alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 8 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 Element 21 Golf Company (the
"Registrant") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Nataliya
Hearn, Ph.D., President and Chief Executive Officer, and Principal Executive
Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
best of my knowledge and belief:





(1)
The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Registrant.








A
signed original of this written 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.








Date:
      February 12, 2010
            
            By:  /s/
      Nataliya Hearn, Ph.D.President
      Director and Principal Executive Officer
§ 156.2 Letters of interest. ( a ) Any state that desires to participate in the State block grant pilot program shall submit a letter of interest, by November 30, 1988, to the Associate Administrator for Airports, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Room 1000E, Washington, DC 20591.
( b ) A State's letter of interest shall contain the name, title, address, and telephone number of the individual who will serve as the liaison with the Administrator regarding the State block grant pilot program.
( c ) The FAA will provide an application form and program guidance material to each State that submits a letter of interest to the Associate Administrator for Airports.
§ 35.37 Fatigue limits and evaluation. This section does not apply to fixed-pitch wood propellers of conventional design. ( a ) Fatigue limits must be established by tests, or analysis based on tests, for propeller: ( 1 ) Hubs.
( 2 ) Blades.
( 3 ) Blade retention components.
( 4 ) Components which are affected by fatigue loads and which are shown under § 35.15 to have a fatigue failure mode leading to hazardous propeller effects.
( b ) The fatigue limits must take into account: ( 1 ) All known and reasonably foreseeable vibration and cyclic load patterns that are expected in service; and
( 2 ) Expected service deterioration, variations in material properties, manufacturing variations, and environmental effects.
( c ) A fatigue evaluation of the propeller must be conducted to show that hazardous propeller effects due to fatigue will be avoided throughout the intended operational life of the propeller on either: ( 1 ) The intended airplane by complying with § 23.2400(c) or § 25.907 of this chapter, as applicable; or
( 2 ) A typical airplane.
[Amdt. 35-8, 73 FR 63348, Oct. 24, 2008, as amended by Doc. FAA-2015-1621, Amdt. 35-10, 81 FR 96700, Dec. 30, 2016]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

In re:

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO 

RICO,

as a representative of

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO 

RICO, et al.

Debtors.1

PROMESA

Title III

No. 17 BK 3283-LTS

(Jointly Administered)

In re:

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO 

RICO,

as a representative of

PUERTO RICO HIGHWAYS AND 

TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY,

Debtor. 

PROMESA

Title III

No. 17 BK 3567-LTS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that, on September 7

th, 2018, the “Motion for 

Admission Pro Hac Vice of Derek J. Baker”. Docket No. 3889 was served upon all thencurrent ECF participants in these cases via the Court’s CM/ECF system. 

 

1

The Debtors in these Title III Cases, along with each Debtor’s respective Title III case number and the last four (4) 

digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identification number, as applicable, are the (i) Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 

(Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3283-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3481); (ii) Puerto Rico Sales Tax 

Financing Corporation (“COFINA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3284-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 

8474); (iii) Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority (“HTA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3567-LTS) 

(Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3808); (iv) Employees Retirement System of the Government of the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (“ERS”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3566-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax 

ID: 9686); and (v) Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (“PREPA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 4780-LTS) 

(Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3747). (Title III case numbers are listed as Bankruptcy Case numbers due to 

software limitations).

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3890 Filed:09/07/18 Entered:09/07/18 14:44:39 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 2
SEPULVADO, MALDONADO & COURET

Attorneys for Siemens Transportation 

Partnership Puerto Rico, S.E.

304 Ponce de Leon Ave. Ste 990

San Juan PR 00918

Tel. 787-765-5656

Fax: 787-294-0073

E-mail: lcumpiano@yahoo.com

s/ Lady E. Cumpiano

 Lady E. Cumpiano

 USDC No. 211106

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3890 Filed:09/07/18 Entered:09/07/18 14:44:39 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7950

MICHAEL ALLEN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JOHN TAYLOR, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior

District Judge; David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-00-117-3)

Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 6, 2002

Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Allen, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen R. McCullough, Assistant

Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c) (West 1993 & Supp. 2001).

2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Allen appeals the magistrate judge’s* order dismissing

his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.

2001) because the relief sought in the petition, a belated appeal

to a three-judge panel of the Virginia Court of Appeals, had been

awarded to Allen. We have reviewed the record and the magistrate

judge’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. See Allen v. Taylor, CA-00-117-3

(E.D. Va. Oct. 23, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
#### Saffaracus *v.*Bennett *et al.*

A judgment in attachment against a non-resident will be erroneous if rendered before publication for six months.

IN ERROR.

Turner, Justice.

This suit was commenced by attachment against the defendant below as a non-resident, and publication ordered, notice to be given for *six*months.

It appears from the record that judgment was rendered about four months, and less than six months after notice published, or the order for notice to issue. This was owing, it is said, to the passage of an act altering the time of holding the court, and providing that the fall term should commence at an earlier day. This should not be construed to prejudice the absent defendant, who was notified to appear and answer six months, and not four months after notice, and was not bound to appear and answer sooner. The defendant may in such a case be required to appear after the time, but surely not before the time allowed him. And for this cause the judgment is reversed, and cause remanded for further proceedings in the court below, verdict and judgment set aside and venire de novo awarded.

It is deemed unnecessary to notice the other errors assigned, as the cause may come again into this court, after further proceedings which may be had in the court below.

Judge Trotter not having heard the argument, gave no opinion.
#### § 414.21 Maintaining the continued accuracy of the initial application.

The applicant is responsible for the continuing accuracy and completeness of information provided to the FAA as part of the safety element approval application. If at any time after submitting the application, circumstances occur that cause the information to no longer be accurate and complete in any material respect, the applicant must submit a written statement to the Associate Administrator explaining the circumstances and providing the new or corrected information. The revised application must meet all requirements under § 414.13 or § 414.15.
#### § 437.17 Rights not conferred by an experimental permit.

Issuance of an experimental permit does not relieve a permittee of its obligation to comply with any requirement of law that applies to its activities.
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2 I, Michael P. Huseby, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Renaissance Media Group LLC, Renaissance Media (Louisiana)
LLC, Renaissance Media (Tennessee) LLC and Renaissance Media
Capital Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light
of the circumstances under which such statements were made,
not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present
in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrants as of, and for,
the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrants and have:  (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and
procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under
our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrants,
including their consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    [Reserved];(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the
end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the
case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting
which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial
information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that
involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting. Date: March 25, 2004 /s/
Michael P. Huseby
Michael P. Huseby
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
EX-99.1

(Logo) PricewaterhouseCoopers

PricewaterhouseCoopers
llP 214 N.Tryon Street
Ste 3600
Charlotte NC 28202

Telephone (704) 344 7500
Facsimile (704) 344 4100


Report of Independent Accountants

To the Board of Directors and Shareholder of Bank of America, N.A.

We have examined management's assertion about compliance by the mortgage
division of Bank of America, N.A. (the "Company"), an operating division of Bank
of America, N.A., with the minimum servicing standards identified in the
Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for
Mortgage Bankers ("USAP") as of and for the year ended December 31, 2003
included in the accompanying management assertion (see Exhibit 1). Management is
responsible for the Company's compliance with those minimum servicing standards.
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the
Company's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the
minimum servicing standards and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a
legal determination on the Company's compliance with the minimum servicing
standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended December
31,2003 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ PriceWaterhouseCoopers
March 2, 2004

Bank of America

Management's Assertion Concerning Compliance
with USAP Minimum Servicing Standards

March 2, 2004

As of and for the year ended December 31,2003, the Mortgage division of Bank of
America, N.A. (the "Company"), has complied in all material respects with the
minimum servicing standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of
America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers ("USAP").

As of and for this same period, the Company had in effect a fidelity bond and
errors and omissions policy in the amounts of $340,000,000 and $270,000,000,
respectively.

/s/ Ashish Kamit
----------------------------------
Ashish Kamit
Senior Vice President and Managing Director
Bank of America, N .A.

/s/ J Mark Hanson
----------------------------------
J Mark Hanson
Senior Vice President
Bank of America, N .A.

/S/ H Randell Chestnut
----------------------------------
Senior Vice President
Bank of America, N.A.

Gary K Bettin
----------------------------------
Senior Vice President and National Servicing Executive Bank of America, N .A.

/s/ Kevin M Shannon
----------------------------------
Kevin M. Shannon
President
Consumer Real Estate

Bank of America, N.A.
USA
[Olympic rings]
2000-2004
US Olympic Teams
#### § 303.31 Justification for the application.

A section 41309 application shall explain the nature and purpose of the contract, agreement or request to discuss a cooperative working arrangement and describe how it changes any price, rule, or practice existing under a previously approved application. The application also, consistent with Department of Transportation and the precedent of DOT's predecessor, shall contain factual material, documentation, and argument in support of the application. Economic analyses, when required, shall include full explanatory details, including data sources and allocation methods. If the applicants intend to rely upon market data sources, other than those available to the public by the Department, the complete market data shall be included with the application at the time of filing. If the applicants intend to rely on public benefits to justify approval, they shall describe these benefits, including foreign policy and comity considerations.

[Doc. No. DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15937, Apr. 16, 2019]
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


                                  CERTIFICATION

  Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code

     I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002 (the "10-Q") of GEO Specialty
Chemicals, Inc. ("GEO") fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the
10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of GEO as of the dates and for the periods covered by the
10-Q.

                                         /s/ George P. Ahearn
                                         --------------------
                                         George P. Ahearn
                                         President and Chief Executive Officer
                                         August 5, 2002
061917 ORDER RE APONTE-COLON VERSION JUNE 19, 2017 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 

----------------------------------------------------------x 

In re: PROMESA 

 Title III 

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, 

as representative of No. 17 BK 3283-LTS 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, (Jointly Administered) 

et al., 

 Debtors.1

----------------------------------------------------------x 

ORDER

 The Court has received and reviewed the Motion for Relief from Stay (the “Motion”) filed 

by Emmanuel Aponte-Colón (the “Movant”). (Docket Entry No. 379.) Opposition papers to the 

Motion must be filed by June 30, 2017. Movant’s reply papers must be filed July 7, 2017. The 

Court will thereafter take the Motion on submission, unless a party thereto requests a hearing. 

 SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 19, 2017 

 /s/ Laura Taylor Swain 

 LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN

 United States District Judge 

 

1

 The Debtors in these Title III Cases, along with each Debtor’s respective Title III case 

number listed as a bankruptcy case number due to software limitations and the last four (4) digits 

of each Debtor’s federal tax identification number, as applicable, are the (i) Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3283-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3481); 

and (ii) Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation (“COFINA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 

3284) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 8474). 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:385 Filed:06/19/17 Entered:06/19/17 13:09:49 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of William E. Drislane et al., Respondents, against Joseph A. Bertasso et al., Appellants.

(Argued October 23, 1936;

decided October 23, 1936.)

*Sidney Kansas*for appellants.

*Charles J. Duncan, George W. Foy, George Myers, Edward S. Rooney*and *Francis J. Burns*for respondents.

Order affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.; Lehman, J., taking no part.
[S. F. No. 1386.

Department One.

September 2, 1898.]

#### ALICE J. BLAIR, Appellant, v. WALTER B. BLAIR, Respondent.

Div oece—Extreme Ceuelty—Conflicting Evidence—Appeal.— Where a divorce is sought on the ground of "extreme cruelty, which was largely mental in its character, it is especially in the province of the trial court to weigh the evidence, and where that is conflicting in all substantial matters, its conclusion will not be disturbed on appeal.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco and from an order refusing a new, trial. Wm. R. Daingerfield, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

R. Thompson, and W. H. Barrows, for Appellant.

Dunne & McPike, for Respondent.

GAROUTTE, J.

This is an action for divorce, plaintiff claiming that defendant has practiced upon her extreme cruelty. The trial court found against the allegations of the complaint, and appellant is now prosecuting an appeal from the judgment and order denying her motion for a new trial. The single question presented by the record is, Does the evidence support the findings of fact? KTo sound purpose would be subserved by an extended review in this opinion of the evidence. It is suffi-' *58cient to say that the case is one of conflicting evidence. The cruelty relied upon to support the complaint is largely mental cruelty, and in such cases especially it is for the trial court to weigh and measure the evidence in order that the ultimate fact may be properly determined. The evidence may be said to be conflicting in all substantial matters. The trial court had it under consideration twice, and in each instance held against plaintiff’s contention. Under well-settled rules, we will not order a new trial under the circumstances here disclosed.

For the foregoing reasons the judgment and order are affirmed.

Harrison, J., and Van Fleet, J., concurred.
§ 27.611 Inspection provisions. There must be means to allow the close examination of each part that requires— ( a ) Recurring inspection;
( b ) Adjustment for proper alignment and functioning; or
( c ) Lubrication.
[Civ. No. 1805.

First Appellate District.

January 12, 1917.]

#### TIDEWATER SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant, v. W. W. FRAME, Respondent.

Corporation—Subscription for Stock—Payment by Note.—Judgment affirmed on the authority of *Tidewater Southern Railway Comya/ny*v. *Vance,*31 Cal. App. 503.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. H. Z. Austin, Judge.

The facts are similar to those stated in the opinion in *Tidewater Southern Badlway Company*v. *Vance,*31 Cal. App. 503.

Meredith, Landers & Chester, for Appellant.

H. C. Wuerth, for Respondent.

THE COURT.

It is conceded by the appellant that this case is in all essential particulars as to its facts identical with the case of *Tidewater Southern Railway Company*v. *Vance,*31 Cal. App. 503. This being so, it follows upon the authority of that case the judgment herein will be affirmed, and it is so ordered.
### QBfficeof toe I?lttornep @eneral sibtateof Qexae
DAN MORALES *TroRNw GENERAL October 3,199l
Honorable Allen Hightower chairman Committee on Corrections Texas House ofRepresentatives P.O. Box2910 Austin Texas 78768-2910 Opinion DM-45A Re: Whether the amendment to article 42.18 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the mandatory time that inmates must serve prior to eligibility for parole is retroactive 

### @Q-65) Dear Representative Hightower: Attorney General Opinion DM-45, issued on September 20,1991, ishereby withdrawn. Very truly yours,

DAN MORALES Attorney General ofTexas
#### BUNKER HILL COUNTRY CLUB v. UNITED STATES

[80 C. Cls. 375; 296 U. S. 583]

Petition for writ of certiorari *denied*by the Supreme Court October 14, 1935.