alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1

                                                                     EXHIBIT 6.2


                                                                   [EXODUS LOGO]
ORDER FORM

CUSTOMER                                     BILL TO

     Freerealtime.com                             Freerealtime.com
     FIF001                                       217 10th Ave. South West
                                                  Calgary Alberta T2ROAG


Quote Date: January 06, 2000          IDC: LA/Irvine       Payment Terms: Net 30
Form #: 1-30GV1      Revision: 1      Sales Person: Corbin Matousek
Valid From:          Through:         Order Status: Final    Order Type: Upgrade

Requested Service Date: 12/21/1999    Initial Term: 6 Months [SIG]

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            Monthly                      Extended      Extended
                                                           Recurring    Non-Recurring    Monthly     Non-Recurring
Line      Services       Description*       IDC      Qty      Cost          Cost           Fees          Fees
----      --------       ------------       ---      ---   ----------   -------------   ----------   -------------
<S>   <C>                <C>             <C>         <C>   <C>          <C>             <C>          <C>
  1   EXOD-FAST-LSU100   100 Mbps base   LA/Irvine    1    $69,769.70       $0.00       $69,769.70       $0.00
                         Fast Ethernet

  2   EXOD-FAST-U90      90 Mbps base    LA/Irvine   -1   -$62,799.75       $0.00      -$62,799.75       $0.00
                         Fast Ethernet
                         with 100 Mbps
                         burstability
                                                                                        ==========       =====
     Total                                                                              $ 6,969.95       $0.00


Variable Usage above Base

     EXO-FAST-UV         Variable Usage  LA/Irvine    0    $   800.00
                         Cost above
                         base
</TABLE>


--------
*More detailed descriptions of the Services are contained in the specification
 sheets and/or Scope of Work for each service, which are incorporated herein and
 made a part hereof by this reference.

                                                     Customer's initials  [SIG]
                                                                        --------

                                                    Order Form: 1-30GV1   Rev: 1
[EXODUS LOGO]
Exodus Communications, Inc.   Proprietary and Confidential   rev. 8/99
                                                                     Page 1 of 2
Exhibit
      32




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 Composite Solutions, Inc. on Form 10-KSB
      for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Thomas C. Bache, Chief Executive
      Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, that:





1.
      The
      Report 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 result of operations of the Company.







Date:
      June 4, 2007





/s/
      Thomas C.
      Bache


Thomas
      C.
      Bache,


Chief
      Executive Officer


Principal
      Financial Officer
#### EARICH v STATE

Ohio Appeals, 4th Dist, Athens Co

Decided Feb 21, 1929

Woolley & Rowland, Athens, for Earich.

A B Wells, Athens, for State.

BLOSSER, J.

This proceeding in error is submitted to this court on the theory that if the decision of this court in the case of Hendrix v State, 22 Ohio App. 255 is applicable that the judgment .of the juvenile court should be affirmed. We have been unable to find any reported case where the facts are parallel with those in the case at bar. No cases hold that the mere rendition of a judgment in a bastardy proceeding and the payment of money alone to the mother is a bar to a prosecution for failure to provide. In the Hendrix case, supra, the court found that the defendant did not fully carry out and comply with the terms of the compromise, and had never delivered to the prosecutrix in the bastardy proceeding the personal property which he agreed to deliver. In the case of McKelvy v State, 87 Ohio St. 1, which was prior to the amendment of Section 12114 G. C., the second paragraph of the syllabus holds that where a bastardy proceeding has been compromised under Section 12,114 G. C. ,and all of the provisions of the compromise have been complied with and carried out by the accused it constitutes a complete bar to a charge of failure to support the. illegitimate child. Under the compromise effected in the McKelvy case there was p,aid the mother three hundred and fifty dollars in full satisfaction of all claims, together with costs, and also a bond was given in the sum of two hundred dollars for the maintenance of the child with sufficient sureties to the approval of the justice.

The plaintiff in error not having given bond for the support of the child in the bastardy proceeeding and having admitted his failure to provide as charged in the complaint, which is being prosecuted under favor of Section 12114. G. C. as now amended, the judgment in the bastardy proceeding' is no defense to the offense charged against him.

Middleton, PJ, and Mauck, J, concur.
#### LUMPKIN v. TOWN OF WETUMPKA. (Two Cases)

(Decided November 23, 1916.)

Appeal from Elmore Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. Gaston Gunter.

No counsel marked for either party.

Per curiam.

Affirmed on certificate.
§ 89.5 Falsification, reproduction, alteration, or omission. ( a ) No person may make or cause to be made any of the following: ( 1 ) Any fraudulent or intentionally false statement in any document related to any acceptance, application, approval, authorization, certificate, declaration, designation, qualification, record, report, request for reconsideration, or similar, submitted under this part.
( 2 ) Any fraudulent or intentionally false statement in any document required to be developed, provided, kept, or used to show compliance with any requirement under this part.
( 3 ) Any reproduction or alteration, for fraudulent purpose, of any document related to any acceptance, application, approval, authorization, certificate, declaration, designation, qualification, record, report, request for reconsideration, or similar, submitted or granted under this part.
( b ) No person may, by omission, knowingly conceal or cause to be concealed, a material fact in— ( 1 ) Any document related to any acceptance, application, approval, authorization, certificate, declaration, designation, qualification, record, report, request for reconsideration, or similar, submitted under this part; or
( 2 ) Any document required to be developed, provided, kept, or used to show compliance with any requirement under this part.
( c ) The commission by any person of an act prohibited under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section is a basis for— ( 1 ) Denial, suspension, rescission, or revocation of any acceptance, application, approval, authorization, certificate, declaration, declaration of compliance, designation, document, filing, qualification, means of compliance, record, report, request for reconsideration, or similar instrument issued or granted by the Administrator and held by that person; or
( 2 ) A civil penalty.
Editorial Note on Part 47
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 47 appear at 75 FR 41979, July 20, 2010.

§ 47.31 Application. ( a ) Each applicant for a Certificate of Aircraft Registration, AC Form 8050-3 must submit the following to the Registry— ( 1 ) An Aircraft Registration Application, AC Form 8050-1, signed by the applicant in the manner prescribed by § 47.13;
( 2 ) The original Aircraft Bill of Sale, AC Form 8050-2, or other evidence of ownership authorized by § 47.33, § 47.35, or § 47.37 (unless already recorded at the Registry); and
( 3 ) The fee required by § 47.17.
( b ) The FAA rejects an application when— ( 1 ) Any form is not completed;
( 2 ) The name and signature of the applicant are not the same throughout; or
( 3 ) The applicant does not provide a legibly printed or typed name with the signature in the signature block.
( c ) After compliance with paragraph (a) of this section, the applicant for registration of an aircraft last previously registered in the United States must carry the second copy of the Aircraft Registration Application in the aircraft as temporary authority to operate without registration. ( 1 ) This temporary authority is valid for operation within the United States until the date the applicant receives the Certificate of Aircraft Registration or until the date the FAA denies the application, or as provided by paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
( 2 ) This temporary authority is not available in connection with any Aircraft Registration Application received when 12 months have passed since the receipt of the first application following transfer of ownership by the last registered owner.
( 3 ) If there is no registration number assigned at the time application for registration is made, the second copy of the Aircraft Registration Application may not be used as temporary authority to operate the aircraft.
[Doc. No. 7190, 31 FR 4495, Mar. 17, 1966; 31 FR 5483, Apr. 7, 1966, as amended by Amdt. 47-6, 33 FR 11, Jan. 3, 1968; Amdt. 47-15, 37 FR 21528, Oct. 12, 1972; Amdt. 47-16, 37 FR 25487, Dec. 1, 1972; Amdt. 47-28, 73 FR 10667, Feb. 28, 2008; Amdt. 47-29, 75 FR 41981, July 20, 2010; Amdt. No. 47-33, 87 FR 71217, Nov. 22, 2022; Amdt. No. 47-33A, 88 FR 2814, Jan. 18, 2023]
#### CLEVELAND RY. CO. v. THOMAS.

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist., Cuyahoga Co.

No. 8874.

Decided Nov. 19, 1928.

Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, Cleveland, for Cleveland Ry. Co.

Harry F. Pattie, Cleveland, for Thomas.

*24PER CURIAM.

It is well settled that in cases where the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor is held applicable that the same amounts merely to an inference of negligence which justifies a finding for the plaintiff on negligence but does not compel it and the jury is the judge as to what importance shall be attached to this inference of negligence raised by the doctrine res ipsa loquitor. Likewise the evidence offered in explanation and in an effort to undo the effect of the application of the doctrine is also a question for the jury.

In the case of Glowacki vs The Northwestern Railway & Power Co., Ohio Law Bulletin, June 27, 1927, 392 the court said:

> “Where .the allegations in a petition and the evidence offered in support thereof call for the application of the rule of res ipsa loquitor and where the defendant has offered evidence tending to meet and explain the circumstances, it is the 'duty of the court when requested so to do by either party, to submit the question to the jury under proper instructions.

> The weight of the inference as well as the weight of the expanation offered to meet the inference is for the determination of the jury in a .jury trial or for the determination of the court when the court is the trier of the facts.”

The jury accordingly may accept the explanation offered or it may reject the explanation as improbable. It all depends upon the particular case and the particular circumstances.

Upon the above consideration we find no error in the charge of the court.

As to the point made that the verdict is manifestly against the weight of the evidence we are unable to find ourselves in accord with such conclusion.

Judgment of the Common Pleas Court is therefore affirmed.

Sullivan, P. J., Vickery and Levine JJ. concur.
Exhibit 13.2





PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with the Annual Report of Ultrapetrol (Bahamas) Limited (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Leonard J. Hoskinson, 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.





This certification is made solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and not for any other purpose.  A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.





Date: March 15, 2012





/s/ Leonard J. Hoskinson


Leonard J. Hoskinson


Principal Financial Officer
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Geologic framework, structure,and hydrogeologic characteristics of the Knippa Gap area in eastern Uvalde andwestern Medina Counties, Texas**
 
Report | Plate 1
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.42/4-4:2013-5149
Item Number:0624-B-02 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000931032
 
February 8, 2018
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 16, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31170]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12213]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Notice of Technology Demonstration

May 10, 2000.
    Take notice that, on May 24, 2000, Edward Cazalet, of Automated 
Power Exchange, Inc., will make a presentation before the Commission, 
interested members of the staff, and interested members of the public 
demonstrating the possible use of e-commerce technologies and the 
Internet to develop markets for various power products, including 
transmission rights.
    The presentation will be held on May 24, 2000, at 10:00 a.m., in 
the Commission Meeting Room, 2nd Floor, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-12213 Filed 5-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### § 1471.960 Ineligible or ineligibility.

*Ineligible or ineligibility* means that a person or commodity is prohibited from covered transactions because of an exclusion or disqualification.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 16, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31156-31157]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12230]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-271-000]


Mississippi Canyon Gas Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Proposed Changes 
in FERC Gas Tariff

May 10, 2000.
    Take notice that on May 5, 2000, Mississippi Canyon Gas Pipeline, 
LLC (MCGP) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original 
Volume No. 1, revised tariff sheets listed in Appendix A to the filing, 
to be effective June 1, 2000.
    MCGP states that the purpose of this filing is to update MCGP's 
Original Volume No. 1 FERC Gas Tariff to reflect references of 
Interactive Internet Website.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with section 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online.rims.htm 

[[Page 31157]]

(call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-12230 Filed 5-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
§ 1621.3 Procedure for requesting an opinion letter. ( a ) A request for an opinion letter should be submitted in writing to the Chairman, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street, NE., Washington, DC 20507, and shall contain: ( 1 ) A concise statement of the issues for which an opinion is requested;
( 2 ) A full statement of the relevant facts and law; and
( 3 ) The names and addresses of the person(s) making the request and other interested persons.
( b ) Issuance of an opinion letter by the Commission is discretionary.
( c ) Informal advice: When the Commission, at its discretion, determines that it will not issue an opinion letter as defined in § 1621.4, the Commission may provide informal advice or guidance to the requestor. An informal letter of advice does not represent the formal position of the Commission and does not commit the Commission to the views expressed therein. Any letter other than those defined in § 1621.4 will be considered a letter of advice and may not be relied upon by any employer within the meaning of section 10 of the Portal to Portal Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. 255.
[49 FR 31411, Aug. 7, 1984, as amended at 71 FR 26831, May 9, 2006; 74 FR 3430, Jan. 21, 2009]
§ 1630.6 Contractual or other arrangements. ( a ) *In general.* It is unlawful for a covered entity to participate in a contractual or other arrangement or relationship that has the effect of subjecting the covered entity's own qualified applicant or employee with a disability to the discrimination prohibited by this part.
( b ) *Contractual or other arrangement defined.* The phrase *contractual or other arrangement or relationship* includes, but is not limited to, a relationship with an employment or referral agency; labor union, including collective bargaining agreements; an organization providing fringe benefits to an employee of the covered entity; or an organization providing training and apprenticeship programs.
( c ) *Application.* This section applies to a covered entity, with respect to its own applicants or employees, whether the entity offered the contract or initiated the relationship, or whether the entity accepted the contract or acceded to the relationship. A covered entity is not liable for the actions of the other party or parties to the contract which only affect that other party's employees or applicants.
§ 1207.3 Compensation of neutrals. ( a ) *Neutrals appointed by the National Mediation Board.* All neutral persons appointed by the National Mediation Board under the provisions of § 1207.1 (b) and (c) will be compensated by the Mediation Board in accordance with legislative authority. Certificates of appointment will be issued by the Mediation Board in each instance.
( b ) *Neutrals selected by the parties.* ( 1 ) In cases where the party members of a PL Board created under Public Law 89-456 mutually agree upon a neutral person to be a member of the Board, the party members will jointly so notify the Mediation Board, which Board will then issue a certificate of appointment to the neutral and arrange to compensate him as under paragraph (a) of this section.
( 2 ) The same procedure will apply in cases where carrier and employee representatives are unable to agree upon the establishment and jurisdiction of a PL Board, and mutually agree upon a procedural neutral person to sit with them as a member and determine such issues.
#### § 1903.1 Purpose and scope.

The Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1590 *et seq.,* 29 U.S.C. 651 *et seq.*) requires, in part, that every employer covered under the Act furnish to his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees. The Act also requires that employers comply with occupational safety and health standards promulgated under the Act, and that employees comply with standards, rules, regulations and orders issued under the Act which are applicable to their own actions and conduct. The Act authorizes the Department of Labor to conduct inspections, and to issue citations and proposed penalties for alleged violations. The Act, under section 20(b), also authorizes the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to conduct inspections and to question employers and employees in connection with research and other related activities. The Act contains provisions for adjudication of violations, periods prescribed for the abatement of violations, and proposed penalties by the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, if contested by an employer or by an employee or authorized representative of employees, and for judicial review. The purpose of this part 1903 is to prescribe rules and to set forth general policies for enforcement of the inspection, citation, and proposed penalty provisions of the Act. In situations where this part 1903 sets forth general enforcement policies rather than substantive or procedural rules, such policies may be modified in specific circumstances where the Secretary or his designee determines that an alternative course of action would better serve the objectives of the Act.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

 September 3, 2019

Order 

Clerk

September 3, 2019

158751(112)

COUNCIL OF ORGANIZATIONS AND

OTHERS FOR EDUCATION ABOUT 

PAROCHIAID, AMERICAN CIVIL 

LIBERTIES UNION OF MICHIGAN,

MICHIGAN PARENTS FOR SCHOOLS,

482FORWARD, MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION

OF SCHOOL BOARDS, MICHIGAN 

ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL 

ADMINISTRATORS, MICHIGAN 

ASSOCIATION OF INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL

ADMINISTRATORS, MICHIGAN SCHOOL

BUSINESS OFFICIALS, MICHIGAN 

ASSOCIATION OF SECONDARY SCHOOL

PRINCIPALS, MIDDLE CITIES EDUCATION

ASSOCIATION, MICHIGAN ELEMENTARY

AND MIDDLE SCHOOL PRINCIPALS

ASSOCIATION, KALAMAZOO PUBLIC

SCHOOLS and KALAMAZOO PUBLIC 

SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

SC: 158751

v COA: 343801

Ct of Claims: 17-000068-MB

STATE OF MICHIGAN, GOVERNOR, 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, and

SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC 

INSTRUCTION,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendants-appellees to extend the time 

for filing their brief is GRANTED. The brief will be accepted as timely filed if submitted 

on or before October 21, 2019.