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


CERTIFICATE OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
OF DIOMED HOLDINGS, INC. (REGISTRANT)
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, James A. Wylie, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify to
the best of my knowledge and belief pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) that:

(1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004,
which this statement accompanies, 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 on Form 10-QSB fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of
operations of the Registrant.


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, chapter
63 title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form
10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.

Date:  November 5, 2004                             /s/ JAMES A. WYLIE, JR.
                                                   ---------------------------
                                                   James A. Wylie, Jr.
                                                   Chief Executive Officer
                                                   (Principal Executive Officer)
EXHIBIT 31.2

 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

      I, Neil F.M. McKay, certify that:

- I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Capitol Federal Financial;  
- 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;  
- 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  
- The registrant's other certifying officers 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 registrant and have:
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 registrant, including its consolidated subsidiary, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's 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
disclosed in this report any changes in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

- The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial report, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over financial reporting.

 

Date: August 4, 2004

      

                                                                                            By:/s/Neil F.M. McKay                                    

                                                                                                 Neil F.M. McKay,                                                                                                Chief Financial Officer
#### Westchester Trust Company, Respondent, *v.*Morris Guterman, Defendant, and Louis Harrison, Appellant.

Submitted May 24, 1937;

decided June 1, 1937.

*589
      *John Preston Phillips*for motion.

*Ulysses S. Adler*opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion, unless appellant files and serves undertaking andjpays ten dollars costs within ten days, in which event the motion is denied.
---

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Ari Muljana, hereby certifies, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| | (a) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Manas Petroleum
      Corporation for the period ended September 30, 2010, fully complies with
      the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
      of 1934; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
| | (b) | information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of Manas Petroleum Corporation.                                                       

Date: November 15, 2010

/s/ Ari MuljanaAri MuljanaChief Financial Officer
and Treasurer(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting
Officer)

---
<PAGE>

Exhibit 23




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-86722 and 33-52357-99 of The Laclede Group, Inc. and 333-86722-01 of
Laclede Capital Trust I on Form S-3 and in Registration Statement Nos.
333-90248, 333-90252, 333-90254, 333-91432, 333-102835 and 333-102836 of The
Laclede Group, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated November 17, 2004
(relating to the financial statements of The Laclede Group, Inc.) appearing
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Laclede Group, Inc. and Laclede
Gas Company for the year ended September 30, 2004.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement
No. 333-40362 of Laclede Gas Company on Form S-3 of our report dated
November 17, 2004 (relating to the financial statements of Laclede Gas
Company) appearing in Exhibit 99.1 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K of The
Laclede Group, Inc. and Laclede Gas Company for the year ended September 30,
2004.


Deloitte & Touche LLP
St. Louis, MO
November 17, 2004
----

----

I Meddelanden

Kommissionen

----

Eurons växelkurs (1)

27 oktober 2004

(2004/C 265/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Källa: Referensväxelkurs offentliggjord av Europeiska centralbanken.

----

----

Förhandsanmälan av en koncentration

(Ärende COMP/M.3598 – Repsol/Borealis Polímeros)

Ärendet kan komma att handläggas enligt ett förenklat förfarande

(2004/C 265/02)

(Text av betydelse för EES)

----

(1)EUT L 24, 29.1.2004, s. 1.

(2)  Finns tillgänglig på GD Konkurrens hemsida:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/legislation/consultation/simplified_tru.pdf.

----

----

Beslut om att inte göra invändningar mot en anmäld koncentration

(Ärende COMP/M.3420 – GIMD/SOCPRESSE)

(2004/C 265/03)

(Text av betydelse för EES)

Kommissionen beslutade den 16 juni 2004 att inte göra invändningar mot den anmälda koncentrationen ovan och att förklara den förenlig med den gemensamma marknaden. Beslutet grundar sig på artikel 6.1 b i rådets förordning (EEG) nr 4064/89. Beslutet i sin helhet finns endast på franska och kommer att offentliggöras efter det att alla eventuella affärshemligheter har tagits bort. Det kommer att finnas tillgängligt

----

----

Tillkännagivande om att giltighetstiden snart kommer att löpa ut för vissa antidumpningsåtgärder

(2004/C 265/04)

2.   Förfarande

Gemenskapsproducenterna kan inge en skriftlig begäran om översyn. En sådan begäran måste innehålla tillräckliga bevis för att åtgärdernas upphörande sannolikt skulle innebära att dumpningen och skadan fortsätter eller återkommer.

Om kommissionen beslutar att företa en översyn av åtgärderna i fråga skall importörerna, exportörerna, företrädare för exportlandet och gemenskapsproducenter ges tillfälle att utveckla, avvisa eller yttra sig om de uppgifter som lämnas i begäran om översyn.

3.   Tidsfrist

En skriftlig begäran om översyn på de grunder som anges ovan kan lämnas av gemenskapsproducenter och skall inkomma till Europeiska kommissionen, Generaldirektoratet för handel (Div. B-1), J-79 5/16, B-1049 Bryssel (2), från och med den dag detta tillkännagivande offentliggörs, men senast tre månader före den dag som anges i tabellen nedan.

----

(1)EGT L 56, 6.3.1996, s. 1. Förordning senast ändrad genom rådets förordning (EG) nr 461/2004 (EGT L 77, 13.3.2004, s. 12).

(2)  Telex COMEU B 21877; Fax (32-2) 295 65 05.

----
###### Editorial Note on Part 20

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 20 appear at 57 FR 31451, July 16, 1992.

#### § 20.19 Purpose and scope.

The regulations in this subpart establish procedures to implement section 10 of the Debt Collection Act of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-365), 31 U.S.C. 3716(d). Among other things, this statute authorizes the head of each agency to collect a claim arising under an agency program by means of administrative offset, except that no claim may be collected by such means if outstanding for more than 10 years after the agency's right to collect the debt first accrued, unless facts material to the Government's right to collect the debt were not known and could not reasonably have been known by the official or officials of the government who were charged with the responsibility to discover and collect such debts. This subpart specifies the agency procedures that will be followed by the Department of Labor for an administrative offset.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-20748 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus THOMAS E. HUITT; CHARLES L. HENKE, Defendants-Appellants.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. CR-H-93-227-2

- - - - - - - - - - October 24, 1996 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appellants appeal from the district court’s refusal to grant a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. Appellants argue that they never denied committing the offenses alleged in the indictment, but they relied upon a public authority defense to the charges. We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and hold that the district court did not err in determining that the appellantsNo. 95-20748 - 2 - were not entitled to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility given the deferential standard of review applied to acceptance of responsibility findings, the finding that the appellants obstructed justice, and given that the appellants put the Government to its burden of proof as to their intent to commit the offenses. United States v. Spires , 79 F.3d 464, 467 (5th Cir. 1996); U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, comment. (n.2), (n.4).
AFFIRMED.
(78 South. 415)

#### HOUSTON v. STATE.

(4 Div. 526.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

April 2, 1918.)

1. Criminal Law &wkey;>737(2) — Place of Offense-Question for Jury.

AVhere three shoats the subject of larceny disappeared in B. county and were found in defendant’s possession about a mile away in H. county with marks changed, it was a question for the jury whether the crime was committed in B. county, or within one-fourth of a mile of the line thereof.

2. Criminal Law <&wkey;1033(2) — Review—Matters Not Brought to Attention of the Trial Court.

There being nothing in the record to indicate that question whether crime of larceny was committed in county where defendant was prosecuted was brought to the attention of the trial court before argument of ease was completed, defendant would not be entitled to reversal, in view of Court Rule 35 (175 Ala. xxi), providing that, whenever the general charges requested are predicated upon proof as to venue, the trial court will not be put in error, unless it appears that the complaint upon which it was asked was brought to its attention before the argument of the case was concluded.

3. Larceny <&wkey;68(l) — Identity of Purpose— Sufficiency of Evidence.

In prosecution for larceny of three shoats, question of identity *held,*under evidence, for the jury.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Barbour County; J. S. Williams, Judge.

Jesse Houston was convicted of petit larceny, and appeals.

Affirmed.

Winn & Winn, of Clayton, for appellant. F. Loyd Tate, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SAMFORD, J.

[1] Three shoats, the subject of the larceny charged, disappeared from the possession of the owner in Barbour county, and were found in the possession of the defendant about one mile away in Henry county, with the marks changed, the mother of the shoats and one shoat of the litter remaining with the owner. Under the facts, it was a question for the jury to say whether the crime was committed in Barbour county or within one-fourth of a mile of the line. Britton v. State. 15 Ala.App. 584, 74 South. 721.

[2] Besides, there is nothing in the record to indicate that this point was brought to the attention of the trial court, before the argument of the case was completed, or at all, and hence, under Circuit Court Rule 35 (175 Ala. xxi), would not entitle the defendant to a reversal.

[3] The question of the identity of the shoats was for the jury under the evidence, and the mere fact that one state’s witness *422had. testified that the shoats were harrows, and one of defendant’s witnesses had testified that the shoats in defendant’s possession were boars, would not entitle the defendant to the affirmative charge in the face of the testimony of *several*witnesses, who positively identified the shoats as being the same, none of whom said whether they were boars or barrows, but testified to other positive marks. Britton’s Case, supra. The several rulings of the court have been examined, and found to be without prejudicial error.

There is no error in the record and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.
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.                  

###### Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

# AGENCY:

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

# ACTION:

Notice of renewal of the FDIC Advisory Committee on Community Banking.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (“FACA”), 5 U.S.C. App. 2, and after consultation with the General Services Administration, the Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has determined that renewal of the FDIC Advisory Committee on Community Banking (“the Committee”) is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the FDIC by law. The Committee has been a successful undertaking by the FDIC and has provided valuable feedback to the agency on a broad range of policy issues that have particular impact on small community banks throughout the United States and the local communities they serve, with a focus on rural areas. The Committee will continue to review various issues that may include, but not be limited to, the latest examination policies and procedures, credit and lending practices, deposit insurance assessments, insurance coverage issues, and regulatory compliance matters, as well as any obstacles to the continued growth and ability of community banks to extend financial services in their local markets in the current market environment. The structure and responsibilities of the Committee are unchanged from when it was originally established in July 2009. The Committee will continue to operate in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Committee Management Officer of the FDIC, at (202) 898-7043.

Dated: August 3, 2011.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Robert E. Feldman,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2011-20017 Filed 8-5-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
Exhibit 4.6

 

2024 Notes Unit Agreement Joinder

 

April 1, 2015

 

Dynegy Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) hereby agrees as successor in interest to Dynegy Finance II, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Finance II”), to be bound by the terms and provisions attributable to an Issuer of the Unit Agreement, dated as of October 27, 2014 (as amended, restated, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time, the “2024 Notes Unit Agreement”), among Finance II, Dynegy Finance I, Inc. and Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Unit Agent, and to assume and be bound to perform all obligations of an Issuer thereunder.  By executing and delivering this Unit Agreement Joinder, the Company hereby becomes a party to the 2024 Notes Unit Agreement as an Issuer thereunder.  Unless the context otherwise requires, all references to “Finance II” in the 2024 Notes Unit Agreement shall refer to the Company.

 

[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]

 











 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this counterpart as of the date first set forth above.

 

 

	
 
    	
 
    	
Dynegy   Inc., as an Issuer
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   Robert C. Flexon
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
Name:   
    	
Robert   C. Flexon
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
Title:
    	
President &   Chief Executive Officer
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Dynegy   Finance I, Inc., as an Issuer
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   Clint C. Freeland
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
Name:
    	
Clint   C. Freeland
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
Title:
    	
Executive   Vice President & Chief
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
Financial   Officer
132 STAT. 3666 PUBLIC LAW 115–260—OCT. 9, 2018 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 1668: 

SENATE REPORTS: No. 115–221 (Comm. on Commerce, Science, and Transportation). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018): 

Aug. 1, considered and passed Senate. 

Sept. 26, considered and passed House. 

Æ 

Public Law 115–260 

115th Congress 

An Act 

To rename a waterway in the State of New York as the ‘‘Joseph Sanford Jr. 

Channel’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. JOSEPH SANFORD JR. CHANNEL. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The waterway in the State of New York 

designated as the ‘‘Negro Bar Channel’’ shall be known and redesignated as the ‘‘Joseph Sanford Jr. Channel’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the waterway referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Joseph Sanford Jr. Channel’’. 

Approved October 9, 2018. 

Oct. 9, 2018 

[S. 1668] 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with PUB LAWS PDF
§ 91.1009 Clarification of operational control. ( a ) An owner is in operational control of a program flight when the owner— ( 1 ) Has the rights and is subject to the limitations set forth in §§ 91.1003 through 91.1013;
( 2 ) Has directed that a program aircraft carry passengers or property designated by that owner; and
( 3 ) The aircraft is carrying those passengers or property.
( b ) An owner is not in operational control of a flight in the following circumstances: ( 1 ) A program aircraft is used for a flight for administrative purposes such as demonstration, positioning, ferrying, maintenance, or crew training, and no passengers or property designated by such owner are being carried; or
( 2 ) The aircraft being used for the flight is being operated under part 121 or 135 of this chapter.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 10028 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

BRENT WEST , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:11

- CR

- 64

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Brent West has
moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). West h a s not filed a response. We have r eviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 2 2 , 2015

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-10028 Document: 00513243337 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/22/2015No. 15

- 10028

2 appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, co unsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 15-10028 Document: 00513243337 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/22/2015
JAMES RICHARD BAIN,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-2883

Opinion filed July 9, 2014.

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel -- Original 

Jurisdiction.

James Richard Bain, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED.

THOMAS, RAY, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.