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



                              CERTIFICATION OF THE

                      CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

                             PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In  connection  with the  Annual  Report  on Form  10-K for the year  ended
December 31, 2005 of KeySpan Corporation (the "Corporation"),  as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Robert
B. Catell,  Chairman and Chief Executive  Officer of the  Corporation,  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, as amended; and

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


Date:             February 28, 2006


                                              /s/ Robert B. Catell
                                              --------------------
                                              Robert B. Catell
                                              Chairman of the Board of Directors
                                              and Chief Executive Officer
[No. 27745-0-II.

Division Two.

December 20, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Perry Victor Parrish, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Cowlitz County, No. 01-1-00224-1, Don L, McCulloch, J., entered August 14, 2001. *Affirmed in part*and *remanded*by unpublished opinion per Morgan, J., concurred in by QuinnBrintnall, A.C.J., and Houghton, J.
§ 420.63 Explosive siting. ( a ) Except as otherwise provided by paragraph (b) of this section, a licensee must ensure the configuration of the launch site follows its explosive site plan, and the licensee's explosive site plan complies with the requirements of §§ 420.65 through 420.70. The explosive site plan must include: ( 1 ) A scaled map that shows the location of all explosive hazard facilities at the launch site and that shows actual and minimal allowable distances between each explosive hazard facility and all other explosive hazard facilities, each public traffic route, and each public area, including the launch site boundary;
( 2 ) A list of the maximum quantity of energetic liquids, solid propellants and other explosives to be located at each explosive hazard facility, including explosive class and division;
( 3 ) A description of each activity to be conducted at each explosive hazard facility; and
( 4 ) An explosive site map using a scale sufficient to show whether distances and structural relationships satisfy the requirements of this part.
( b ) A licensee operating a launch site located on a federal launch range does not have to comply with the requirements in §§ 420.65 through 420.70 if the licensee complies with the federal launch range's explosive safety requirements.
( c ) For explosive siting issues not addressed by the requirements of §§ 420.65 through 420.70, a launch site operator must clearly and convincingly demonstrate a level of safety equivalent to that otherwise required by this part.
( d ) A launch site operator may separate an explosive hazard facility from another explosive hazard facility, public area, or public traffic route by a distance different from one required by this part only if the launch site operator clearly and convincingly demonstrates a level of safety equivalent to that required by this part.
[Doc. No. FAA-2011-0105, 77 FR 55113, Sept. 7, 2012]
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 Tower Financial Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
D. Cahill, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary 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/ Michael D. Cahill
-------------------------------------
Michael D. Cahill
Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
May 13, 2005


                                       22
§ 60.27 Automatic loss of qualification and procedures for restoration of qualification. ( a ) An FSTD qualification is automatically lost when any of the following occurs: ( 1 ) The FSTD is not used in the sponsor's FAA-approved flight training program in accordance with § 60.7(b)(5) or (b)(6) and the sponsor does not obtain and maintain the written statement as described in § 60.7(d)(2).
( 2 ) The FSTD is not inspected in accordance with § 60.19.
( 3 ) The FSTD is physically moved from one location and installed in a different location, regardless of distance.
( 4 ) The MQTG is missing or otherwise not available and a replacement is not made within 30 days.
( b ) If FSTD qualification is lost under paragraph (a) of this section, qualification is restored when either of the following provisions is met: ( 1 ) The FSTD successfully passes an evaluation: ( i ) For initial qualification, in accordance with §§ 60.15 and 60.17(c) in those circumstances where the responsible Flight Standards office has determined that a full evaluation for initial qualification is necessary; or
( ii ) For those elements of an evaluation for initial qualification, in accordance with §§ 60.15 and 60.17(c), as determined to be necessary by the responsible Flight Standards office.
( 2 ) The responsible Flight Standards office advises the sponsor that an evaluation is not necessary.
( c ) In making the determinations described in paragraph (b) of this section, the responsible Flight Standards office considers factors including the number of continuing qualification evaluations missed, the number of sponsor-conducted quarterly inspections missed, and the care that had been taken of the device since the last evaluation.
[Docket No. FAA-2002-12461, 71 FR 63426, Oct. 30, 2006, as amended by Docket No. FAA-2022-1355, Amdt. No. 60-7, 87 FR 75711, Dec. 9, 2022]
### Page 1 of 2



# United Stat es Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 00-2097 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellant,
v. JOHN MORAN and NORA MORAN, Defendants, Appellees.

ERRATA The opinion of this court, issued on Sep tember 23, 2002, should be amended as follows. The last paragraph of Chief Judge Boudin's concurring opinion, beginning on page 32 and continuing to page 33, should be replaced with the following two paragraphs:

In the district c ourt, Nora moved for a judgment of acquittal based on insufficient evidence; thereafter she argued to the district court that this filing should in the alternative be treatedas a motion for a new trial on the s a me ground. The government tak es t he position that the alternative request was untimelyand did not constitute a proper mot ion f or a new trial. The district court apparently did n ot rule on e way or the other

### Page 2 of 2

because the alternative request was mootedby the directed judgment of acquittal. On remand, the new trial request and the government's objections remain to be considered.

The district court, already disposed to grant an acquittal outright, may well be inclined to grant a new trial on weight-of-the-evidence grounds, given the collapse of the government's primary voting theory and the thin factual support for the fraudulent non-disclosure claim against Nora. See, e.g. , UnitedStates v. Montilla-River a , 115 F.3d 1060, 1067 (1st Cir. 1997). This outcome might well be justified, assuming that Nora's arguments for the timeliness of the new trial motion can overcome the government's asserted objections.
#### Pamela Palmer, Plaintiff, v D.J. Borden Toledo et al., Defendants. (Action No. 1.) Tina Bryant, Plaintiff, v Budget Rent A Car et al., Defendants. (Action No. 2.) Deborah Bradley, Respondent, v Theorod Palmer et al., Appellants. (Action No. 3.)

[698 NYS2d 272]

—In related actions to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants in Action No. 3 appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), dated October 27, 1998, which granted the plaintiffs motion for leave to renew and, upon renewal, vacated so much of a prior order of the same court, dated May 6, 1998, granting that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in Action No. 3, and denied that branch of the motion.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion for leave to renew is denied, so much of the order dated May 6, 1998, as granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in Action No. 3 is reinstated, and the complaint in Action No. 3 is dismissed.

*269The instant actions arose from a vehicular accident which occurred on August 16, 1994. The defendants in Action No. 3 moved, *inter alia,*for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in that action on the ground that the plaintiff in that action had not sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102. By order dated May 6, 1998, the court *inter alia,*granted the motion.

The plaintiff subsequently moved for leave to renew based on affidavits of her treating and examining physicians, her own affidavit of merit, and a letter, presumably from her employer, stating that she did not work for over three months after the accident. The court granted renewal, vacated its prior order, and denied summary judgment. We reverse and reinstate the prior order.

It is well settled that a motion for leave to renew must be supported by new or additional facts which, although in existence at the time of a prior motion, were not known to the party seeking renewal, and, consequently, not made known to the court *(see, Matter of Brooklyn Welding Corp. v Chin,*236 AD2d 392; *Foley v Roche,*68 AD2d 558, 568). Here, the plaintiff failed to offer any explanation why the affidavits and letter submitted on the motion to renew were not made available earlier *(see, Star v Badillo,*225 AD2d 610; *Hurst v Hilgenfeldt,*189 AD2d 855; *Gendjoian v Heaps,*186 AD2d 534). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman, Friedmann and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
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
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.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Office of Thrift Supervision 

          - 12 CFR Parts 563, 563c, and 563g 
          - [No. 2000-43] 
          - RIN 1550-AB38 

# AGENCY:

Office of Thrift Supervision, Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Direct Final Rule: confirmation of effective date. 

# SUMMARY:

This document confirms the effective date of the direct final rule removing the Office of Thrift Supervision's regulation on the transfer and repurchase of government securities. We did not receive any written adverse comments in response to the direct final rule. 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

The direct final rule, published on March 28, 2000 (65 FR 16302-305), is effective May 30, 2000. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ed O'Connell, (202) 906-5694, Project Manager, Supervision Policy: or Teresa Scott (202) 906-6478, Counsel (Banking and Finance), Regulations and Legislation Division, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington DC 20552. 

Authority:12 U.S.C. 375b, 1462, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1467a, 1468, 1817, 1820, 1828, 1831i, 3806; 15 U.S.C. 78c(b), 78l, 78m, 78n, 78p, 78w; 42 U.S.C. 4106. 

Dated: May 8, 2000. 

By the Office of Thrift Supervision. 

Ellen Seidman, 

Director. 

[FR Doc. 00-11910 Filed 5-11-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6720-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
      This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
financial statements for the three month period ended March 31, 1999 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           4,518
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,518
<PP&E>                                         132,148
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 343,843
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          174,556
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           287
<OTHER-SE>                                     169,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   169,287
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 (338,450)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (338,450)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (338,450)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (338,450)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.12)



</TABLE>
§ 450.159 Pre-flight procedures. ( a ) An operator must implement pre-flight procedures that— ( 1 ) Verify that each flight commit criterion is satisfied before flight is initiated; and
( 2 ) Ensure the operator can return the vehicle to a safe state after a countdown abort or delay.
( b ) An operator must ensure the currency of the pre-flight procedures, and that all personnel are working with the approved version of the pre-flight procedures.
**Exhibit 32****Certification**     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each ofthe undersigned officers of Knova Software, Inc., a Delawarecorporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify that:     The Annual Report onForm 10-K for theyear ended December 31, 2005 (theForm 10-K ) of theCompany fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 and information contained in theForm 10-K fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.     /s/ Bruce Armstrong       Name: Bruce Armstrong Title:    President and Principal Executive OfficerDated: March 31, 2006     /s/ Thomas Muise       Name: Thomas Muise Title:    Chief Financial Officer and Principal
From: Richard Krock <rkrock@vinylinfo.org>

To: Jodi Howard/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Mary Bachynsky <mbachynsky@fpcusa.com>, "Barry_H._Christensen@oxy.com" <Barry_H._Christensen@oxy.com>, "Kevin

Bloomer (kbloomer@westlake.com)" <kbloomer@westlake.com>, Mark Garza <mgarza@shin-tech.com>, "'Sistrunk, Otis J.

(PED)'" <Otis.Sistrunk@polyone.com>, JC Walker <walker@khlaw.com>

Date: 10/19/2009 07:14 PM

Subject: PVC MACT Section 114 Request Survey Request

Dear Ms. Howard,

The attached file contains our first set of questions that The Vinyl Institute members have compiled in order to clarify some of the information requested in the subject survey. Please review the questions and return your responses to those copied on this e-mail. If you post the answers at a designated EPA portal, please forward the pathway to us. Your quick clarification to our questions is appreciated so that those compiling the significant amount of data can successfully complete the preparation of the survey for the November 30, 2009 deadline. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or comments. Thank you.

*Please note our new contact information*

Richard Krock Technical Director

The Vinyl Institute 1737 King Street Suite 390 Alexandria, VA 22314 Direct: 571.970.3392 Mobile: 571.216.4474 Fax: 571.970.3271 Email: rkrock@vinylinfo.org http://www.vinylinfo.org http://www.vinylindesign.com

(See attached file: Survey Questions Rollup as of 10-19-09.doc)(Embedded image moved to file: pic09425.jpg)VI Logo
§ 65.83 Recent experience requirements. A certificated mechanic may not exercise the privileges of his certificate and rating unless, within the preceding 24 months— ( a ) The Administrator has found that he is able to do that work; or
( b ) He has, for at least 6 months— ( 1 ) Served as a mechanic under his certificate and rating;
( 2 ) Technically supervised other mechanics;
( 3 ) Supervised, in an executive capacity, the maintenance or alteration of aircraft; or
( 4 ) Been engaged in any combination of paragraph (b) (1), (2), or (3) of this section.
Exhibit 99.2


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

In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report  of iQ Power  Technology  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ended  September  30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Marco Graf von Matuschka,  Head of Finance and  Controlling - iQ Battery and the
principal  financial  officer and  accounting  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 to the best of my 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 this Report fairly presents,  in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     Company.


                            /s/ Marco Graf von Matuschka
                            -----------------------------------
                            Marco Graf von Matuschka,
                            Chief Financial Officer
# spiritDocument# 15-012 RC
February 23, 2015 -U-:5-:-Department-ofTransportation--
_ Docket Operations, M-30 West Building ground floor, Room W12-140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 •. · 1**~** •• • n , n 

### e> '?: 11 

### a 

### 1
_

._ I • n : tJ
. :. -: t



# ----- 2800 Executive Way Miramar, FL 33025 (Office) 954-447-8097 (Fax) 954-447-8081 Rich. Dancaster@Spirit.com

Subject: Request for Extension of Exemption No. 10242Afrom 14 CFR (FAR Section) Part: 121.434 (c)(1)(ii) Expiring on 04/30/2015. Dear Sirs, Thank you for granting Spirit Airlines Exemption No. 10242 from 14 CFR (FAR Section) Part: 121.434 (c)(1)(ii) initially granted on 4/12/2011. Spirit Airlines respectfully requests an extension for exemption No. 10242A (Docket Number FAA-2011-0253) which expires on 4/30/2015. Please extend this exemption for the period of two years (4/30/2017). This exemption has allowed-our company to focus on the timely_and competent C0!}1pj_e_tion of the observation flight and better utilization of qualifying PICs. Should you have any questions or if you require additional information about this request, please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards,

## ~o~- Rich Dancaster System Chief Pilot Spirit Airlines, Inc
.. . ·'

### Regulations.gov- Your Receipt Page I of2

# feguJah~A~V 'tour\'oiatt)**hod~ Onhton~U:nz** 

# ~c:JI 

# Your comment was submitted successfully!

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Other: U.S. DOT/FAA- Decision For related information, Open Docket Folder 

## ® 

# 0 Your Receipt

-**----~~- --=--~-** **-~~----** 

# Your Comment Tracking
. Number: 1jz-Bhd6- 94yu Amanda. Daku@spirit.com


## Your comment: Comment: Your commentmay be viewable on Regulations.gov once the agency has reviewed it. Thisprocess is dependent on agencypublic submission policies/procedures andprocessing times. Use your tr·acking number tofind outthe status of your comment.



### Spirit Airlines, Inc. Exemption No. 10242A from 14 CFR (FAR Section) Part 121.424 will expire on 4/30/2015. Please see the formal letter of request for an extension of docket number FAA-2011-0253. --Ple-ase lerme kn·ow-if yolTt'fave-a·ny'**qo~·stion·s-cWifl·** 

### can· provide further -· -·· · information. Regards, Amanda Daku Sr. Manager, Regulatory Compliance & 

### QA, Flight Operations Uploaded File(s)(Optional) No files uploaded 15-012 RC DOT Exemption Extension 10242.pdf: success 

## This information will 

## appear on Regulations.gov: First Name: Amanda
http://www.regulations.gov/ 2/23/2015

### Regulations.gov- Your Receipt



### Last Name: 

### Daku Mailing Address: 

### 2800 Executive Way City: 

### Miramar Country: 

### United States State or Province: Page 2 of2



## lf1his informationwill not appearon Regulations.gov: ZIP/Postal Code:**~~Address:** 

### Amanda.Daku@spirit.com Phone Number:



### ---- !----95"462"84936 Fax Number: 

### n/a

http://www.regulations.gov/ -**-----~--- ~----**  

### ----------!----



### 2/23/2015