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 Annual Report on
Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) of XO Group Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2017, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gillian Munson, 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|Date: August 2, 2018 | By: | /s/ Gillian Munson
|-------------------- | --- | ------------------
|                     |     | Name:             
|                     |     | Title:            
|                     |     |
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Howard Oczko, Appellant.

(Argued October 13, 1936;

decided November 17, 1936.)

*Abraham K. Weber*for appellant.

*Charles P. Sullivan, District Attorney (James F. T. Delaney*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgments reversed and information dismissed. *(People*v. *Perry,*265 N. Y. 362; *People*v. *McCauliff,*267 N. Y. 581.) No opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran and Finch, JJ.; Crouch, J., taking no part.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

 

**Certificationof Principal Executive Officer**

**Requiredby Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b)**

**ofthe Exchange Act**

 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-Kof Advanstar Communications Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31,2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Joseph Loggia, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresult of operations of the Company.

 

 
| By:    | /s/ Joseph Loggia       |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Joseph Loggia           |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|   |                    |
| Date:  | March 30, 2006     |
|        |                         |        |  |

 

1

----
#### § 295.7 Agency relationships.

An air charter broker acting as an indirect air carrier or foreign indirect air carrier may choose to act as a bona fide agent in individual cases where a charterer, direct air carrier, or foreign direct air carrier has expressly authorized such agency relationship.
§ 89.510 Production requirements for unmanned aircraft produced under a design approval or production approval issued under part 21 of this chapter. After September 16, 2022, no person may produce an unmanned aircraft for operation in the airspace of the United States under a design approval or production approval issued under part 21 of this chapter unless: ( a ) All applicable requirements of part 21 of this chapter are met; and
( b ) The unmanned aircraft is— ( 1 ) Designed and produced to meet the minimum performance requirements for standard remote identification unmanned aircraft established in § 89.310 in accordance with an FAA-accepted means of compliance; or
( 2 ) Equipped with Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out equipment that meets the requirements of § 91.225 of this chapter.
§ 65.1 Applicability. This part prescribes the requirements for issuing the following certificates and associated ratings and the general operating rules for the holders of those certificates and ratings: ( a ) Air-traffic control-tower operators.
( b ) Aircraft dispatchers.
( c ) Mechanics.
( d ) Repairmen.
( e ) Parachute riggers.
# EUR-Lex - 31995D0549 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31995D0549

**95/549/EC: Commission Decision of 8 December 1995 amending Decision 93/495/EEC laying down specific conditions for importing fishery products from Canada (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 310 , 22/12/1995 P. 0074 - 0083 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 8 December 1995 amending Decision 93/495/EEC laying down specific conditions for importing fishery products from Canada (Text with EEA relevance) (95/549/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 91/493/EEC of 22 July 1991 (1), laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of fishery products, as last amended by the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, and in particular Article 11 (5) thereof,

Whereas the list of establishments and factory ships approved by Canada for importing fishery products into the Community has been drawn up in Commission Decision 93/495/EEC (2), as last amended by Decision 95/351/EC (3); whereas this list may be amended following the communication of a new list by the competent authority in Canada;

Whereas the competent authority in Canada has communicated a new list adding 19 establishments deleting 758 establishments and amending the data of 4 establishments;

Whereas it is necessary to amend the list of approved establishments;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision have been drawn up in accordance with the procedure laid down by Commission Decision 90/13/EEC (4),

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Annex B of Decision 93/495/EEC is replaced by the Annex of this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 8 December 1995.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

ANNEX

'ANNEX B LIST OF APPROVED ESTABLISHMENTS >TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Palmer, Barber, Matters & Merritt, Respondent, against Robert J. Stewart, Appellant, and Henry N. Ahrens et al., Respondents.

Argued March 1, 1937;

decided March 16, 1937.

*593
      *Horace M. Gray*for appellant.

*Walter H. Merritt*for petitioners, respondents.

Appeal dismissed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference inRegistration Statements No. 333-122809 on Form S-8 andNos. 333-127759 and 333-127760 on Form S-3 of FairPointCommunications, Inc. of our report dated February 28, 2007 relatingto the financial statements of Orange County-Poughkeepsie Limited Partnershipas of December 31, 2006 and 2005 and for each of the three years in theperiod ended December 31, 2006 (which report expresses an unqualifiedopinion and includes an explanatory paragraph regarding affiliate revenues),appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of FairPointCommunications, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Atlanta, GeorgiaMarch 12, 2007

----
* Senior U.S. Circuit Judge John C. Godbold has elected to participate in further proceedings in this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(c). United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. No. 93-9345. Robin Joy SHAHAR, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. Michael J. BOWERS, Individually and in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Georgia, Defendant-Appellee. March 8, 1996. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (No. 1:91-cv-2397-RCF), Richard C. Freeman, Judge. ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (Opinion December 20, 1995, 11th Cir., 1995, 70 F.3d 1218) Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, and KRAVITCH, HATCHETT, ANDERSON, EDMONDSON, COX, BIRCH, DUBINA, BLACK, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges. *
BY THE COURT: A member of this court in active service having requested a poll on the suggestion for rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in this court in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc, IT IS ORDERED that the above cause shall be r eheard by this court en banc. The previous panel's opinion is hereby VACATED.
### October 20, 2009

Dear Owner/Resident: A Lead Based Paint (LBP) assessment was recently performed on your property by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as part of the Omaha Lead Superfund Site investigation. The purpose of this assessment is to determine whether a significant quantity of lead based paint is present on the exterior surface of structures, where deteriorating paint conditions (peeling, flaking, cracking, etc.) exist that might increase lead concentrations in the yard above acceptable levels. As requested, enclosed are the LBP assessment sheets for 3128 FONTENELLE BD along with a LBP Fact Sheet. The EPA is currently developing paint stabilization eligibility criteria and at this time can not identify which homes will ultimately be eligible for EPA-funded paint stabilization. At present, paint stabilization is being offered at only those households with the most severe LPB problems, particularly where children under the age of 7 reside. The EPA stresses the importance of maintaining painted surfaces where any amount of LBP is present. The LBP Fact Sheet provides information pertaining to the EPA’s Exterior LBP Response Program. Once the eligibility criterion is finalized (and if your property qualifies) a representative from EPA or the Omaha Lead Hazard Control Program (LHCP) will contact you to arrange for paint stabilization at your property. Exposure to lead contamination can adversely affect the development and behavior of young children. If you have children less than seven years of age living in your home, we strongly recommend that you contact your doctor or the Douglas County Health Department at (402) 444-7825 and arrange to have their blood tested. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact the EPA Public Information Center at (402) 731-3045.

Sincerely,

Steve M Langum

Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp. 6601 College Blvd. Overland Park, KS 66211 USA Telephone: 913-458-2900Omaha Lead Site 

### LBP Assessment 

# 1 IIIIII IIIII IIIII 

# 11111 111111111 Il1 8 5 

## 02 8
LEGEND: H 

## - N 

# - P 

# - 01 

## - 85028 Samples Analyzed LBVID Number 

### . Af

. XRF Unit: 

### a753 Book: 

## h7 Date: 

## 4 -bZ-oq Time: JO 36

Sample Number Lead Loading StructurelFeature Substrate Color Deteriorated Wlndow, siding, porch, etc ) (Wood, concrete, etc.) area

# I IHI IIIII IIII IIIHI 

# IIII Il1 8.502 8 Omaha Lead 3ite North WOW Address: 3 1 28 FONT- Site ~ketc$ LBP Assessment Phon



### - 

# 1-1

I I I Plan View 

# - lndicate number of stories and perimeter dimensions of structure Indicate reaions of deterioration and describe

. - (Deterioration could include surfaces that are worn due to friction, checking, cracking and flal king, aligatoring , blistering andlor peeling) pw

......................... . f!05,,, .-,A.

....... .....

Y LBP-1.1 Printed: 04-hg49
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 ProLink Holdings Corp. (the Company) on Form
10-QSB for the period ended April 1, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Lawrence D. Bain, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Barry A. Sullivan, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our knowledge:



| | (3) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (4) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/ Lawrence D. BainLawrence D. Bain Chief Executive Officer
May 15, 2006By:

/s/ Barry A. SullivanBarry A. Sullivan Chief Financial Officer
May 15, 2006


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to ProLink Holdings Corp. and will be retained by
ProLink Holdings Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT
23.1
 
 
 
 
 Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
  The Board
of Directors
  Buffalo
Wild Wings, Inc.:
  We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement
(Nos. 333-110767, 333-134513, and 333-151137) on Form S-8 of Buffalo
Wild Wings, Inc. and subsidiaries of our report dated February 25, 2010,
with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 27, 2009 and December 28, 2008, and the
related consolidated statements of earnings, stockholders’ equity, and cash
flows for each of the fiscal years in the three-year period ended
December 27, 2009, and the related financial statement schedule, and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of
December 27, 2009, which report appears in the December 27, 2009
annual report on Form 10-K of Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc.
   Minneapolis,
Minnesota
 February 25,
2010
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Be th Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

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

May 28, 2015

p0518 

# Order

Clerk May 28, 2015

149888(21)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 149888

COA: 320759

Wayne CC: 12

- 010134

- FH

DANA ABLEIGH WEEKS, SR.,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s February 3,

2015 order is considered, and it is DENIED, becau se it does not appear that the order was

entered erroneously.
#### § 297.50 Enforcement.

In case of any violation of any of the provisions of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII , or this part, or any other rule, regulation or order issued under the Statute, the violator may be subject to a proceeding under section 46101 of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII before the Department, or sections 46106 through 46108 of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII before a U.S. District Court, as the case may be, to compel to compliance; or to civil penalties under the provisions of section 46301 of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII; or in the case of willful violation, to criminal penalties under the provisions of section 46316 of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII; or other lawful sanctions including cancellation of registration.

[ER-1159, 44 FR 69635, Dec. 4, 1979, as amended at 60 FR 43527, Aug. 22, 1995; DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15934, Apr. 16, 2019]
AAM-10-294-E 

Jun 23 2010 

 Exemption No. 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2010-0579 

Ms. Ann G. Rychlik 

Drug Program Manager 

American Helicopters, Inc. 

10503 Wakeman Drive 

Manassas, VA 20110 

Dear Ms. Rychlik: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated May 21, 2010, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of American Helicopters, Inc. ( American Helicopters), for an exemption from part 120 

of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow 

American Helicopters, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its 

safety-sensitive employees under one testing program. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to American Helicopters. 

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 

operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into 

one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that 
2 

provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden 

the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs. 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

• they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed grant of 

exemption; 

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed exemption also apply to the 

situation you present; and 

• a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant American Helicopters, Inc., an exemption from part 120 to 

the extent necessary to allow American Helicopters, which is operating under separate parts of 

the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to 

the conditions and limitations described below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of American Helicopters are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations 

at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of 

the American Helicopters part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

This exemption terminates on June 30, 2012, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Dr. Frederick E. Tilton, M.D. 

Federal Air Surgeon 

Enclosure
NUMBER 13-21-00332-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG 

____________________________________________________________

LASHONDA MARIE POLLACK, Appellant,

 v.

JAISHA GLENTAE ROBERTS HOFFENDEN, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 169th District Court

of Bell County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Silva

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa

This matter is before the Court on appellant’s unopposed first amended notice of 

settlement and nonsuit. 1 The court construes the notice as an amended motion to 

dismiss. Upon review of the informal settlement agreement and appellant’s amended 

1 This case is before the Court on transfer from the Third Court of Appeals pursuant to a docket 

equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001.
2

motion, it appears the matters in controversy between the parties in this cause have been 

fully and finally resolved.

The Court is of the opinion that the amended motion should be granted. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). Therefore, this cause is reinstated, the amended motion to dismiss 

is granted, and the appeal is hereby dismissed. Costs will be taxed against the appellant. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d). Because the appeal is dismissed at parties’ request, no 

motion for rehearing shall be entertained.

LETICIA HINOJOSA

Justice

Delivered and filed on the

21st day of July, 2022.
#### In the Matter of Ft. Greene Associates, Inc., Appellant, against Harris H. Murdock et al., Constituting the Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York, Respondents.

Argued January 4, 1937;

decided January 19, 1937.

*507
      *Michael Levine*and *Benjamin Millstein*for appellant.

*Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel (Paxton Blair*of counsel), for respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran and Rippey, JJ. Taking no part: Lehman and Finch, JJ.
#### COPLEY v STATE OF FLORIDA

Case No. CJAP 90-106

Ninth Judicial Circuit, Orange County

March 28, 1991

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Adam B. Reiss, Esquire, for appellant.

Paula C. Coffman, Esquire, Assistant State Attorney, for appellee. Before RICHARD F. CONRAD, Circuit Judge.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Pursuant to Rule 9.320, Fla.R.App.P., the Court hereby dispenses with oral argument.

Appellant, CHRISTIAN JAMES COPLEY, seeks review of the trial court’s denial of his Motion to Dismiss the information charging him with loitering and prowling and resisting an officer without violence to *23his person. The Appellant entered his plea of no contest and reserved his right to appeal.

At approximately 3:20 AM on October 19, 1990, an Orange County Deputy Sheriff observed the Appellant in the area of Building One at the Chatham Landings Apartment in Orange County, Florida. Once the Appellant observed the deputy he crouched down behind cars parked in the south parking lot of Building One. When the deputy approached, the Appellant began running, jumped over a six foot wooden fence and after a somewhat protracted chase, was apprehended.

Based upon the facts of this case, this Court is of the opinion that both of the requirements set forth by the Florida Legislature in Florida Statute 856.021(1), loitering and prowling statute, has been established. This statute provides:

> “(1) The defendant loitered or prowled in a place, at a time, or in a manner not usual for law abiding individuals;

> (2) Such loitering and prowling were under circumstance that warrant justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.”

According to Florida Courts, there is a requirement that for probable cause to exist the suspect must not only be acting in an unusual or suspicious manner, but under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the area.

The facts in this case satisfy these two requirements.

The order of the trial court denying Appellant’s Motion to Dismiss is hereby AFFIRMED. No petitions for rehearing will be entertained and the Clerk shall issue MANDATE forthwith.