. Bruce, Esquire.

Before

ALLRED, MITCHELL, and MAYBERRY

Appellate Military Judges

This opinion is issued as an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent 

under Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.

PER CURIAM:

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error 

materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant occurred. Article 66(c), 

UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c); United States v. Reed, 54 M.J. 37, 41 (C.A.A.F. 2000). 

Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

LEAH M. CALAHAN

Clerk of the Court
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

October 26, 2009 

l1019 

Order 

 

October 26, 2009 

138393(56) 

 

GERALDINE J. GLOD, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 138393 

 COA: 279422 

Macomb CC: 05-004973-NO 

CLINTON RIVER CRUISE COMPANY, INC., 

Defendant, 

Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee, 

and 

DSI INDUSTRIES, INC., d/b/a DOOR 

SOLUTIONS, and EVANGELICAL HOMES 

OF MICHIGAN, d/b/a PATHWAYS 

TRANSITION CARE, 

 Defendants, 

and 

JANET YOUNG, 

 Third-Party Defendant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s June 23, 2009 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-3031

In the Matter of: EDWARD RICHMAN; ILENE H.

RICHMAN,

Debtors.

_________________________

EDWARD RICHMAN; ILENE H. RICHMAN,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

GALLAND, KHARASCH, MORSE & GARFINKLE, PC,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-95-1854-AW, BK-92-13241-SD)

Argued: September 25, 1996 Decided: December 13, 1996

Before ERVIN and HALL, Circuit Judges, and HALLANAN, United

Stated District Judge for the Southern District of West Virginia,

sitting by designation.

Affirmed by unpublished opinion. Judge Hallanan wrote the

opinion, in which Judge Ervin and Judge Hall joined.
2

ARGUED: John G. Gill, Jr., GILL & SIPPEL, Rockville, Maryland,

for Appellants. Helle Rung Weeke, GALLAND, KHARASCH, MORSE &

GARFINKLE, P.C., Washington, D.C. for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Robert

H. Morse, Robert D. Roseman, GALLAND, KHARASCH, MORSE &

GARFINKLE, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

HALLANAN, District Judge:

Because in this case the district court sat as an appellate

court in bankruptcy, our review of the district court's decision is

plenary. In re Varat Enters., Inc., 81 F.3d 1310, 1316 (4th Cir.

1996); In re Stanley, 66 F.3d 664, 667 (4th Cir. 1995). With this

in mind, after considering the record, the briefs submitted by the

parties, and the oral argument of counsel, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. In re Richman, Civil Action No. AW-95-

1854 (D. Md. filed October 23, 1995).

AFFIRMED