alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.3

    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 Annual Report of Link Plus Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the year ending March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Patricia E. Jones,
Secretary/Treasurer (Principal 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.


   /s/ PATRICIA E. JONES
-------------------------------------
Patricia E. Jones, Secretary/Treasurer
#### § 34.2 Abbreviations.

The abbreviations used in this part have the following meanings in both upper and lower case:

CO2 Carbon dioxide

CO Carbon monoxide

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

FAA Federal Aviation Administration, United States Department of Transportation

g Gram(s)

HC Hydrocarbon(s)

HP Horsepower

hr Hour(s)

H2O Water

kg Kilogram(s)

kJ Kilojoule(s)

kN Kilonewton(s)

kW Kilowatt(s)

lbf Pound force

LTO Landing and takeoff

m Meter(s)

mg Milligram(s)

μg Microgram(s)

min Minute(s)

MJ Megajoule(s)

NOX Oxides of nitrogen

nvPM Non-volatile particulate matter

nvPMmass Non-volatile particulate matter mass

nvPMMC Non-volatile particulate matter mass concentration

nvPMnum Non-volatile particulate matter number

Pa Pascal(s)

rO Rated output

rPR Rated pressure ratio

sec Second(s)

SP Shaft power

SN Smoke number

T Temperature in degrees Kelvin

TIM Time in mode

°C Degrees Celsius

% Percent

[Doc. No. FAA-2023-2434, Amdt. 34-7, 89 FR 31085, Apr. 24, 2024]
#### § 38.4 Compatibility with airworthiness requirements.

Unless otherwise approved by the FAA, an airplane used to demonstrate compliance with this part must meet all of the airworthiness requirements of this chapter required to establish the type certification basis of the airplane, for any condition under which compliance with this part is being demonstrated. Any procedure used to demonstrate compliance, and any flight crew information developed for demonstrating compliance with this part, must be consistent with the airworthiness requirements of this chapter that constitute the type certification basis of the airplane.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

RYAN WOLLNER,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellant,

v.

PEARPOP INC.,

Defendant Below, 

Appellee.

§

§ 

§ No. 257, 2022

§ 

§ Court Below—Court of Chancery

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ C.A. No. 2021-0157

§ 

§ 

§

Submitted: November 21, 2022

Decided: December 13, 2022

ORDER

It appears to the Court that, on November 4, 2022, the Chief Deputy Clerk 

issued a notice, by certified mail and through File & ServeXpress, directing the 

appellant to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for his failure to file 

an opening brief and appendix. The opening brief and appendix were due by 

October 13, 2022. Postal records confirm that the notice to show cause was 

delivered on November 8, 2022. A timely response to the notice to show cause was 

due on or before November 18, 2022. To date, the appellant has not filed an opening 

brief or responded to the notice to show cause. Dismissal of this appeal is therefore 

deemed to be unopposed.
2

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 3(b)(2) 

and 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED. 

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor

Justice
Exhibit 32

                    Certification of CEO and CFO 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 Playboy  Enterprises,
Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly  period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof  (the  "Report"),
Christie Hefner, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Linda G. Havard,
as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that, to the best of her knowledge:

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

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


/s/ Christie Hefner
-------------------
Name:  Christie Hefner
Title: Chief Executive Officer
Date:  August 9, 2006


/s/ Linda Havard
----------------
Name:  Linda G. Havard
Title: Chief Financial Officer
Date:  August 9, 2006

This   certification   accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  ss.  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A  signed  original  of this  written  statement  required  by ss.  906 has been
provided  to  Playboy  Enterprises,   Inc.  and  will  be  retained  by  Playboy
Enterprises, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13 - 13 - 00017 - CR

ROBERTO PEREZ v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

On a ppeal from the 117th District Court of Nueces County , Texas Trial Cause No. 12
- CR
- 0909 - B (S1)

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this c ause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
November 21 , 2013
#### § 135.64 Retention of contracts and amendments: Commercial operators who conduct intrastate operations for compensation or hire.

Each commercial operator who conducts intrastate operations for compensation or hire shall keep a copy of each written contract under which it provides services as a commercial operator for a period of at least one year after the date of execution of the contract. In the case of an oral contract, it shall keep a memorandum stating its elements, and of any amendments to it, for a period of at least one year after the execution of that contract or change.

[Doc. No. 28154, 60 FR 65939, Dec. 20, 1995, as amended by Amdt. 135-65, 61 FR 30435, June 14, 1996; Amdt. 135-66, 62 FR 13257, Mar. 19, 1997]
#### DRAPERY HARDWARE MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 17334

Congressional.

Decided April 8, 1935]

*Mr. George A. King*for the plaintiff. *Messrs. Clarence W. De Knight*and *Ernest G. Metcalfe*were on the brief.

• was *Mr. Assistant Attorney General George G.*Sweeney, for the defendant.

*460Whaley, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is one (Senate bill 1525) of a number of cases referred to this court under Senate congressional reference, Resolution No. 170, 67th Congress, 2nd session.

The facts show that the plaintiff was served with the commandeer order on or about June 19, 1918, which demanded possession of its leases with the Bush Terminal Buildings Conrpany and on September 13, 1918, the Government canceled the order for possession. The plaintiff elected to receive back the leases which had been commandeered. During the period the commandeer order was in effect the possession of the plaintiff was not disturbed and no losses incurred anticipating removal. The defendant never entered into physical possession and the plaintiff remained in possession under its original leases many months after the leases had been returned to it. There is no value proved for the temporary taking during the life of the commandeer order, and, doubtless, no value can be proved for such an insignificant temporary disturbance of physical possession. This case is materially different from the case of *William*Wrigley, Jr., *Co.*v. *The United*States, 75 C. Cls. 569. and that case has no application. The plaintiff is suing for just compensation for the taking of its leases and must prove the value of the thing taken. This it has failed to do.

*461This cause of action is for the taking of private property for public use and is within the general jurisdiction of this ■court. *Barnes*v. *United*States, 46 C. Cls. 7.

The petition must be dismissed. It is so ordered.

Williams, *Judge;*LittletoN, *Judge;*GbeeN, *Judge;*and Booth, *Chief*Justice, concur.
§ 27.1509 Rotor speed. ( a ) *Maximum power-off (autorotation).* The maximum power-off rotor speed must be established so that it does not exceed 95 percent of the lesser of— ( 1 ) The maximum design r.p.m. determined under § 27.309(b); and
( 2 ) The maximum r.p.m. shown during the type tests.
( b ) *Minimum power off.* The minimum power-off rotor speed must be established so that it is not less than 105 percent of the greater of— ( 1 ) The minimum shown during the type tests; and
( 2 ) The minimum determined by design substantiation.
( c ) *Minimum power on.* The minimum power-on rotor speed must be established so that it is— ( 1 ) Not less than the greater of— ( i ) The minimum shown during the type tests; and
( ii ) The minimum determined by design substantiation; and
( 2 ) Not more than a value determined under § 27.33(a)(1) and (b)(1).
<PAGE>

Exhibit 99.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002:

In connection with this quarterly report of PharmaNetics, Inc. on Form 10-Q for
the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on or about the date hereof, the undersigned, in the capacity and on
the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
his/her knowledge:

         1. This 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 this report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
PharmaNetics, Inc. as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

Date: May 14, 2003


                                                  /s/ James A. McGowan
                                            ------------------------------------
                                                      James A. McGowan
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
[No. 50745-1-I.

Division One.

January 6, 2003.]

#### The City of Federal Way, *Respondent,*v. Randall C. Neighbors, et al., *Appellants.*

Appeal from judgments of the Superior Court for King County, No. 02-2-10333-2, Deborah D. Fleck and Dean Scott Lum, JJ., entered May 14 and 28, 2002. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Becker, C.J., concurred in by Grosse and Agid, JJ.
The Attorney General of Texas 

March 21, 1978 

JOHN L. HILL 

Attorney General 

Honorable G. L. “Lynn” Tate 

Commissioner 

Texas Department of Labor 

and Standards 

Box 12157 

Austin, Texas 78711 

Dear Commissioner Tate: 

Opinion No. H-1140 

Re: Whether a non-citizen of the 

United States may be licensed under 

the Texas Private Employment Agency 

Law, art. 5221a-6, V.T.C.S. 

You have requested our opinion concerning the constitutionality of 

article 5221a-6, section 5(a)(l), V.T.C.S., which deals with Private 

Employment Agency licensing and provides: 

(a) Application for a license as en operator may be 

made and shall be issued to any person who (1) is a 

citizen of the United States. . . . 

On numerous occasions this office has stated that such citizenship 

requirements are unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 

14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Attorney General 

Opinions H-926 (1977) (landscape architect); H-157 (1973), R-2247 (1950), O-866 

(1939) (physician); H-81 (1973) (certified public accountant); and M-447 (1969) 

(vocational nurse). The United States Supreme Court has made the law quite 

clear in this regard. Restrictions based on alienage cannot be upheld unless 

the State can prove that the restriction is necessary to accomplish a 

compelling state purpose. See 

- 

Surveyors v. Flores de Otero, 4 

from being licensed as engineers); In re Griffiths, 413 U.S. 717 (1973) (aliens 

may not be denied admission to thevbar);arman v. Dougall, 413 U.S. 

634 (1973) (aliens may not be denied civil service employment); Graham v. 

Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971) (aliens are entitled to welfare benefits). 

can discern no meaningful distinction between the rational basis for such a 

restriction as applied to Private Employment Agency operators on the one 

hand versus physicians, nurses, accountants and landscape architects on the 

other. Accordingly, in our opinion article 5221a-6, section 5(a)(l), V.T.C.S., 

violates the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution and is invalid. 

p. 4640 
Honorable G. L. “Lynn” Tete - Page 2 (H-1140) 

SUMMARY 

Article 5221e-6, section 5(e)(l), which restricts licensing es 

Private Employment Agency operators to citizens of the 

United States, is unconstitutional. 

*ry truly yours, 

/ 1’ Attorney General of Texas 

APPROVED: 

Opinion Committee 

jst 

p. 4641
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4437 

To clarify the eligibility of high school students to receive Pandemic 

Unemployment Compensation, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 4, 2020 

Ms. SMITH (for herself and Ms. KLOBUCHAR) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To clarify the eligibility of high school students to receive 

Pandemic Unemployment Compensation, and for other 

purposes. 

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 ‘‘High School Student 

5 Unemployment Eligibility Clarification Act of 2020’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2102(a) of the Relief for 

8 Workers Affected by Coronavirus Act (contained in sub9 title A of title II of division A of the CARES Act (Public 

10 Law 116–136)) is amended— 


dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4437 IS

1 (1) in subparagraph (A)(ii)(II), by striking 

2 ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

3 (2) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as sub4 paragraph (C); and 

5 (3) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the fol6 lowing: 

7 ‘‘(B) includes an individual who meets the 

8 criteria described in subparagraph (A) and is a 

9 student attending, doing distance learning 

10 through, or on vacation from, a secondary 

11 school (as defined in section 8101 of the Ele12 mentary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 

13 (20 U.S.C. 7801)), regardless of whether the 

14 individual is able to accept employment during 

15 school hours; and’’. 

16 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

17 subsection (a) shall be effective as if enacted on the date 

18 of enactment of the CARES Act (Public Law 116–136). 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with BILLS
###### Editorial Note on Part 380

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 380 appear at 84 FR 15940, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### § 380.24 Suspension of exemption authority.

The Department reserves the power to deny the exemption authority of any charter operator, without hearing, if it finds that such action is necessary in the public interest or is otherwise necessary in order to protect the rights of the traveling public.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 9, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 26851]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11519]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[WY-040-00-1060-HI]


Notice of Intent To Gather Excess Wild Horses During Calendar 
Year 2000

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Rock Springs Field 
Office, prepared an environmental assessment for wild horse gathering 
inside and outside of wild horse herd management areas in 1999. The 
proposed action to gather excess wild horses to appropriate management 
levels was approved in a decision record on July 14, 1999. Gathering of 
excess wild horses to appropriate management levels was not completed 
in 1999. BLM is scheduled to continue gathering operations in the year 
2000. The environmental assessment and decision record are available 
for review at the Rock Springs Field Office, 280 Highway 191 North, 
Rock Springs, Wyoming. It is also available via the world wide web at: 
http://www.wy.blm.gov/currentnews/wildhorses/WILDHORSEADOPTION.HTML The 
planned gathering period will extend from July 15, 2000 until inclement 
weather prevents gathering operations. Up to 800 wild horses may be 
removed from four wild horse herd management areas including Great 
Divide Basin, White Mountain, Little Colorado, and Salt Wells Creek. 
Excess wild horses outside of the herd management areas in the North 
Baxter/Jack Morrow hills areas may also be removed.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John (Stan) McKee, Field Manager, Rock 
Springs Field Office, 280 Highway 191 North, Rock Springs, Wyoming 
82901 (307-352-0201).

    Dated: May 3, 2000.
John S. McKee,
Field Manager.
[FR Doc. 00-11519 Filed 5-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 136161 & (26) Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, J ustices

v SC: 136161 COA: 279601 Wayne CC: 04-002336 ERICK LAMONT REED, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e February 20, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to re lief under MCR 6.508(D). The motion to remand is DENIED.

s0828 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 9, 2008

Clerk
#### In the Matter of the Rehabilitation of Lawyers Westchester Mortgage and Title Company. Sarah E. Machin et al., as Administratrices with the Will Annexed of Aaron Machin, Deceased, Appellants; Louis H. Pink, Superintendent of Insurance, as Liquidator of Lawyers Westchester Mortgage and Title Company, Respondent.

(Argued October 1, 1936;

decided October 20, 1936.)

*554
      *Ralph Earl Prime, Jr.,*and *A. J. Prime*for appellants.

*Joseph Lapidus, Jess H. Rosenberg*and *Harry Rodwin*for respondent.

Order affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Sam Cohen, Julius Silberman, Harry Spector, Benny Kobrinsky, Sol Fleischman, Jack Zaslow, Theodore Reiss, Sidney Seidorf, Abraham Berkowitz and Morris Siporin, Appellants.

(Argued November 30, 1936;

decided December 31, 1936.)

*320
      *Irving Davis, Murry Levine*and *David P. Siegel*for appellants.

*321
      *William Copeland Dodge, District Attorney (Edwin J. Talley*of counsel), for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Defendants violated the following provisions of section 9-d of chapter 27 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of New York; “No fruits, vegetables or other foodstuffs intended for human consumption shall be kept, sold, offered for sale or displayed in any open window, space or doorway of any private market *322or building, used for the purpose of retail or wholesale trade; nor shall such foodstuffs be kept, sold, offered for sale or displayed within 36 inches of such doorway; nor shall such premises have any detachable windows or doors. The provisions of this section shall only apply to the following area: In the borough of Manhattan, along both the easterly and westerly sides of Broadway, from 59th Street to 116th Street, inclusive.”

If this ordinance were intended to promote public health or the general welfare, if it applied generally to the entire city or even only to such an area within the city as would reasonably require such a limitation upon the rights of merchants, doubtless it would be deemed valid within the exercise of the police power.

The complainant in this prosecution is the West Side Realty Company whose attorney was present at and assisted in the trial. He stated: *“ The real reason behind this ordinance is to prevent the depreciation of realty;*that outside residents coming to Broadway, and in shopping there, people would run over from the street, pick up their oranges and other fruits, throw the waste on the street and walk off. The purpose of the ordinance is to eliminate all that, your Honor, *for the sake of the neighborhood."*

This ordinance appears from all the evidence in the case to be wholly arbitrary in that its purpose is to favor real estate values in a restricted section of the city where conditions are not dissimilar from those existing in many other areas. It bears no relation to the welfare of the public but is designed for the convenience and interest of a special class.

As to each defendant the judgment should be reversed and the information dismissed.

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

Judgments reversed, etc.
§ 25.611 Accessibility provisions. ( a ) Means must be provided to allow inspection (including inspection of principal structural elements and control systems), replacement of parts normally requiring replacement, adjustment, and lubrication as necessary for continued airworthiness. The inspection means for each item must be practicable for the inspection interval for the item. Nondestructive inspection aids may be used to inspect structural elements where it is impracticable to provide means for direct visual inspection if it is shown that the inspection is effective and the inspection procedures are specified in the maintenance manual required by § 25.1529.
( b ) EWIS must meet the accessibility requirements of § 25.1719.
[Amdt. 25-23, 35 FR 5674, Apr. 8, 1970, as amended by Amdt. 25-123, 72 FR 63404, Nov. 8, 2007]
§ 29.77 Landing Decision Point (LDP): Category A. ( a ) The LDP is the last point in the approach and landing path from which a balked landing can be accomplished in accordance with § 29.85.
( b ) Determination of the LDP must include the pilot recognition time interval following failure of the critical engine.
[Doc. No. 24802, 64 FR 45338, Aug. 19, 1999]
#### Fulton *vs.*Brunk & Ives.

An attachment will be granted by this court for the non-payment of costs for putting off a trial at the circuit.