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

                                                                      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 Quarterly Report of High Speed Access Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, George
E. Willett, President and 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 to my knowledge:

    (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date:  August 7, 2003                      By /s/ George E. Willett
                                              ----------------------------------
                                           George E. Willett
                                           President and Chief Financial Officer

                                       26
-cr-06236-WPD Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2000 P
#### Allen T. Rector v. George Canfield.

Filed May 15, 1894.

No. 5256.

1. Review: Weight of Evidence. Where there is sufficient evidence to justify a verdict it will not be disturbed merely because of the comparative number of witnesses ’on each side, or on account of mere probabilities as to the comparative weight of the testimony-considered alone on the record in this court.

2. Exceptions to Instructions: Review. To a review of alleged errors in giving or refusing an instruction an exception is indispensably a prerequisite.

Error from the district court of Douglas county. Tried below before Doane, J.

*Jacob Fawcett*and *F. M. Sturdevant,*for plaintiff in error.

*G. A. Baldwin, contra.*

Ryan, C.

While it is possible that counsel for plaintiff in error may have gone outside the record for some of the facts, their epitome of the pleadings and facts involved will sufficiently answer our purpose. In their brief counsel say: “The pleadings in the case show that some time in December, 1888, or January, 1889, the defendant Miller and the plaintiff Canfield made a trade, Canfield trading- off his interest in the furniture of a hotel in Omaha known as the “ Canfield House,” Miller agreeing to give in exchange therefor the lots in controversy in this case. At the time of the trade Miller was constructing some small dwellings on these two lots, and it seems the agreement was that he was to go on and complete the dwellings and mortgage the lots for $1,000, and then convey them, subject to this mortgage of $1,000, to Canfield. Canfield delivered possession, *596of the hotel to Miller, and Miller executed to Canfield the bond sued on in this case, with the defendant Rector as surety thereon. Shortly after this Miller conveyed the property to someone else and skipped the country between two days; leaving Canfield and defendant Rector in the lurch on this deal. Demand was made upon Rector to pay the penal sum of the bond, which he declined to do, for •the reason, as stated in his answer, that Canfield had not been damaged to exceed the sum of $600.' The court below held properly that the measure of damages in this case was the value of the property which Miller failed to convey to Canfield at the time he should have conveyed it.”

In reference to the value of the property which Miller failed to convey to Canfield the testimony was conflicting, and in support of the verdict of $1,585 for Canfield there were fewer witnesses than there were of those whose testimony had a tendency to justify a verdict for a less amount. It was a case wherein the jury upon the evidence might properly have found that the estimate of'defendant’s witnesses as to value was more nearly correct; its finding for the plaintiff was not without ample support. Under such circumstances the verdict will not be disturbed upon the assumption that it was unsupported by the evidence. The suggestion in argument, that the giving of some instructions, and the refusal of others when asked, was erroneous, ■cannot be considered, because no exception is shown to have been taken to the ruling of the court on either of these questions. The judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 99.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of AmSouth
Bancorporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2003 (the Report), I, Sloan D. Gibson, 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:



| | 1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/    SLOAN D. GIBSON 
|Sloan D. Gibson        
|Chief Financial Officer



May 5, 2003



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to AmSouth Bancorporation and will be retained by AmSouth Bancorporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 114 

Expressing the sense of the Congress that a commemorative postage stamp 

should be issued to honor our Nation’s disabled veterans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 29, 2009 

Mr. BUCHANAN (for himself, Mr. CAO, Ms. BORDALLO, Mr. LEE of New York, 

Mr. MCKEON, Mr. ROGERS of Michigan, Mr. ROONEY, Ms. KILPATRICK

of Michigan, Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. CASTLE, Mr. DENT, 

Mr. ALTMIRE, Mrs. BACHMANN, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. LATTA, Mr. 

GOHMERT, Mr. BROWN of South Carolina, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, 

Mr. BARTLETT, Mr. REICHERT, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mrs. 

BLACKBURN, Mr. MACK, Mr. WAMP, Mr. SCHRADER, Mr. SMITH of New 

Jersey, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. HALL of New York, Mr. BOOZMAN, 

Mr. UPTON, and Mr. ABERCROMBIE) submitted the following concurrent 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the Congress that a commemorative 

postage stamp should be issued to honor our Nation’s 

disabled veterans. 

Whereas more than 3,000,000 of the Nation’s veterans are 

currently classified as disabled; 

Whereas disabled veterans risked their lives and sacrificed 

their health in dedicated service to our country; 

Whereas disabled veterans are returning home each day from 

honorably defending our country; and 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HCON 114 IH 

Whereas it is only fitting that our disabled veterans be honored for their selfless service and sacrifices: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that— 

3 (1) a commemorative postage stamp should be 

4 issued by the United States Postal Service to honor 

5 our Nation’s disabled veterans; and 

6 (2) the Citizens’ Stamp Advisory Committee 

7 should recommend to the Postmaster General that 

8 such a stamp be issued. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
For information on EPA and other lead programs, see the web site:

http://www.epa.gov/lead/

NOTIFICATION

U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY OF LEAD-BASED PAINT ABATEMENT ACTIVITIES

Important: A representative of the certified firm may complete this sample form or a similar form when notifying EPA.

Consult the Instructions for Notifying EPA Commencement of Lead-Based Paint Abatement Activities when preparing

abatement notification. Please type or print responses in black or blue ink only.

A. Type of Notification Please indicate the type of notification.

Original Updated Cancellation

B. Emergency Notification No Yes, if yes include documentation showing evidence of an EBL

determination or a copy of the Federal/State/Tribal/Local emergency abatement order.

C. Activity Start and End Dates Specify the dates you will begin and end lead-based paint activity.

If necessary, estimate end date using

your best professional judgment.

Start date: ________________ End date: ________________

Month/Day/Year Month/Day/Year

D. Description of Activity This section relates to the building where abatement work will be performed. 

Type of Building: Single Family Dwelling Multi-Family Dwelling Child-Occupied Facility

Property name (if applicable): ___________________________________

Property Address including apartment and/or unit number(s):

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Street Address City State Zip Code

Square footage/acreage to be abated: _______

Please write a brief description of abatement project to be performed. (Enclose additional paper if necessary)

E. Firm Information

Name: ___________________________________ Firm’s Certification Number: _________________

Address: __________________________________________________________________________________

Street Address City State Zip Code

Phone Number: ________________________________

F. Certified Supervisor’s Information 

Name: ________________________________________________________________________________ 

EPA Certification Number: ____________________________ (Check here if working under interim certification

and enter the identification number from your course completion certificate in this space)

G. Firm Affirmation Please note that this form is incomplete without a signature.

I hereby attest and affirm that the information included on this notification form is true and accurate to the best of my

belief and knowledge. I acknowledge that any approval authorized pursuant to this notification will be subject to

revocation if issuance was based on incorrect or inadequate information that materially affected the decision to issue

the approval.

Name: ___________________________________ Title: ______________________________________

Signature:_________________________________ Date Signed: ________________________________
**1995-  catfish_processing_01.20.95catfish_processing_02.23.95catfish_processing_03.23.95catfish_processing_04.24.95catfish_processing_05.23.95catfish_processing_06.22.95catfish_processing_07.24.95catfish_processing_08.23.95catfish_processing_09.22.95catfish_processing_10.23.95catfish_processing_11.21.95catfish_processing_12.22.95

**
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. RP98-52-037]

Take notice that on May 26, 2000, Williams Gas Pipelines Central, Inc. (Williams), tendered for filing its report of activities regarding collection of Kansas ad valorem taxes.

                    Williams states that this filing is being made in compliance with Commission order issued September 10, 1997 in Docket Nos. RP97-397-000,                     *et al.*                     The September 10 order requires first sellers to make refunds for the period October 3, 1983 through June 28, 1988. The Commission also directed that pipelines file a report annually concerning their activities to collect and flow through refunds of the taxes at issue.                

Williams states that a copy of its filing was served on all parties included on the official service list maintained by the Secretary in this proceeding.

Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in on or before June 8, 2000. 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. 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 (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-14230  Filed 6-6-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 32.2








Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


(Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)








In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of McMoRan Exploration Co. (the “Company”) for the year ending December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Nancy D. Parmelee, as Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.    § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of her knowledge:





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





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





Dated:  March 12, 2010











/s/ Nancy D. Parmelee


Nancy D. Parmelee


Senior Vice President,


Chief Financial Officer and Secretary








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





This certification shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Ohio Department of Health

Evidence-Based Falls Prevention Program Grantee

1 of 2

Goals

The overall purposes of this 3-year grant are to:

• Goal 1: Develop or expand capacity to 

significantly increase the number of 

older adults and adults with disabilities, 

particularly those in underserved 

areas/populations, who participate in 

evidence-based falls prevention 

programs to empower them to reduce 

their risk of falls.

• Goal 2: Enhance the sustainability of 

evidence-based falls prevention 

programs through the implementation 

of robust sustainability strategies.

Strategies and Activities

The Ohio Department of Health (ODH) and its 

partners will: 

• Increase the number of facilitator 

trainings offered for Stepping On, Tai 

Chi for Arthritis, and A Matter of 

Balance in underserved areas with 

special emphasis on persons with 

disabilities and persons living in rural 

areas.

• Partner with Ohio State University 

Extension Offices to implement 

Bingocize virtually in highest 10 burden 

counties.

• Development and implement a 

Sustainability Workgroup within the 

statewide falls coalition.

• Build infrastructure and pilot a regional 

referral network hub in one highburden Area Agency on Aging. 

Proposed Interventions

• Tai Chi for Arthritis 

• A Matter of Balance

• Stepping On

• Bingocize

Partnerships

To achieve the goals of the grant, ODH will 

collaborate with the following key partners:
2 of 2

• Area Agencies on Aging in Ohio

• Becky Rahe, TCA Master Trainer

• Ohio Department of Aging

• Ohio Injury Prevention Partnership

• Ohio Older Adult Fall Prevention 

Coalition

• Ohio State University, Extension OfficeAging Team

• People Working Cooperatively

• TriHealth, Stepping On Master Trainers

• Western Kentucky University

• Wisconsin Institute for Healthy Aging

Anticipated Results 

The ODH and its partners propose to achieve 

the following results: 

• Engage 5,611 older adult participants 

through Stepping On, Matter of 

Balance, Tai Chi for Arthritis, and 

Bingocize.

• Achieve 3,934 participant completers. 

• Expand access to evidence-based 

balance and mobility programs in 10 

high burden counties in Ohio.

• Create a referral network model to be 

implemented in one high risk AAA 

region.

• Offer facilitator trainings and technical 

support that leads to sustainable 

programs in high-burden areas with 

underserved populations.

Contact:

Tiffany Boykins

Ohio Department of Health

tiffany.boykins@odh.ohio.gov

For more information: 

Administration for Community Living 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Washington, DC 20201

http://www.acl.gov
Argued and submitted August 29, 1991,

reversed and remanded September 16, 1992,

reconsideration denied November 18, 1992,

petition for review pending 1993

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Appellant, v.*MARK CARLYLE WOODLEY, *Respondent.*

(CRO-0357-16; CA A67389)

837 P2d 562

Jas. Adams, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.

John P. Daugirda, Eugene, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Roost & Daugirda, Eugene.

Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Rossman and De Muniz, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*296PER CURIAM

The state appeals an order, ORS 138.060(3), granting defendant’s motion to suppress the results of field sobriety and breath tests in this driving under the influence of intoxicants case. We reverse and remand.

Officer Chapman, suspecting that defendant was driving under the influence of intoxicants, stopped him. The officer asked defendant to perform field sobriety tests, but did not warn him of the consequences of refusal. Defendant performed the tests anyway. On the basis of his performance, the officer concluded that he was under the influence of intoxicants and arrested him. Defendant took a breath test after his arrest.

In *State v. Trenary,*114 Or App 608, 836 P2d 739 (1992), we held that the advice of consequences is intended to encourage a driver to take the field sobriety tests and is not a precondition to giving the tests. The officer properly relied on the results in forming his decision to arrest defendant. The trial court erred by granting defendant’s motion to suppress the results of the field sobriety and breath tests.

Reversed and remanded.
TS-CKHI02

Attachment #4

Pt. 2, Sec. A, 1d

Manufacturing and Processing Informatio n on the New Chemical Substance at

Industrial Sites Controlled by the Submitter
#### Ramon CORRALES ALFARO; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-71180.

Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 10, 2004.*

Decided May 20, 2004.

Ramon Corrales Alfaro, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

Maria Socorro Rivas Gutierrez, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, CAC — District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Emily A. Radford, Esq., Blair T. O’Connor, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Ramon Corrales Alfaro and his spouse Maria Socorro Rivas Gutierrez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) February 13, 2003 decision denying their motion to reconsider the *124BIA’s August 20, 2002 order affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. *Cano-Merida v. INS,*311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). We dismiss the petition in part, and deny in part.

Petitioners contend that the BIA failed to address their argument that the IJ did not consider if they qualified for other forms of relief. This contention lacks merit because Petitioners failed to identify the potential relief the IJ allegedly did not consider. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (“A motion to reconsider shall state the reasons for the motion by specifying the errors of fact or law in the prior Board decision and shall be supported by pertinent authority.”); *Moran-Enriquez v. INS,*884 F.2d 420, 422 (9th Cir.1989) (“IJs are not expected to be clairvoyant; the record before them must fairly raise the issue.”). Thus, the BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied Petitioners’ motion to reconsider.

Petitioners also contend that the IJ violated their due process rights by pressuring them to choose between two types of voluntary departure without explaining the consequences of the choice even though they were clearly confused and were not represented by counsel. This claim lacks merit because Petitioners fail to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the IJ’s conduct. *See Cano-Merida,*311 F.3d at 965 (requiring prejudice).

We lack jurisdiction over the BIA’s August 20, 2002 order because Petitioners did not petition for review of that order within the requisite time period. *See Narayan v. INS,*105 F.3d 1335 (9th Cir.1997) (order).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.