alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32(e)
                                  CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Mississippi
Power Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, we, the undersigned,
hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the
best of our knowledge and belief, that:

(1)  such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Mississippi Power Company for the
     quarter ended September 30, 2003, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
     Mississippi Power Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, fairly
     presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
     operations of Mississippi Power Company.



                              /s/Michael D. Garrett
                               Michael D. Garrett
                      President and Chief Executive Officer



                             /s/Michael W. Southern
                               Michael W. Southern
                          Vice President, Treasurer and
                             Chief Financial Officer

Date:  November 12, 2003
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO: 21-23103-CV-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES

CASA EXPRESS CORP. as Trustee of

CASA EXPRESS TRUST,

Judgment Creditor, 

v. 

BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF

VENEZUELA,

Judgment Debtor. 

______________________________________/

CASA EXPRESS CORP. as Trustee of

CASA EXPRESS TRUST,

Plaintiff,

v.

RAUL GORRIN BELISARIO, et al.,

Impleaded Defendants.

______________________________________/

ORDER RE: D.E. 193

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Respondents RIM Group Investments Corp., 

RIM Group Investments I Corp., RIM Group Investments II Corp., RIM Group Investments III 

Corp., Posh 8 Dynamic Inc., Planet 2 Reaching Inc., and Raul Gorrin Belisario (“Gorrin”) 

(together, “Respondents”)’s Motion for Clarification of [D.E. 184] Order on Plaintiff/Judgment 

Creditor Casa Express Corp. as Trustee of Casa Express Trust’s (“Casa Express”) Motion to Strike

(hereafter, “Motion for Clarification”) [D.E. 193]. This matter was referred to the undersigned 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 by the Honorable Beth Bloom, United States District Judge [D.E. 

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2023 Page 1 of 2
2

148]. Upon review of the Motion for Clarification, Casa Express’ Response [D.E. 199], and 

Respondents’ Reply [D.E. 203], it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion for Clarification is GRANTED as follows: 

In the Order, the undersigned struck a specified portion of Gorrin’s Declaration, which had been 

submitted in opposition to the Amended Motion for Proceedings Supplementary [D.E. 60]. The 

undersigned found that doing so “would effectuate the concerns underlying the fugitive 

disentitlement doctrine, as Gorrin should not be permitted to deny the criminal allegations against 

him in this civil case while avoiding the Court’s jurisdiction in [U.S. v. Gorrin Belisario, S.D. Fla. 

No. 18-cr-80160-WPD].” See Order [D.E. 184 at 5]. Thus, the scope of the Order is clear on its 

face and the Order does nothing more and nothing less than strike the specified portion of the 

Gorrin Declaration.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida this 5th day of June, 2023.

____________________________________

ALICIA M. OTAZO-REYES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

cc: United States District Judge Beth Bloom

Counsel of Record

Case 1:21-cv-23103-BB Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2023 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32(g)

                                 CERTIFICATION

                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Southern
Power Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2004, we, the undersigned, hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of our individual knowledge and
belief, that:

(1)      such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Southern Power Company for the
         quarter ended June 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
         Southern Power Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2004, fairly
         presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
         of operations of Southern Power Company.



                                              /s/William Paul Bowers
                                                 William P. Bowers
                                       President and Chief Executive Officer



                                               /s/Cliff S. Thrasher
                                                 Cliff S. Thrasher
                                      Senior Vice President, Comptroller and
                                              Chief Financial Officer

Date:  August 5, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 112 (Friday, June 9, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36665-36666]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14672]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[I.D. 060600A]


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce (DoC) has submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for 
collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
    Title: Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Mandatory Catch Reporting.
    Agency Form Number(s): None.
    OMB Approval Number: 0648-0328.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approve collection.
    Burden Hours: 955.
    Number of Respondents: 8,697.
    Average Hours Per Response: 5 minutes per permit holder per fish 
using the call-in system; 10 minutes per permit holder per fish using 
the catch card system.

[[Page 36666]]

    Needs and Uses: As a member of the International Commission for the 
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), the U.S. is required to take 
part in the collection of biological statistics for research purposes. 
In addition to this requirement, the U.S. must abide by the specific 
quota assigned to it by the ICCAT. The mandatory catch reporting 
program provides current information on the vessel owners participating 
in the Atlantic tuna fisheries, thus facilitating the quota monitoring 
necessary to avoid exceeding the quota. It also aids the National 
Marine Fisheries Service in the enforcement of fishery regulations.
    Frequency: On Occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.
    OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker, (202) 395-3897.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Linda Engelmeier, DoC Forms Clearance Officer, 
(202) 482-3272, Department of Commerce, Room 6066, 14<SUP>th</SUP> and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d4b8b1bab3b1b8b9b194b0bbb7fab3bba2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a8c4cdc6cfcdc4c5cde8ccc7cb86cfc7de">[email protected]</span></a>).
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10202, New Executive Office 
Building, 725 17<SUP>th</SUP> Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503.

    Dated: June 2, 2000.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-14672 Filed 6-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### EPHRAIM T. KELLOGG, Administrator, Appellant, *v.*LOREN WERNER, Executor, Respondent.

*Statutory reference*— filing *evidence*— *Rule*43.

On a statutory reference between an executor and a claimant against tbe estate, it is not necessary to file tbe testimony taken before tbe referee.

Appeal from an order made at Speeial Term, denying a motion made by the plaintiff for the confirmation of a referee’s report. The report was made on a statutory reference under the provisions of 2 Revised Statutes, page 89, sections 36 and 37. The confirmation was objected to, on the ground that the testimony should have been signed and filed under the provisions of the third paragraph of rule 39.

*Hale,- Smith c&*Hale, for the appellant.

*R. I. Hand,*for the respondent.

*Per Ouriam:*

We are of opinion that, in the ease of a statutory reference, had between an executor or administrator and a claimant against the estate (under 2 R. S., [m. p.] 89, § 36, etc.), the rule of this court requiring the filing of the testimony taken before the referee (rule 43), does not apply. For this reason the order of the Special Term should be reversed, with ten dollars costs, and printing disbursements, without prejudice to any right of review of the referee’s report.

Present — Learned, P. J., Bocees and Boardman, JJ.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and printing.
Exhibit 32.1


                            RELM WIRELESS CORPORATION


                            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 RELM Wireless Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, David P. Storey, Chief Executive 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.


                                             RELM Wireless Corporation


                                             /s/David P. Storey
                                             -------------------------
                                             David P. Storey
                                             Chief Executive Officer
                                             November 5, 2003
r)oT- OST- Qooo - ^^56= 

CITY OF FLORENCE, ALABAMA 

Office of the Mayor 

CO 

I 

D 

fv5 

February 1, 2011 

Mr. Dennis Devaney, Chief, EAS 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

400 Seventh Street, S.W. - Rm 6401 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

RE: EAS Contract for Northwest AL Regional Airport (MSL) 

Dear Mr. Devaney: 

The City of Florence is pleased to join the other entities in the Shoals area with its 

support for the Northwest Alabama Regional Airport Authority's reconnmendation that 

Gulfstream International Airline fulfill the EAS contract for our airport. With the offer that 

Gulfstream has presented to the Authority, we feel confident that they are the best selection. 

%^:2: ^ 

Sincerely, 

Bobby€. Irons 

Mayor 

Bobby^. Ii 

sm 

PpST Oi-Rct Box 98 'f FniRCNCL, .AL 35631-0098 

TtLti'HONt (256) 760-6400 4. u-ww.florenceal.oi-g -f FAX (256) 760-6388
FeedbackSite MapContact

HOW CAN WE HELP YOU?
		Search for:
	HomeAbout ADRLegislation and Interagency ADR Working GroupReport for the President on Significant Developments in Federal Alternative Dispute Resolution, January 2017 (PDF)External-Facing Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution Services for the PublicConflict Prevention, Management and Resolution Services for the Federal WorkforcePrograms and ContactsResources and GuidanceConflict Prevention, Management and Resolution Resources for Federal ADR ProgramsInteragency ADR Working Group Resource CenterEventsCoalition of Federal Ombuds
Search for:  Saving Costs to Exchange Information

															Home/ADR Resources and Guidance/Guidance/Saving Costs to Exchange Information Saving Costs to Exchange InformationADR2022-02-17T18:52:48-05:00
			
			Saving Costs to Exchange Information**Why Would Litigation be More Expensive**?
Generally speaking, litigation uses formal procedures and rules of evidence to ensure that only reliable, probative, and relevant evidence reaches the judge or jury.  This is important; a rights-based process that uses the power of the government to impose a decision on the losing party should only rely on well-tested information.  Aside from the procedures to test the information, litigation is also a teaching process whereby parties must help the judge or jury learn about the underlying facts, relevant law, and the parties’ positions in order to render a decision.  The testing of evidence and the education process in trial takes time, effort, and expense.   While these procedures cost money, the rights of individuals need to be preserved.

**How Does Mediation or Other Forms of****Assisted****Negotiation Save Money?**
ADR can save money because the parties require less background education about a case than a judge, and they can use their own judgment as to whether they have sufficiently reliable information to settle their own case.  It is very common to have little or no document discovery, depositions, audits, or other formal processes prior to a mediation.  Instead, the parties ask each other for information during their joint sessions and have their documents readily available if needed.  By simplifying and speeding the exchange of relevant information, the parties save procedural expenses.  In fact, the earlier the parties start their ADR process, the more opportunity they have for saving procedural costs. Copyright 2022 ADR.gov | All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use  |  FOIA  |  Section 508
Exhibit 32.2

                            RELM WIRELESS CORPORATION


                            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 RELM Wireless Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, William P. Kelly, Executive Vice 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:

         (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.


                                               RELM Wireless Corporation


                                               /s/William P. Kelly
                                               -------------------------------
                                               William P. Kelly
                                               Executive Vice President and
                                               Chief Financial Officer
                                               July 29, 2004
123 STAT. 1602 PUBLIC LAW 111–14—APR. 23, 2009 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 520: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 155 (2009): 

Mar. 3, considered and passed Senate. 

Mar. 25, considered and passed House. 

Æ 

Public Law 111–14 

111th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the United States courthouse under construction at 327 South Church 

Street, Rockford, Illinois, as the ‘‘Stanley J. Roszkowski United States Courthouse’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. STANLEY J. ROSZKOWSKI UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The United States courthouse under 

construction, as of the date of enactment of this Act, at 327 South 

Church Street, Rockford, Illinois, shall be known and designated 

as the ‘‘Stanley J. Roszkowski United States Courthouse’’. 

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

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the United 

States courthouse referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed 

to be a reference to the ‘‘Stanley J. Roszkowski United States 

Courthouse’’. 

Approved April 23, 2009. 

Apr. 23, 2009 

[S. 520] 


kgrant on POHRRP4G1 with PUBLIC LAW
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-102601, 333-89892, 333-54836, 333-44626, 333-39366 and 333-112912 of
AsiaInfo Holdings, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated January 20, 2004,
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of AsiaInfo Holdings, Inc. for the
year ended December 31, 2003.

/s/ Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
------------------------------
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Hong Kong
March 15, 2004
#### § 203.85 Rehabilitation of Federal flood control projects.

Some sponsors of Federal flood control projects are not required to furnish written assurances of local cooperation, when such assurances already exist from the PCA of the original construction of the project. In lieu of a new PCA, the Corps will notify the sponsor, in writing, of the sponsor's standing requirements. These requirements include such items as LERRD's, costs attributable to deficient or deferred maintenance, removal of temporary works, cost-sharing requirements, and any other requirements contained in § 203.82. The project sponsor must acknowledge its responsibilities prior to the provision of Rehabilitation Assistance. If the existing PCA does not adequately address responsibilities, then a CA will be required.
Hillsborough

No. 7526

#### Gene M. Gregory v. State of New Hampshire, Robert M. Duvall, Commissioner of Labor, Edwards Construction, Inc., and Underwriters Adjusting Company

January 31, 1977

*63Gene M. Gregory, pro se, by brief.

*David H. Souter,*attorney general, and *Anne E. Cagwin,*attorney, waived brief and oral argument for the defendant commissioner.

*Wadleigh, Starr, Peters, Dunn & Kohls,*of Manchester, and *James S. Yakovakis (Mr. Yakovakis*by brief), for the defendants Edwards Construction, Inc., and Underwriters Adjusting Company.

Per curiam.

The question presented is whether the plaintiff is entitled under RSA 281:40 (Supp. 1975) to a review by the labor commissioner of the plaintiff’s workmen’s compensation award more than five years after the plaintiff had accepted the last lump-sum payment. The Trial Court *(King,*J.) dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal from the labor commissioner’s denial of the plaintiff’s petition for review, and the plaintiff excepted.

The plaintiff does not dispute the fact that he had received his last lump-sum payment more than five years before he filed his petition for review, but he asserts that he accepted all the payments under duress.

The list of grounds entitling a person to petition for a review of an award by the labor commissioner and the time within which the grounds may be presented by petition are set forth in RSA 281:40 (Supp. 1975): “Any party in interest . . . may petition the labor commissioner to review ... an award ... by a petition filed . . . not later than the fourth anniversary of the date of . . . the last payment of compensation under such award . . . upon the ground of... undue influence, or coercion.”

The trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s appeal as one barred by RSA 281:40 (Supp. 1975) was a correct application of the statute to the facts of record.

The right to compensation is purely statutory and, while the legislation is to be liberally construed, we cannot read words into it which the legislature did not see fit to insert or which directly contradict its plain language. *Prassas v. Company,*100 N.H. 209, 123 A.2d 157 (1956); *Latour v. Producers Dairy,*102 N.H. 5, *64148 A.2d 655 (1959). *See also Hanchett v. Brezner Tanning Co.,*107 N.H. 236, 221 A.2d 246 (1966). An examination of the entire record, including the transcript, discloses no error and the order is

*Exceptions overruled.*
§ 401.101 Criminal penalty. ( a ) A person who willfully and knowingly violates a regulation shall be fined not more than $50,000 for each violation or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both, and any person who, in the willful and knowing violation of this Act or any regulation issued hereunder, uses a dangerous weapon, or engages in conduct that causes bodily injury or fear of imminent bodily injury to any officer authorized to enforce the provisions of this Act or the regulations issued hereunder, shall, in lieu of the penalties prescribed in this paragraph be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both.
( b ) For the purpose of paragraph (a) of this section, a “person” is deemed to be anyone who ( 1 ) Handles any vessel contrary to the provisions of these regulations or of any rules or directions of the Corporation, or an officer thereof, given under the regulations;
( 2 ) Is a party to any act described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section; or
( 3 ) Is the owner, charterer or master of any vessel by means of which any act described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section is committed.
[39 FR 12746, Apr. 8, 1974, as amended at 47 FR 20582, May 23, 1982]