alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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, 2018 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Nathaniel Dalton, 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: April 1, 2019





/s/ NATHANIEL DALTONNathaniel DaltonChief Executive Officer
UNITE D STATE S O FAMERIC A DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N OFFIC EO FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C . 1 ' i Federa l Aviatio n Administration , *

Complainan t

* V . Crowco n Detectio n Instruments , Ltd. ,

Responden t ******ic***** * + * * + **************:lt*:t:3ic*j( : Judg e [Unassigned ] FA A Docke t [Unassigned ] FA A Cas e No . 2010SO700428 DMSN o . [Unassigned ] /o]^|3^.oQs ^

WITHDRAWA LO FCOMPLAIN T Come s no w th e Complainant , pursuan t t o Sectio n13.21 5 o f

th e Rule s o f

Practic e i nFA A Civi l Penalt y Actions , an di n vie w o f th e submissio no f

achec k for paymen t o f th e civi l penalty an dsettlemen t

reache db y th e parties , hereb y withdraw s th e Complain t i nth e reference dmatter . Ther e will , therefore , b e n o issue s fo r litigatio nfor

th e a s ye t unschedule dhearing . Th e Complainan t request s tha t

th e Administrativ e Law Judg e dismis s th e proceedings . Respectfull y submitte dthis 3rdda y o f March , 2012 .

Geral dA . Elli s Attorne y Offic e o f th e Regional Counsel . Southern Regio n 

# RECEIVE D MAR- 8 201 2 

# HEARIN G DOCKE T

i'- ' !• ' : r . i " 1 • 'CERTIFICAT EO FSERVIC E

I hereb y certif

y tha t thi s Withdrawa l o f

Complain t

ha s bee nsen t

b y CERTIFIE D AN D REGULA RMAI La s mdicate dbelow : Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-430 , Wilbu r

Wrigh t Buildin g Suite 2W100 0 Brian S . Sullivan , Esq . Dinsmor e & Shohl , LL P 25 5 Eas t FifthSt. , Suit e 190 0 Cincinnati , O H 4520 2

MA R 

### 0 2 201 2 Date d
[Cite as State Farm Ins. v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2010-Ohio-4228.]

Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 

65 South Front Street, Third Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215 

614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 

www.cco.state.oh.us 

STATE FARM INS. 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2010-02561-AD 

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert 

ENTRY OF DISMISSAL 

{¶ 1} On February 19, 2010, this court issued an entry requiring the corporate 

entity to obtain counsel, have counsel file a notice of appearance, and file an amended 

complaint. Plaintiff was also ordered to pay the $25 filing fee or to submit a poverty 

statement. Failure to comply with this entry in 30 days would result in a dismissal of this 

case. 

{¶ 2} A check of the docket reveals plaintiff has failed to comply with the court’s 

entry of February 19, 2010. Therefore, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. The 

court shall absorb the court costs of this case. 

 ________________________________ 

 DANIEL R. BORCHERT 

 Deputy Clerk 
Case No. 2010-02561-AD - 2 - ENTRY

Entry cc: 

State Farm Insurance 

A/S/O Scott A. Wells 

P.O. Box 2371 

Bloomington, Illinois 61702 

 

DRB/laa 

Filed 5/5/10 

Sent to S.C. reporter 9/2/10
No. 11-1171.

#### Comenout et al. *v.*Washington.

Sup. Ct. Wash. Certiorari denied.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D

.C. 20460 1W`NR 3

OFFICE OF SOLIDWASTEAND EMERGENCY RESPONSE Mr . James S. Pew Earthjustice 1625 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, D

.C. 20036 Dear Mr . Pew

: Thankyoufor your letters of March 9, 2010 and March 17, 2010, to U .S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, submitted on behalf of community organizations, national environmental and public health groups, regarding EPA's upcoming proposed rule on identification of non-hazardous secondary materials that are solid waste. I also appreciated hearing your concerns when we met on March 10, 2010, and look forward to continuing our dialogue. As you know, the rulemaking for identification of non-hazardous secondary materials that are solid waste will be proposed by April 15, 2010, the same schedule as the court-ordered schedule for the Clean Air Act Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration rule and the Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heater rule. In the non-hazardous secondary materials proposal, on-site burning is one ofseveral combustion scenarios that will be addressed. We will ensure that your letters are entered into the rulemaking docket (EPA-HQRCRA-2008-0329) for consideration as the rule is developed. Again, thank you for your letters. Ifyou have further questions, please contact me or you may contact JimBerlow, in EPA's Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, at (703) 308- 8414 or at berlow

.jim@epa.gov.

Mathy St~islaus

Assistant Administrator

Internet Address (URL) 0 http://www .epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable o Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100%Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper
47029.

#### WISENBAKER v. THE STATE.

(383 SE2d 132)

Clarke, Presiding Justice.

Appellant Wisenbaker was convicted of burglary, armed robbery, and the felony murder of Horace LaCount.1 The underlying felony for *417the felony murder was aggravated assault with a brick. Appellant was found not guilty of malice murder. The evidence at trial showed that LaCount’s death resulted from a depressed skull fracture which was consistent with his being hit on the head with a brick. Several bricks in the area showed traces of blood of the same type as the blood of the victim.

Roger Townsend pled guilty to armed robbery and testified against appellant at trial. Townsend testified that the two went to LaCount’s home to get some money and that appellant struck him with a brick and killed him. The victim was found in the doorway of a chicken pen behind his house. Appellant admitted that he went to LaCount’s house with Townsend to get money and admitted that he was searching for money in LaCount’s house while Townsend acted as lookout. However, he insisted that Townsend hit and killed LaCount with the brick. Townsend admitted that a pair of tennis shoes recovered from his trailer were his. Analysis by the State Crime Lab revealed that the shoes had chicken feathers on them but no blood.

The only issue raised on appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence. Appellant contends that the only evidence that he committed the murder is the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. OCGA § 24-4-8 provides that in felony cases the testimony of an accomplice is insufficient unless corroborated.

> However, the corroborating evidence need not of itself be sufficient to warrant a conviction of the crime charged. [Cit.] Slight evidence from an extraneous source identifying the accused as a participant in the criminal act is sufficient corroboration of the accomplice to support a verdict. [Cit.]

*Reaves v. State,*242 Ga. 542, 543 (250 SE2d 376) (1978). See also *Slaughter v. State,*257 Ga. 104 (355 SE2d 660) (1987); *Castell v. State,*250 Ga. 776 (301 SE2d 234) (1983). Appellant’s own statement is sufficient evidence of his participation in the crime to corroborate the testimony of Townsend.

We find that the evidence in this case is sufficient under the standard set forth in *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979), and sufficient to satisfy the requirements of OCGA § 24-4-8.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*418Decided September 11, 1989.

*Martin & Martin, Harold E. Martin,*for appellant.

*Tommy K. Floyd, District Attorney, Marie R. Banks, Assistant District Attorney, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, C. A. Benjamin Woolf,*for appellee.

1

 The crime was committed on September 3, 1987. Appellant was indicted October 8, 1987. Following a jury trial, appellant was convicted and sentenced March 22, 1988. A motion for new trial was filed March 7, 1988, and denied March 23, 1989. The transcript was certi*417fied September 22, 1988. A notice of appeal was filed April 7, 1989. The case was docketed in this court May 9, 1989, and submitted for decision June 23, 1989.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.1151 Authority to prescribe and collect regulatory fees.

Authority to impose and collect regulatory fees is contained in section 9 of the Communications Act, as amended by sections 101-103 of title I of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-141, 132 Stat. 1084), 47 U.S.C. 159, which directs the Commission to prescribe and collect annual regulatory fees to recover the cost of carrying out the functions of the Commission.

[87 FR 56554, Sept. 14, 2022]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-2911
REGINA K. SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOUTH CAROLINA BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-93-1453-3-OBC) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 28, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Regina K. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Pharr Pearson, Stephen Carrington Mitchell, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, Columbia, South Carolina; Joseph Dawson Shine, SOUTH CAROLINA BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment to the Appellee in this action alleging employment discrimination. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Smith v. South Carolina Budget & Control , No. CA-93-1453-3-OBC (D.S.C. Sept. 28, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Scott Huddleston

, * From the 259 th District Court

of Jones County,

Trial Court No. 011934

.

Vs. No. 11

- 20

- 00 149

- CR * March 11 , 20 2 1

The State of Texas

, * Memorandum Opinion by Trotter , J.

(P anel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter , J. , and Wright, S.C.J.,

sitting by assignment )

(Williams, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion,

the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial

court for fu rther proceedings

.
No. 11-9007.

#### Jones *v.*Illinois.

App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Cer-tiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.1



Section 1350

CERTIFICATION



The undersigned officer hereby certifies that,
to his knowledge, (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of COMFORCE Corporation for the quarter ended March 27, 2005 as to which this Certification is an exhibit fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and (2) the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of COMFORCE Corporation.



Signed May 4, 2005.



/s/ John C. Fanning

---

John C. Fanning,

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer



23
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 4256]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1629]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

Office of the Secretary


Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor Commission; 
Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given in accordance with Section 552b of Title 5, 
United States Code, that a meeting of the Blackstone River Valley 
National Heritage Corridor Commission will be held on Thursday, 
February 3, 2000.
    The Commission was established pursuant to Public Law 99-647. The 
purpose of the Commission is to assist federal, state and local 
authorities in the development and implementation of an integrated 
resource management plan for those lands and waters within the 
Corridor.

    The meeting will convene at 6:00 PM in the Great Hall of the 
Northbridge Town Hall, located on Main Street in Whitinsville, MA 
for the following reasons:
    1. Approval of Minutes
    2. Presentation of FY2000 Development Budget
    3. Senator John H. Chafee Heritage Award
    It is anticipated that about twenty people will be able to 
attend the session in addition to the Commission members.
    Interested persons may make oral or written presentations to the 
Commission or file written statements. Such requests should be made 
prior to the meeting to: Michael Creasey, Executive Director, 
Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor Commission, One 
Depot Square, Woonsocket, RI 02895, Tel.: (401) 762-0250.
    Further information concerning this meeting may be obtained from 
Michael Creasey, Executive Director of the Commission at the 
aforementioned address.

Michael Creasey,
Executive Director BRVNHCC.
[FR Doc. 00-1629 Filed 1-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-RK-P
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4322 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4322

 To amend the Small Business Act to increase the authorization for the 
          development company program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 2, 1994

  Mr. LaFalce (for himself and Mrs. Meyers of Kansas) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Small Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Small Business Act to increase the authorization for the 
          development company program, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
    Section 20(i)(2)(C) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
631(i)(2)(C)) is amended by striking ``$1,200,000,000'' and by 
inserting in lieu thereof ``$1,500,000,000''.

                                 <all>
```
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.423 Oral argument and other proceedings.

In any rulemaking where the Commission determines that an oral argument, hearing or any other type of proceeding is warranted, notice of the time, place and nature of such proceeding will be published in the Federal Register.

[58 FR 66300, Dec. 20, 1993]
No. 11-9040.

#### In re Balzarotti.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
#### § 102-37.95 How will GSA resolve competing transfer requests?

In case of requests from two or more SASPs, GSA will use the allocating criteria in § 102-37.100. When competing requests are received from public airports and SASPs, GSA will transfer property fairly and equitably, based on such factors as need, proposed use, and interest of the holding agency in having the property donated to a specific public airport.
#### § 301-50.1 To whom do the pronouns “I”, “you”, and their variants throughout this part refer?

In this part, the pronouns “I”, “you”, and their variants refer to the employee.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
                                                            Exhibit 27.2

                     TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY, L.P.
                        RESTATED FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE


     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
financial  statements of Time Warner Entertainment  Company,  L.P. for the three
months  ended March 31, 2000 and is  qualified  in its  entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                              0000893657
<NAME>                             TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                       1,000,000

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                         JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                           MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         360
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,503
<ALLOWANCES>                                   685
<INVENTORY>                                  3,197
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,975
<PP&E>                                      10,993
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,285
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              23,940
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,332
<BONDS>                                      6,648
<COMMON>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,821
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                23,940
<SALES>                                      3,311
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,311
<CGS>                                        2,152
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,152
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             144
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                260
<INCOME-TAX>                                    36
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            224
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                      524
<NET-INCOME>                                  (300)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0



</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    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

I, Gary Allen, Interim Chief Financial Officer of Rubio's Restaurants, Inc. (the
"Company"), do hereby 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:

         (a) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter
ended March 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated: May 13, 2003

/s/  Gary Allen
-----------------------------
Gary Allen
Interim Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Rubio's Restaurants, Inc. and will be retained by Rubio's
Restaurants, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### DEC 17 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. RICHARD JOHN INGRAM,

Defendant-Appellant. No. 97-6248 (D.C. No. CIV-97-947-R) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BRORBY , BRISCOE , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Th e case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Petitioner Richard John Ingram seeks to appeal from the district court’s denial of his motion to vacate, set aside, or corre ct his sentence, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court denied the § 2255 motion as untimel y filed, applying United States v. Simmonds , 111 F.3d 737 (10th Cir. 1997). The district court also denied petitioner’s request for a certif icate of appealability, required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253 before this court can consider his appeal. Petitioner reurges his request before this court. After careful consideration of petitioner’s arguments on appeal, we conclude that he has not made a substantial showing that the district court’s decision denied him a constitutional right. See id. Accordingly, petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability is denie d, and this appeal is dismissed. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Wade Brorby Circuit Judge
§ 302-3.219 Is there a limit on how many times I may receive reimbursement for tour renewal travel? ( a ) If you are stationed in a foreign area or in an area other than Alaska or Hawaii, your agency may reimburse you for one overseas tour renewal trip for each time you complete your service agreement, which is related to your post of duty.
( b ) For recruiting and retention purposes of consecutive tours served within Alaska and Hawaii, your agency may reimburse you a maximum of two round trips which must begin within 5 years after the date of your first tour.