alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report of Duke Realty Limited Partnership (the “Partnership”) onForm 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Matthew A. Cohoat, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer ofthe General Partner, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

(2)   The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof the operations of the Partnership.
|        | /s/                            | Matthew A. Cohoat |   |
|--------|--------------------------------|-------------------|--------|
|   | Matthew A. Cohoat              |
|   | Executive Vice President and   |
|   | Chief Financial Officer of the |
|   | General Partner                |
|   | Date:                          | March 12, 2007    |
|        |                                |                   |        |  |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwiseadopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic versionof this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to DukeRealty Limited Partnership, and will be retained by Duke Realty LimitedPartnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

----
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4214

To amend chapter 83 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that the

2 percent reduction in annuity for each year a Federal employee is

under 55 years of age at the time of retiring be eliminated if the

separation is due to a reduction in force.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 14, 1994

Mr. APPLEGATE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

A BILL

To amend chapter 83 of title 5, United States Code, to

provide that the 2 percent reduction in annuity for each

year a Federal employee is under 55 years of age at

the time of retiring be eliminated if the separation is

due to a reduction in force.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF REDUCTION FOR EMPLOYEES

4 SEPARATED DUE TO A REDUCTION IN FORCE.

5 The first sentence of section 8339(h) of title 5,

6 United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘executive.’’

7 and inserting ‘‘executive or under section 8336(d)(1).’’.
2

•HR 4214 IH

1 SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

2 The amendment made by section 1 shall take effect

3 on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply

4 with respect to any separation the effective date of which

5 is on or after such date.

Æ
#### § 105-8.154 Program accessibility: Exceptions.

Sections 105-8.150, 105-8.152, and 105-8.153 do not require GSA to take any action that it can demonstrate would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a program or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens. In those circumstances where GSA personnel believe that the proposed action would fundamentally alter the program or activity or would result in undue financial and administrative burdens, the agency has the burden of proving that compliance would result in such alteration or burdens. The decision that compliance would result in such alteration or burdens must be made by the Administrator or his or her designee after considering all resources available for use in the funding and operation of the conducted program or activity, and must be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion. If an action would result in such an alteration or such burdens, the agency shall take any other action that would not result in such an alteration or such burdens but would nevertheless ensure that individuals with handicaps receive the benefits and services of the program or activity.
Exhibit 32.3


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Affiliated Managers Group, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Sean M. Healey, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:





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




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







Date: March 28, 2014





/s/ SEAN M. HEALEY


Sean M. Healey


Chief Executive Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-16-00321-CR

Roy Gene NEWMAN,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13-2536-CR-C

The Honorable William Old, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 13, 2016

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Appellant was sentenced on June 15, 2015. Appellant’s notice of appeal was therefore due on 

July 15, 2015. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). Appellant did not file his notice of appeal until May 11, 

2016.

A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke this court’s jurisdiction. Slaton v. State, 

981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1996). A late notice of appeal may be considered timely so as to invoke our jurisdiction if 

(1) it is filed in the trial court within fifteen days of the last day allowed for filing; (2) a motion for 
04-16-00321-CR

- 2 -

extension of time is filed in the court of appeals within fifteen days of the last day allowed for 

filing the notice of appeal; and (3) the court of appeals grants the motion for extension of time. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. Because appellant did not satisfy these requirements, we ordered him to 

show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. No such response was 

filed. 

This appeal is therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.1

PER CURIAM

Do not publish

 1

Additionally, the clerk’s record, which contains a trial court certification stating this is a plea-bargain case and the 

defendant has no right of appeal, shows this is a plea bargain case and appellant has no right to appeal. See TEX. R. 

APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Thus, even if a timely notice of appeal had been filed, this appeal would be subject to dismissal 

under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d). See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d).
# AGENCY:

 Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Department of the Treasury.

# ACTION:

 Notice.

# SUMMARY:

 This is Supplement No. 11 to the Treasury Department Circular 570; 1999 Revision, published July 1, 1999, at 64 FR 35864.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

 Surety Bond Branch at (202) 874-7102.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

 A Certificate of Authority as an acceptable surety on Federal bonds is hereby issued to the following Company under 31 U.S.C. 9304 to 9308. Federal bond-approving officers should annotate their reference copies of the Treasury Circular 570, 1999 Revision, on page 35889 to reflect this addition: Suretec Insurance Company. Business address: 10000 Memorial Drive, Suite 330, Houston, TX 77024. Phone: (713) 812-0800. Underwriting limitation b/: $307,000. Surety licenses c/: TX. Incorporated in: Texas.

Certificates of Authority expire on June 30 each year, unless revoked prior to that date. The Certificates are subject to subsequent annual renewal as long as the companies remain qualified (31 CFR Part 223). A list of qualified companies is published annually as of July 1 in Treasury Department Circular 570, with details as to underwriting limitations, areas in which licensed to transact surety business and other information.

The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet at http:/www.fms.treas.gov/​c570/​index.html. A hard copy may be purchased from the Government Printing Office (GPO) Subscription Service, Washington, DC, Telephone (202) 512-1800. When ordering the Circular from GPO, use the following stock number: 048000-00527-6.

Questions concerning this Notice may be directed to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Financial Accounting and Services Division, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 6A04, Hyattsville, MD 20782.

Dated: January 12, 2000.

Wanda J. Rogers,

Director, Financial Accounting and Services Division, Financial Management Service.

[FR Doc. 00-1623 Filed 1-21-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810-35-M
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 11
                    AMERICAN INDEMNITY FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                                AND SUBSIDIARIES

                    COMPUTATION OF FULLY DILUTED NET INCOME
                     PER COMMON AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                SIX MONTHS    SIX MONTHS     THREE MONTHS  THREE MONTHS
                                                  ENDED         ENDED           ENDED         ENDED
                                                06-30-97      06-30-96        06-30-97      06-30-96
                                                ---------     ----------      ---------     ----------

<S>                                             <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>      
PRIMARY EARNINGS PER SHARE

  Weighted average shares of common
  stock outstanding                             1,960,910      1,947,539      1,962,410      1,947,860

  Stock options (treasury stock method) (1)         1,636          8,134          1,636          8,134
                                                ---------     ----------      ---------     ----------

  Weighted average shares outstanding
  for primary earnings per share
  computation                                   1,962,546      1,955,673      1,964,046      1,955,994
                                                =========     ==========      =========     ==========


                NET INCOME (LOSS)               $    0.07     $    (0.05)     $    0.20     $    (0.60)
                                                =========     ==========      =========     ==========


FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE

  Weighted average shares of common
  stock outstanding                             1,960,910      1,947,539      1,962,410      1,947,860

  Stock options (treasury stock method) (1)         1,636          8,639          1,636          8,639
                                                ---------     ----------      ---------     ----------

  Weighted average shares outstanding
  for fully diluted computation                 1,962,546      1,956,178      1,964,046      1,956,499
                                                =========     ==========      =========     ==========


                NET INCOME (LOSS)               $    0.07     $    (0.05)     $    0.20     $    (0.60)
                                                =========     ==========      =========     ==========
</TABLE>


(1)  This calculation is submitted in accordance with Regulation S-K item
     601(b)(11) although not required by footnote 2 to paragraph 14 of APB
     Opinion No. 15 because it results in dilution of less than 3%.
§ 51-7.1 Purpose and scope. ( a ) *Purpose.* This part implements the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and provides for the implementation of those provisions identified in 40 CFR 1507.3(b) of the regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) published pursuant to NEPA.
( b ) *Scope.* This part applies to all actions of the Committee for Purchase from Persons who are Blind or Severely Disabled which may affect environmental quality in the United States.
[56 FR 48986, Sept. 26, 1991, as amended at 59 FR 16777, Apr. 8, 1994]
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of ALLEGHENY ENERGY, INC. (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers
knowledge, that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                 |  |  |  |                                            
|---------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------
|                 |  | 
|                 |  |  |  | /s/    PAUL J. EVANSON                     
|November 4, 2004 |  |  |  | Paul J. Evanson Principal Executive Officer
RICHARD GOODMAN, DDS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE 

ADMINISTRATION,

Appellee.

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. 1D16-3447

_____________________________/

Opinion filed August 16, 2017.

An appeal from the Agency for Health Care Administration.

Elizabeth Dudek, Secretary.

Bernard M. Cassidy of Lubell & Rosen, Fort Lauderdale, for Appellant.

Andrew T. Sheeran, Assistant General Counsel, Agency for Health Care 

Administration, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, OSTERHAUS, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
No. 10-11120.

#### Graham *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
EX-10.1(f)


 EXHIBIT 10.1(f) 

Appendix A to Employment Letter dated January 26, 2017 

Executive: Kurt MacAlpine 

Introductory Paragraph: 
 WTAM – Executive Vice
President-Head of Global Distribution 
 WTI – Same 

Employment Agreement dated May 1, 2015 
 Paragraph 1:

 $300,000 
 Paragraph 3(a): 

None. Paragraph 3(a) is inapplicable to the named Executive. 

Paragraph 3(b): 
 July 1, 2015, January 27,
2016 and January 25, 2017 
 Paragraph 14: 
 Chief
Executive Officer 
 Paragraphs 4(j) and 14: 

Indemnification Agreement dated January 26, 2017
§ 302-2.101 When may we authorize reimbursement for relocation expenses? You may authorize reimbursement for relocation expenses: ( a ) When you have determined that an eligible individual's relocation is in the best interest of the Government as specified in § 302-1.1 of this chapter; and
( b ) Only after an eligible individual has signed a service agreement to remain in service for the period specified in § 302-2.14.
[86 FR 73681, Dec. 28, 2021]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 122 (Friday, June 23, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39121-39122]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15886]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation Service


Notice of Availability

AGENCY: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.

[[Page 39122]]


ACTION: Notice of Availability of proposed changes and new conservation 
practice standards in Section IV of the South Dakota Technical Guide 
(SDTG) of the NRCS in South Dakota for review and comment.

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

SUMMARY: It is the intention of the NRCS in South Dakota to issue 
revised conservation practice standards in Section IV of the SDTG for 
the following practices: Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management (644), 
Upland Wildlife Habitat Management (645), Wildlife Watering Facility 
(648), and Wetland Restoration (657). Also, it is the intention of the 
NRCS in South Dakota to issue new conservation practice standards in 
Section IV of the SDTG for the following practices: Wetland Enhancement 
(659), Wetland Creation (658), Shallow Water Management for Wildlife 
(646), Early Successional Habitat Development/Management (647), 
Restoration and Management of Declining Habitats (643), and Riparian 
Herbaceous Cover (390).

DATES: Comments on this notice must be received on or before July 24, 
2000.

ADDRESSES: All comments concerning the proposed conservation practice 
standards changes should be addressed to: Dean Fisher, State 
Conservationist, NRCS, 200 Fourth Street SW, Huron, South Dakota 57350. 
Copies of these standards will be made available upon written request.

    Dated: June 7, 2000.
Dean Fisher,
State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Huron, 
South Dakota 57350.
[FR Doc. 00-15886 Filed 6-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-16-P
§ 302-9.300 When am I eligible for transportation of my POV within CONUS at Government expense? You are eligible for transportation of your POV within CONUS at Government expenses when: ( a ) You are an employee who transfers within CONUS in the interest of the Government; or
( b ) You are a new appointee or student trainee relocating to your first official station within CONUS.
No. 11-9126.

#### Bonilla *v.*Wainwright, Warden.

C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Presidential Determination No. 2000-24 of June 16, 2000

# Suspension of Limitations Under the Jerusalem Embassy Act

# Memorandum for the Secretary of State

Pursuant to the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 7(a) of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-45) (the “Act”), I hereby determine that it is necessary to protect the national security interests of the United States to suspend for a period of 6 months the limitations set forth in sections 3(b) and 7(b) of the Act.

You are hereby authorized and directed to transmit this determination to the Congress, accompanied by a report in accordance with section 7(a) of the Act, and to publish the determination in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                    .

This suspension shall take effect after transmission of this determination and report to the Congress.

[FR Doc. 00-15956 Billing code 4710-10-M
020P16

#### Ricardo L. Bailey v. Ford Motor Company; Ford Motor Credit Company, LLC; and Kathleen Burns, Individually

Pit’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA15-9)

Denied
No. 11-9258.

#### Hamilton *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit
32.1











Certification
of Chief Executive Officer





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned
officer of Tanger Properties Limited Partnership (the “Operating
Partnership”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge,
that:





(i)           the
accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Operating Partnership for the
year ended December 31, 2008 (the “Report”) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable,
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(ii)           the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Operating
Partnership.





Date:  February 27,
      2009
              /s/
      Steven B. TangerSteven
      B. Tanger
                President
      and Chief Executive Officer
                Tanger
      GP Trust, sole general partner of the
Registrant
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7289

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

LAMONDES WILLIAMS, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

James K. Bredar, District Judge. (1:11-cr-00162-JKB-1; 1:15-cv-01436-JKB) 

Submitted: April 20, 2017 Decided: April 27, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Lamondes Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Paul E. Budlow, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Paul Michael Cunningham, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Lamondes Williams seeks to appeal from the district court’s order denying relief 

on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The court’s denial of relief is not appealable 

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When 

the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the 

constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the 

dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of 

the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williams has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
#### § 300-1.1 What is the FTR?

The FTR is the regulation contained in 41 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Chapters 300 through 304, which implements statutory requirements and Executive branch policies for travel by Federal civilian employees and others authorized to travel at Government expense.
No. 10-11197.

#### Simmons *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
§ 302-3.207 Am I eligible to receive relocation allowances for overseas assignment and return travel? You may be eligible to receive relocation allowances for overseas assignment and return travel if you are: ( a ) An employee transferring to, from, or between official stations OCONUS; or
( b ) A new appointee to a position OCONUS and at the time of your appointment your residence is in an area other than your post of duty.
No. 10-11166.

#### Achha *v.*Wisconsin.

Ct. App. Wis. Certio-rari denied.