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  of  Allstates
WorldCargo, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period
ending  December 31, 2005 as  filed  with  the  Securities and
Exchange  Commission  (the "Report"),  I,  Craig  D.  Stratton,
Chief Financial  Officer  of  the Company,  certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

    (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
         of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

    (2)  The information contained in the Report  fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the
         company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of
         operations of the Company for the periods presented.


Dated: February 14, 2006

/s/ Craig D. Stratton
Chief Financial Officer and
Chief Accounting Officer



This  certification  has been furnished solely  pursuant  to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
§ 404.7 Action on a petition for waiver. ( a ) *Grant of waiver.* The Associate Administrator may grant a waiver, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, if the Associate Administrator determines that the waiver is in the public interest and will not jeopardize public health and safety, the safety of property, or any national security or foreign policy interest of the United States.
( b ) *Waiver ineligibility.* The FAA may not grant a waiver that would permit the launch or reentry of a launch vehicle or a reentry vehicle without a license or permit if a human being will be on board.
( c ) *Denial of waiver.* If the Associate Administrator determines that the petition does not justify granting a waiver, the Associate Administrator denies the petition.
[Doc. No. FAA-2016-6761, Amdt. No. 404-6, 83 FR 28534, June 20, 2018]
§ 431.75 Agreements. ( a ) *Launch and reentry site use agreements.* Before conducting a licensed RLV mission using property and services of a Federal launch range or licensed launch or reentry site operator, a licensee or applicant shall enter into an agreement with the Federal launch range and/or licensed site operator that provides for access to and use of property and services required to support a licensed RLV mission or reentry and for public safety related operations and support. The agreement shall be in effect before any licensed RLV mission or reentry. A licensee shall comply with any requirements of the agreement that may affect public health and safety and the safety of property during the conduct of its licensed activity.
( b ) *Agreements for notices to mariners and airmen.* Unless otherwise addressed in agreements between a licensed launch site operator and the U.S. Coast Guard and the FAA, respectively, a licensee authorized to conduct an RLV mission using a launch site or reentry site other than a Federal launch range shall complete the following: ( 1 ) An agreement between the licensee and the local U.S. Coast Guard district to establish procedures for the issuance of a Notice to Mariners prior to a launch or reentry and other measures as the Coast Guard deems necessary to protect public health and safety; and
( 2 ) An agreement between the licensee and the FAA regional office having jurisdiction over the airspace through which a launch and reentry will take place, to establish procedures for the issuance of a Notice to Airmen prior to the conduct of a licensed launch or reentry and for closing of air routes during the respective launch and reentry windows and other measures deemed necessary by the FAA regional office in order to protect public health and safety.
###### **Exhibit 32.2**

###### ** **

**CERTIFICATIONOF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

 

In connection with the quarterly report of WesternSierra Bancorp (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Gary D. Gall, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated: | May 5, 2006                      |   | /s/ Gary D.  Gall |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|-------------------|--------|
|   | Gary D. Gall,                         |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   | (Principal Executive Officer)         |
|        |                                       |        |                   |        |  |

 

----
Submitted on motion to recall mandate.

Motion overruled September *25,*1928.

#### STATE ex Rel. ADOLPH KAHN *v.*GEORGE TAZWELL, Judge.

(270 Pac. 486.)

Motion to recall mandate denied September 25, 1928.

(270 Pac. 486.)

For petitioner New York Life Insurance Co., Messrs. Huntington, *Wilson <& Huntington.*

For plaintiff, *Mr. Charles T. Haas.*

On Motion to Eecall Mandate.

RAND, C. J.

Since the issuance of a peremptory writ of *mandamus*herein holding that the Circuit Court for Multnomah County had jurisdiction to try and determine an action pending in that court wherein Adolph Kahn is plaintiff and the New York Life Insurance Company is defendant, and directing that court to proceed with tíje trial of said cause, and the issuance of the mandate in said cause, a petition to recall or modify the mandate has been filed.

The petition recites that the Honorable George Tazwell, who was named as the defendant in the original *mandamus*proceeding, was presiding judge of said court at the time of the issuance of the writ and, as such presiding judge, had authority under the rules of that court to assign causes pending in that court to the various judges thereof for trial and that he is not now presiding judge. It also recites that Judge Tazwell now construes the writ as directing him personally to proceed with the trial of *586said cause and not to permit the cause to be tried by any other judge of that court.

Such was not the meaning of the mandate. The authority to determine what judge of a Circuit Court in any district in which there is more than one judge shall exercise the judicial powers of that court or try any particular cause pending therein is vested in the judges of that court.

There being no uncertainty as to the meaning or. effect of the mandate issued herein, the motion must' be overruled, and it is so ordered.

Motion to Recall Mandate Overruled.
§ 406.153 Burden of proof. ( a ) Except in the case of an affirmative defense, in a civil penalty adjudication the burden of proof is on the complainant.
( b ) Except as otherwise provided by statute or rule, the proponent of a motion, request, or order has the burden of proof.
( c ) A party who has asserted an affirmative defense has the burden of proving the affirmative defense.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

DA 22-0318 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

plaintiff and Appellee. 

v. 

CHRISTOPHER WILLET, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

6 

DEC 0 6 2022 

BL)WE:n Urea nwood 

C, _ U - Cowl 

nf Montane 

ORDER 

Christopher Scott Willet appeals his sentence on revocation of a suspended seven-year 

sentence for felony Criminal Endangerment, a violation of § 45-5-207, MCA, to which he 

pleaded guilty in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court. The District Court's judgrnent on 

revocation imposed a seven-year prison term with two years suspended, reimposed all of the 

prior terms of conditions of community supervision from the October 2021 judgment, and 

ordered the forfeiture and disposal of the weapons seized from Willet's home during a 

probation search. Willet argues that the District Court lacked statutory authority to order the 

forfeiture of his firearms and that it violated his constitutional rights in ordering the forfeiture 

without requisite due process of law. Finally, he maintains that defense counsel rendered 

ineffective assistance by failing to object to the court's forfeiture order. 

Without agreeing to all of his arguments, the State concedes that under the particular 

facts presented in this record and in the interests ofjustice, this matter should be remanded to 

the District Court with instructions to strike the forfeiture portion of Willet's Judgrnent and 

Sentence Nunc Pro Tunc. The State agrees that the applicable statutes did not give the 

sentencing court authority to order the forfeiture of Willet's firearms when it revoked his 

suspended sentence. 

12/06/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0318
Having reviewed the parties' submissions, and good cause appearing, 

IT IS ORDERED that this case is remanded to the Nineteenth Judicial District Court 

with instructions to issue an amended judgment striking paragraph 5 from its April 27, 2022 

Judgment and Sentence Nunc Pro Tunc in Lincoln County Cause No. DC-21-14 that requires 

the Defendant to "surrender to the Lincoln County Sheriffs [sic] Office the firearms that 

were confiscated by the Probation and Parole Officer." 

In all other respects, this appeal is DISMISSED. 

The Clerk is instructed to provide copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to 

the Honorable Matthew J. Cuffe, presiding District Judge. 

Dated this .4. ray of December, 2022.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Luke Courtney, Appellant.

(Argued October 13, 1936;

decided November 17, 1936.)

*604
      *Francis P. Farrell*and *Louis Karasik*for appellant.

*William Copeland Dodge, District Attorney (Lyon Boston*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran and Finch, JJ.; Crouch, J., taking no part.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 83 (Friday, April 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 25015]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10623]


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

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY


Meeting of the Regional Resource Stewardship Council

AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Regional Resource Stewardship Council (Regional Council) 
will hold a meeting to consider various matters. Notice of this meeting 
is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, 
(FACA).
    The meeting agenda includes the following:
    1. Establishing priorities
    2. River operations/public lands management
    3. Public comments
    4. Regional Council subcommittees
    The meeting is open to the public. Members of the public who wish 
to make oral public comments may do so during the Public comments 
portion of the agenda. Up to one hour will be allotted for the Public 
comments with participation available on a first-come, first-served 
basis. Each speaker will have from 2-5 minutes to address the Council 
depending on the number who register at the door. Written comments are 
also invited and may be mailed to the Regional Resource Stewardship 
Council, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 
11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499, or faxed to (865) 632-3146.

DATES: The meeting will be held on May 25, 2000, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., 
CDT.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in Huntsville, Alabama, at the 
Hilton, 401 Williams Avenue, Huntsville, Alabama 35801, and will be 
open to the public. Anyone needing special access or accommodations 
should let the contact below know at least a week in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra L. Hill, 400 West Summit Hill 
Drive, WT 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499, (865) 632-2333.

    Dated: April 21, 2000.
Kathryn J. Jackson,
Executive Vice President, River System Operations & Environment, 
Tennessee Valley Authority.
[FR Doc. 00-10623 Filed 4-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8120-08-M
Exhibit 32.1 to 2009 10-K

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 of Convergys Corporation (the Company), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26,
2010 (the Report), I, Jeffrey H. fox, 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, 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 covered in the Report.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Jeffrey H. Fox     
|Jeffrey H. Fox         
|Chief Executive Officer

February 26, 2010

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Convergys Corporation and will be retained by
Convergys Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q and shall not be considered filed as part of the Form 10-Q.



---

Exhibit 32.2 to 2009 10-K

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 of Convergys Corporation (the Company), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26,
2010 (the Report), I, Earl C. Shanks, 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, 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 covered in the Report.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Earl C. Shanks     
|Earl C. Shanks         
|Chief Financial Officer

February 26, 2010

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Convergys Corporation and will be retained by
Convergys Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q and shall not be considered filed as part of the Form 10-Q.
Exhibit 24.1


                              KEYSPAN CORPORATION

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY



     WHEREAS,  KeySpan  Corporation,  a New York  corporation  (the  "Company"),
intends to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, an Annual Report on Form 10-K as prescribed by
said Commission  pursuant to said Act and the rules and regulations  promulgated
thereunder.

     NOW, THEREFORE,  in my capacity either as a director or officer, or both as
the case may be, of the Company,  I do hereby appoint RONALD S. JENDRAS,  GERALD
LUTERMAN,  JOHN  J.  BISHAR,  JR.  and  MICHAEL  J.  TAUNTON,  and  each of them
severally,  as my attorneys-in-fact  with power to execute in my name and place,
and in my  capacity  as a  director,  officer,  or both,  as the case may be, of
KeySpan  Corporation,  said Report,  any  amendment to said Report and any other
documents  required  in  connection  therewith,  and to file the  same  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this power of attorney  this 6th day of
March, 2003.





                                             /s/Robert B. Catell
                                             -------------------
                                             Robert B. Catell
                                             Chief Executive Officer and
                                             Chairman of the
                                             Board of Directors
#### § 91.125 ATC light signals.

ATC light signals have the meaning shown in the following table:

| Color and type of signal | Meaning with respect to aircraft on the surface | Meaning with respect to aircraft in flight |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Steady green | Cleared for takeoff | Cleared to land. |
| Flashing green | Cleared to taxi | Return for landing (to be followed by steady green at proper time). |
| Steady red | Stop | Give way to other aircraft and continue circling. |
| Flashing red | Taxi clear of runway in use | Airport unsafe—do not land. |
| Flashing white | Return to starting point on airport | Not applicable. |
| Alternating red and green | Exercise extreme caution | Exercise extreme caution. |
Exhibit
32.2





Certification
Pursuant to


18
U.S.C. Section 1350,


as
added by


Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




In
connection with the Annual Report of  Pulaski Financial Corp. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), the undersigned certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as added by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:





1.
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Pulaski
      Financial as of and for the period covered by the
  Report.





Date:  December
17, 2010


/s/ Paul J. MilanoName:
                Paul
      J. MilanoTitle:
                Chief
      Financial Officer
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4646 

To repeal certain war powers of the President under the Communications 

Act of 1934. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2020 

Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, and Mr. PETERS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To repeal certain war powers of the President under the 

Communications Act of 1934. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Unplug the Internet 

5 Kill Switch Act of 2020’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PRESIDENTIAL WAR POWERS UNDER COMMUNICA7 TIONS ACT OF 1934. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 706 of the Communica9 tions Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 606) is amended— 

10 (1) by striking subsections (c) through (g); and 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4646 IS

1 (2) by redesignating subsection (h) as sub2 section (c). 

3 (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.— 

4 Section 309(h) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 

5 U.S.C. 309(h)) is amended— 

6 (1) by inserting ‘‘and’’ before ‘‘(2)’’; and 

7 (2) by striking ‘‘Act;’’ and all that follows and 

8 inserting ‘‘Act.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
§ 48.120 Invalid registration. The registration of a small unmanned aircraft is invalid if, at the time it is made— ( a ) The aircraft is registered in a foreign country;
( b ) The applicant is not the owner, except when the applicant registers on behalf of an owner who is under 13 years of age;
( c ) The applicant is not eligible to submit an application under this part; or
( d ) The interest of the applicant in the aircraft was created by a transaction that was not entered into in good faith, but rather was made to avoid (with or without the owner's knowledge) compliance with 49 U.S.C. 44101-44103.
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION**





In
      connection with the periodic report of Asiamart, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Alex Yue, Chief Executive Officer
      (Principal Executive Officer) of the Company, hereby certify as of the date
      hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United
      States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:





(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, 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 at the dates
      and for the periods indicated.




Date: August
              19, 2008
            By:
            /s/ Alex
              YueAlex
                Yue
              Chief
                Executive Officer
              (Principal
                Executive Officer)
#### Grace E. Lowendahl, Appellant, *v.*Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company et al., Respondents.

Submitted March 1, 1937;

decided March 9, 1937.

Motion for reargument denied, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements. (See 272 N. Y. 360.)
#### Transit Commission, Respondent, *v.*The Long Island Railroad Company, Appellant. The City of New York, Respondent.

(Argued July 8, 1936:

decided July 8, 1936.)

*29
      *Martin Conboy, John Vance Hewitt, Parker McCollester, Gilman L. Sessions*and *Louis J. Carruthers*for appellant.

*31
      *George H. Stover*and *Philip Hodes*for Transit Commission, respondent.

*Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel (Joseph L. Weiner, Arthur A. Segall*and *Robert W. Lishman*of counsel), for City of New York, respondent.

*32
      *John J. Bennett, Jr., Attorney-General (Henry Epstein, John F. X. McGohey*and *John C. Crary*of counsel), for State of New York.

*Per Curiam.*

We are of opinion that the classification made by section 57-a of the Railroad Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 49) may not on this record be said to be based solely on the ownership of the capital stock of domestic railroad corporations affected thereby. Without passing upon the validity of any of the suggested bases for that classification, we conclude that grounds reasonably to have been conceived so far bear out the presumption of the constitutionality of the statute as to have warranted the award of the discretionary relief granted.

We are also of opinion that the statute has not been shown to violate the provisions of the Constitution of the State invoked by the appellant.

It is our opinion also that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to grant the relief awarded.

The order should be affirmed, with costs, and the question certified answered in the affirmative.

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

Order affirmed, etc.