alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.02

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Serena Software, Inc. for the fiscal quarter ended July 31, 2008 (the Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule
13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

I, Robert I. Pender, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of Serena Software, Inc. certify that, to my knowledge:



|(1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Serena Software, Inc. at the dates and for
the periods indicated.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/    ROBERT I. PENDER,
JR.Robert I. Pender, Jr. Senior Vice President,
Finance And Administration, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial And Accounting Officer)


Date: September 12, 2008

This Certification is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the registrant under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
#### KAUFFMAN et v SCHAUER

Ohio Supreme Court

No 21667.

Decided Dec. 24, 1929

Marshall, CJ., Kinkade, Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 23-0218

_________________

KEVIN BARBER,

 Plaintiff and Appellant,

 v.

BRADFORD AQUATIC GROUP, LLC,

 Defendant and Appellee.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the 

Honorable Danni Coffman, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 6 2023

09/06/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0218
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 13 (Thursday, January 20, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3248-3249]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1271]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Clean Water 
Act

    In accordance with Department of Justice policy, 28 CFR 50.7, 
notice is hereby given that a proposed consent decree in the action 
entitled United State of America v. Sapo Corporation, et. al., Civil 
Action No. 99-2366 (D.P.R.), was lodged on December 15, 1999 with the 
United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. The 
proposed consent decree resolves claims of the United States, on behalf 
of the Secretary of the Army, under the Federal Water Pollution Control 
Act, as amended (``Clean Water Act''), 33 U.S.C. 1251-1387, against 
defendants Sapo Corporation, Concho Corporation, and Arnold Benus. 
These claims are for injunctive relief and civil penalties arising from 
defendants' alleged discharge of fill material into wetlands at the 
Copamarina Beach Resort in Cana Gorda Ward, Guanica, Puerto Rico, 
without a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in violation of 
Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311(a).
    Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, the defendants will 
(1) Pay a civil penalty of $15,000 to the United States, (2) complete a 
mitigation project to enhance protection of existing wetlands on their 
property by constructing barriers to intrusion by motor vehicles, and 
(3) complete a preservation project by transferring title to 30.59 
acres of wetlands valued at $98,126, including the protective barriers, 
under a perpetual conservation easement, to the Puerto Rico Department 
of Natural and Environmental Resources.
    The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the 
proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant 
Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, U.S. 
Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530, and should refer to United 
States v. Sapo Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 99-2366 (D.P.R.), 
DOJ Ref. No. 90-5-1-1-4471/1.
    The proposed consent decree may be examined at the Office of the 
United States Attorney, Federal Building, Chardon Avenue, Hato Rey, 
Puerto Rico 00918. A copy may be obtained by mail from the Consent 
Decree Library, U.S. Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7611, Ben Franklin 
Station, Washington, DC 20044-7611. In requesting a copy by mail, 
please refer to the referenced case

[[Page 3249]]

and enclose a check in the amount of $5.75 (25 cents per page 
reproduction costs for the Decree and appendix) made payable to Consent 
Decree Library.

Bruce Gelber,
Deputy Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and 
Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 00-1271 Filed 1-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. ER00-2320-000]

Take notice that on April 27,2000, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), tendered for filing the Small Facilities Authorization Letter No. 4, submitted pursuant to the Procedures for Implementation (Procedures), of Section 3.3 of the 1987 Agreement between PG&E and the City and County of San Francisco (City). This is PG&E's third quarterly filing submitted pursuant to Section 4 of the Procedures, which provides for the quarterly filing of Facilities Authorization Letters.

The Facilities Authorization Letter streamlines the procedures for filing numerous Facilities, and facilitates payment of PG&E's costs of designing, constructing, procuring, testing, placing in operation, owning, operating and maintaining the customer-specific Facilities required for firm transmission and distribution service requested by City under this Facilities Authorization Letter.

PG&E has requested certain waivers.

Copies of this filing have been served upon City and the CPUC.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before May 30, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine 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. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-12857 Filed 5-22-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### § 401.19 Director.

“Director” means the Director of the Office of Labor-Management Standards, head of the Office of Labor-Management Standards.

[78 FR 8024, Feb. 5, 2013]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-2000
<CASH>                                         103,207
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,407,770
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (175,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  2,013,245
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,395,922
<PP&E>                                       2,403,729
<DEPRECIATION>                              (2,286,559)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,755,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          681,367
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,815,074
<OTHER-SE>                                  (1,741,041)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,755,400
<SALES>                                      5,650,512
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,877,782
<CGS>                                        3,866,001
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,154,441
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,562
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (296,185)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (296,985)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (296,985)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.15)


</TABLE>
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-3398

_____________________________

LEEPHOR SPIVEY, JR.

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Mark Borello, Judge.

July 2, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WETHERELL, OSTERHAUS, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Leephor Spivey, Jr., pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
§ 2580.412-21 Corporate sureties holding grants of authority from the Secretary of the Treasury. ( a ) The provisions of section 13 require that any surety company with which a bond is placed pursuant to that section must be a corporate surety which holds a grant of authority from the Secretary of the Treasury under the Act of July 30, 1947 (6 U.S.C. 6-13), as an acceptable surety on Federal bonds. The Act provides, among other things, that in order for a surety company to be eligible for such grant of authority, it must be incorporated under the laws of the United States or of any State and the Secretary of the Treasury shall be satisfied of certain facts relating to its authority and capitalization. Such grants of authority are evidenced by Certificates of Authority which are issued by the Secretary of the Treasury and which expire on the April 30 following the date of their issuance. A list of the companies holding such Certificates of Authority is published annually in the Federal Register, usually in May or June. Changes in the list, occurring between May 1 and April 30, either by addition to or removal from the list of companies, are also published in the Federal Register following each such change.
( b ) Where a surety becomes insolvent and is placed in receivership, or if for any other reason the Secretary of the Treasury determines that its financial condition is not satisfactory to him and he revokes the authority of such company to act as an acceptable surety under the Act of July 30, 1947, the “administrator” of the insured plan shall, upon knowledge of such facts, be responsible for securing a new bond with an acceptable surety.
( c ) In obtaining or renewing a bond, the plan administrator shall assure that the surety is one which satisfies the requirements of this section. If the bond is for a term of more than one year, the plan administrator, at the beginning of each reporting year, shall assure that the surety continues to satisfy the requirements of this subpart.
634 A.2d 1329

#### Emmanuel NNOLI v. Nina NNOLI.

No. 94,

Sept. Term, 1993.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Jan. 6, 1994.

Brian F. Lee, Rockville, for petitioner.

Alan Meiselman, Rockville, for respondent.

Argued before MURPHY, C.J., ELDRIDGE, RODOWSKY, CHASANOW and ROBERT M. BELL, JJ., and CHARLES E. ORTH, Jr., Judge (retired), Specially Assigned.

ORDER

The petition for writ of certiorari in the above entitled case having been granted and heard, it is this 6th day of January, 1994

*245ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the writ of certiorari be, and it is hereby, dismissed with costs, the petition having been improvidently granted.
#### § 37.12 What Department of Labor office is responsible for administering this part?

The Civil Rights Center (CRC), in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management, is responsible for administering and enforcing the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of WIA and this part, and for developing and issuing policies, standards, guidance, and procedures for effecting compliance.
steam

_ record - Fw: RRI Ener gy - Mandala y Generatin g Station Request for ICR Extension

-----Forwarded by Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US on 07/02/2010 09:00PM -----

To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA From: "Di Ciolli, Thomas A." <TDiciolli@rrienergy.com> Date: 07/02/2010 12:46AM Subject: RRI Energy - Mandalay Generat ing Station Request for ICR Extension

Alicea,

Please find attached RRI Energy, Mandalay Generating Station corres pondence for EPA’s consideration to extend the deadline to complete and comply for the RR I steam-electric generating facilities Effluent ICR requirements.

If there are any questions, do not hesitate to contact me.

Tom

Tom Di Ciolli

RRI Energy

Mandalay / Ellwood

(805) 984-5241 (Mandalay)

(805) 207-3516 (Cellular) From: <Alicea.Jezebele @ epamail.epa. g ov> To: <steam_record@erg.c om>, <jordan.ronald@epa.gov> Date: 7/2/2010 8:01 PM Sub j ect: Fw: RRI Energy - Mandalay Generati ng Station Request for ICR Extension Attachments: Extension Request - RRI Mandala y - Steam Electric Questionnaire 7-1-10.pd f Pa g e 1 of 1

4/25/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\TMedle y \Local Settin g s\Tem p \XP g r p wise\4C2E4590DO

...
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification of the Chief Executive Officer of

HORIZON BANCORPORATION, INC.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
(Adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

The undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Horizon Bancorporation, Inc., hereby certifies that:

1. Horizon Bancorporation, Inc.'s Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (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 Horizon Bancorporation, Inc.'

/S/ Charles S. Conoley
Charles S. Conoley, 
President and Chief Executive Officer
May 6, 2005
§ 2700.69 Decision of the Judge. ( a ) *Form and content of the Judge's decision.* The Judge shall make a decision that constitutes his final disposition of the proceedings. The decision shall be in writing and shall include all findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the reasons or bases for them, on all the material issues of fact, law or discretion presented by the record, and an order. If a decision is announced orally from the bench, it shall be reduced to writing after the filing of the transcript. An order by a Judge approving a settlement proposal is a decision of the Judge.
( b ) *Termination of the Judge's jurisdiction.* Except to the extent otherwise provided herein, the jurisdiction of the Judge terminates when his decision has been issued.
( c ) *Correction of clerical errors.* At any time before the Commission has directed that a Judge's decision be reviewed, and on his own motion or the motion of a party, the Judge may correct clerical errors in decisions, orders or other parts of the record. After the Commission has directed that a Judge's decision be reviewed, the Judge may correct such errors with the leave of the Commission. If a Judge's decision has become the final order of the Commission, the Judge may correct such errors with the leave of the Commission. Neither the filing of a motion to correct a clerical error, nor the issuance of an order or amended decision correcting a clerical error, shall toll the time for filing a petition for discretionary review of the Judge's decision on the merits.
( d ) *Effect of decision of Judge.* A decision of a Judge is not a precedent binding upon the Commission.
[58 FR 12164, Mar. 3, 1993, as amended at 71 FR 44209, Aug. 4, 2006; 72 FR 2192, Jan. 18, 2007]
|  **POWER                OF ATTORNEY**                         |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| **Annual                Report on Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended** |
| **December                31, 2006**                                    |

|  **Company**                             |  **State                of Incorporation**  |
|----------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
| **Appalachian                Power Company**       | Virginia                                              |
| **Columbus                Southern Power Company** | Ohio                                                  |
| **Kentucky                Power Company**          | Kentucky                                              |
| **Ohio                Power Company**              | Ohio                                                  |

| /s/                Nicholas K. Akins    | /s/                Michael G. Morris  |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
| Nicholas                K. Akins                       | Michael                G. Morris           |
|                                                   |                                       |
| /s/                Carl L. English      | /s/                Robert P. Powers   |
| Carl                L. English                         | Robert                P. Powers            |
|                                                   |                                       |
| /s/                John B. Keane        | /s/                Stephen P. Smith   |
| John                B. Keane                           | Stephen                P. Smith            |
|                                                   |                                       |
| /s/                Holly K. Koeppel     | /s/                Susan Tomasky      |
| Holly                K. Koeppel                        | Susan                Tomasky               |
|                                                   |                                       |
|                                                   | /s/                Dennis E. Welch    |
|                                                   | Dennis                E. Welch             |
§ 21.108 IRB functions and operations. ( a ) In order to fulfill the requirements of this policy each IRB shall: ( 1 ) Have access to meeting space and sufficient staff to support the IRB's review and recordkeeping duties;
( 2 ) Prepare and maintain a current list of the IRB members identified by name; earned degrees; representative capacity; indications of experience such as board certifications or licenses sufficient to describe each member's chief anticipated contributions to IRB deliberations; and any employment or other relationship between each member and the institution, for example, full-time employee, part-time employee, member of governing panel or board, stockholder, paid or unpaid consultant;
( 3 ) Establish and follow written procedures for: ( i ) Conducting its initial and continuing review of research and for reporting its findings and actions to the investigator and the institution;
( ii ) Determining which projects require review more often than annually and which projects need verification from sources other than the investigators that no material changes have occurred since previous IRB review; and
( iii ) Ensuring prompt reporting to the IRB of proposed changes in a research activity, and for ensuring that investigators will conduct the research activity in accordance with the terms of the IRB approval until any proposed changes have been reviewed and approved by the IRB, except when necessary to eliminate apparent immediate hazards to the subject.
( 4 ) Establish and follow written procedures for ensuring prompt reporting to the IRB; appropriate institutional officials; the department or agency head; and the Office for Human Research Protections, HHS, or any successor office, or the equivalent office within the appropriate Federal department or agency of ( i ) Any unanticipated problems involving risks to subjects or others or any serious or continuing noncompliance with this policy or the requirements or determinations of the IRB; and
( ii ) Any suspension or termination of IRB approval.
( b ) Except when an expedited review procedure is used (as described in § 21.110), an IRB must review proposed research at convened meetings at which a majority of the members of the IRB are present, including at least one member whose primary concerns are in nonscientific areas. In order for the research to be approved, it shall receive the approval of a majority of those members present at the meeting.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number 0990-0260)