alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                                   AS ADDED BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


    In connection with the Quarterly Report of Greater Atlantic Financial Corp.
(the "company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, David E. Ritter Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as added by ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

A.   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
     as of and for the period covered by the Report.





                                         By: /s/ David E. Ritter
                                         -----------------------
                                         David E. Ritter
                                         Senior Vice President and
                                         Chief Financial Officer


                                         Date: February 17, 2009
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory

2 000 Traverwood Drive Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105

- 2498

March 27 , 2012

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: D iscussion with Rolls Royce Regarding the Leadtime Associated the Proposed

Aircraft Engine Tier 6 NOx Production Cutoff

— January 6 , 2011

FROM: Richard S. Wilcox , Environmental Scientist

Assessment and Standards Division

Office of Transportation and Air Quality U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

TO: The Air and Radiation Docket

Docket No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2010

- 0687

We held a conference call on January 6 , 2012 with representative s of Rolls Royce (RR )

to discuss a public comment submitted by the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) and the

General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) o n our Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for new aircraft engine NOx emission standards and other requirements (July 27, 2011, 76 FR 45012). The comment ers expressed a concern that there may be inadequate leadtime for the Federal Aviation Authority ( FAA ) to form ally recognize Tier 6 compliance for the numerous existing engine models before the January 1, 2013 effective date of the production cutoff

. 1

Attendi ng the call for EPA were Glenn Passavant , John Mueller, and myself. Attending for the

FAA w as Ralph I ovinel li

. Attending for RR were Paul Madden and Andrew Baker

.

Rolls Royce indicated that they certify their engines solely with the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). Also, that EASA has already certificated all of their engine models,

except one, as co mpliant with the Tier 6 standards. Based on this, we concluded that RR is unaffected by the leadtime concerns expressed by AIA and GAMA that specifically pertain to engine certification by the FAA

.

1 U.S. EPA, “Summary and Analysis of Comments: Control of Air Pollution from Aircraft and Aircraft Engines,” Office of Transportation and Air Quality

, EPA

- 420

- R

- 12

- 011

. A copy of this document is in docket number EPA

HQ

- OAR

- 2010

- 0687.
EXHIBIT
32.2



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 Nustate Energy Holdings, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2016 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Kevin Yates, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1.
The Report 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.



July
18, 2016



|By: | /s/
    Kevin Yates                                                     | 
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|    | Kevin
    Yates                                                         | 
|    | Chief
    Financial Officer, principal financial and accounting officer | 



A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise
adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.
No. 11-8505.

#### Fisher *v.*Vizioncore, Inc., et al.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.4


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, Jay C. Horgen, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer 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/ JAY C. HORGEN


Jay C. Horgen


Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4406 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4406

   To require that a monthly statement of costs charged against the 
 Official Mail Allowance for persons entitled to use the congressional 
   frank be kept and made available to the public, and to reduce the 
        amount of that allowance for any Member of the House of 
                            Representatives.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 12, 1994

Mr. Goodlatte introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require that a monthly statement of costs charged against the 
 Official Mail Allowance for persons entitled to use the congressional 
   frank be kept and made available to the public, and to reduce the 
        amount of that allowance for any Member of the House of 
                            Representatives.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS.

    Section 311 of the Legislative Appropriations Act, 1991 (2 U.S.C. 
59e) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(3)--
                    (A) by inserting ``(A)'' before ``shall include''; 
                and
                    (B) by striking ``frank.'' and inserting ``frank, 
                and (B) shall make available to the public a monthly 
                statement (based solely on data provided for that 
                purpose by such Committee) of costs charged against the 
                Official Mail Allowance for each person entitled to use 
                the congressional frank.''; and
            (2) in subsection (e)(2)(B)(i) by striking ``3'' and 
        inserting ``1.5''.

SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

    This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall apply with 
respect to sessions of Congress beginning after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 32.1


                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 MDI Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company")on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2004 (the "Periodic
report"), I, Todd A. Spence, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d);
        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/ Todd A. Spence

Todd A. Spence
Chief Executive Officer
November 12, 2004



                                       19
No. 11-9161.

#### In re Richards.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed *in forma pau-peris [ante,*p. 920] denied.
No. 11-1253.

#### Yufa *v.*Kappos, Director, Patent and Trademark Office.

C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### § 22.801 Scope.

The rules in this subpart govern the licensing and operation of air-ground stations and systems. The licensing and operation of these stations and systems is also subject to rules elsewhere in this part and in part 1 of this chapter that generally apply to the Public Mobile Services. In case of conflict, however, the rules in this subpart govern.

[70 FR 19309, Apr. 13, 2005]
§ 101.527 Construction requirements for 24 GHz operations. ( a ) Each licensee must make a showing of “substantial service” within ten years of its license grant. “Substantial service” is a service which is sound, favorable, and substantially above a level of mediocre service which just might minimally warrant renewal during its past license term. Until January 1, 2023, “substantial service” assessment will be made at renewal pursuant to the provisions and procedures set forth in § 1.949 of this chapter.
( b ) Until January 1, 2023, each licensee must, at a minimum file: ( 1 ) A report, maps and other supporting documents describing its current service in terms of geographic coverage and population served to the Commission. The report must also contain a description of the licensees' investments in its operations. The report must be labeled as an attachment to the renewal application; and
( 2 ) Copies of all FCC orders finding the licensee to have violated the Communications Act or any FCC rule or policy; and a list of any pending proceedings that relate to any matter described in this paragraph (b)(2).
( c ) Failure to demonstrate that substantial service is being provided in the service area will result in forfeiture of the license, and the licensee will be unable to regain it.
( d ) The frequencies associated with incumbent authorizations, licensed on a SMSA basis, that have cancelled automatically or otherwise been recovered by the Commission will automatically revert to the applicable EA licensee.
[65 FR 59360, Oct. 5, 2000, as amended at 82 FR 41549, Sept. 1, 2017]
No. 10-10932.

#### Johnson *v.*Ryan, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                                   AS ADDED BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


    In connection with the Quarterly Report of Greater Atlantic Financial Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Carroll E. Amos, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as added by ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

A.   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
     as of and for the period covered by the Report.



                                        By: /s/ Carroll E. Amos
                                        -----------------------
                                        Carroll E. Amos
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer


                                        Date: May 12, 2006
§ 27.1172 Dispute Resolution Under the Cost-Sharing Plan. ( a ) Disputes arising out of the cost-sharing plan, such as disputes over the amount of reimbursement required, must be brought, in the first instance, to the clearinghouse for resolution. To the extent that disputes cannot be resolved by the clearinghouse, parties are encouraged to use expedited Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedures, such as binding arbitration, mediation, or other ADR techniques.
( b ) *Evidentiary requirement.* Parties of interest contesting the clearinghouse's determination of specific cost-sharing obligations must provide evidentiary support to demonstrate that their calculation is reasonable and made in good faith. Specifically, these parties are expected to exercise due diligence to obtain the information necessary to prepare an independent estimate of the relocation costs in question and to file the independent estimate and supporting documentation with the clearinghouse.
#### § 50-203.12 Effective date.

The amendments to subpart A shall become effective upon publication in the Federal Register May 3, 1996; Provided, however, That in any case where a hearing has begun or has been completed prior to said publication, the proceeding shall be conducted pursuant to the rules of practice in effect at the time the proceeding was initiated unless the parties stipulate in writing or orally for the record that the proceeding be conducted in accordance with §§ 50-203.1 to 50-203.12.

[61 FR 19988, May 3, 1996]
scai-ex1054_315.htm



 

 

 

Exhibit 10.54

[Letthead]

 

April 15, 2016

 

 


		
	
Mr. Kenneth R. Goulet

1113 Real Quiet Lane

Waxhaw, NC 28173

 
	
 




Dear Ken:

 

We would like to set forth the terms of your compensation as a director on the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Surgical Care Affiliates, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“SCA”), and such other subsidiaries of SCA as the Board may reasonably request from time to time.  The terms of this letter agreement (this “Agreement”) will be effective as of your appointment to the Board, expected June 1, 2016 (the “Effective Date”).

 

I.Annual Board of Directors Compensation

 

For your service as a Board member, you will receive (a) an annual cash retainer of $60,000, payable in equal quarterly installments of $15,000 in arrears within 30 days after the end of each quarter of service (if you serve part of a quarter, the payment will be prorated based on the number of weeks in the quarter served and paid within 30 days of the termination of your service), and (b) $90,000 in the form of restricted stock units (“RSUs”) of SCA, pursuant to a Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement.  The initial RSU grant will occur as soon as practicable after the Effective Date and will be effective for purposes of vesting as of the Effective Date.  Thereafter you shall receive $90,000 in the form of RSUs of SCA in March of each year, subject to your continuing to serve on the Board on each such date.  The RSUs will vest ratably over a two-year period (i.e., 50% vested 12 months after the grant and 100% vested 24 months after the grant), subject to your continuing to serve on the Board through such date.

 

II.Attendance at Board Meetings

 

You will be expected to use your reasonable best efforts to attend all Board meetings, and you will be expected to attend a minimum of three quarterly Board meetings each year in person. Otherwise, you may attend such meeting by telephonic or other electronic means.  Reasonable expenses actually incurred by you in traveling to the Board meetings shall be reimbursed by SCA upon presentation of such documentation as SCA may reasonably request.

 

III. Reelection to the Board

 

Your continued service on the Board will be subject in all respects to the provisions of the organizational documents of SCA.




 



 

Sincerely,

 

 

SURGICAL CARE AFFILIATES, INC.

 

By:  /s/ Richard L. Sharff, Jr.

Name:  Richard L. Sharff, Jr.

Its:  EVP & General Counsel

 

ACCEPTED:

 

Kenneth R. Goulet

 

Signature:  /s/ Kenneth R. Goulet

 

Date:  April 15, 2016

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**820 KA 10-01431** 
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CARNI, LINDLEY, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOSEPH G. SHAFFNER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

DOMINIC PAUL CANDINO, BUFFALO, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Allegany County Court (Thomas P. Brown, J.), rendered January 13, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the first degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of burglary in the first degree (Penal Law § 140.30 [2]). Upon “considering all the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding [defendant’s] waiver” of the right to appeal, we agree with defendant that the record fails to demonstrate that the waiver was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered ( People v Seaberg , 74 NY2d 1, 11; see People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 256). Thus, we consider the merits of his challenge to the severity of the sentence ( cf. Lopez
, 6 NY3d at 255). Contrary to defendant’s contention, however, the sentence is not rendered unduly harsh or severe by the fact that his codefendant received a lesser sentence ( see People v Whitehead , 49 AD3d 1242), or by the fact that defendant was offered a lesser sentence as part of an earlier plea bargain. The sentence otherwise is not unduly harsh or severe. To the extent that defendant’s contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at sentencing survives his guilty plea, we conclude that it lacks merit ( see People v LaCroce , 83 AD3d 1388, 1388, lv denied 17 NY3d 807). Defendant “receive[d] an advantageous plea and nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel” ( People v Ford
, 86 NY2d 397, 404).

Entered: June 29, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **1 -**  **1113**

ERWIN B. PATTERSON, JR. , P laintiff

─ Appell ant ,
v. TOWNE BANK; WILLIAM A. COPELAND; WILLIAM T. HODSDEN; ROBERT HENRY BURGER; ROBERT L. SAMUELS, JR.; CITY OF NORFOLK , VIRGINIA; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; CITY OF CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA; RAYMOND A. JACKSON , Defendant s ─ Appell ees .

**No. 11**  **- 1117** 

ERWIN B. PATTERSON, JR., Plaintiff

– Appellant,

v. TEIDE ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED; SARA A. JOHN; STUART GORDON; J OHN C. LUMPKIN; JOHN C. LUMPKIN, P.C.; JON AHERN; SYKES, BOURBON, AHERN & LEVY P.C.; JOSEPH FRANKLIN VERSER; LEONARD C. HEATH, JR.; CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY; TOWNE MORTGAGE; TOWNE BANK; WILLIAM A. COPELAND; WILLIAM T. HODSDEN , Defendants

– Appellees.2 **No. 11**  **- 1231** 

ERWIN B. PATTERSON, JR., Plaintiff

– Appellant

v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; TEIDE ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED; STUART GORDON; SARA A. JOHN, Esq.; JOHN C. LUMPKIN, Esq.; JOHN C. LUMPKIN P.C.; JOHN AHERN, Esq.; JOSEPH FRAN KLIN VERSER, Esq.; LEONARD C. HEATH, JR., Esq.; CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY; TOWNE

- MORTGAGE; TOWNE BANK; WILLIAM COPELAND; WILLIAM T. HODSDEN , Defendants

– Appellees.

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Eastern District o f Virginia , at Norfolk
. Rebecca Beach Smith; Raymond A. Jackson , District Judge s . ( 2 : 10

- c v - 00 43 7

- RBS

- FBS; 2:10

- cv 00434

- RBS

- FBS; 2:10

- cv - 00614

- RBS

- FBS)

Submitted : June 30 , 2011 Decided: July 5, 2011

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN , and WYNN , Circuit Judg e s .
Affirm ed by unpublished per curiam opinion
.
Erwin B. Patterson, Jr. , Appellant Pro Se
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated cases , Erwin B. Patterson, Jr., appeals the district court ’ s order s dismissing his civil complaints without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We have reviewed the record s and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Patterson v. Towne Bank , No. 2:10

- cv - 00437

- RBS

- FBS; Patterson v. Teide Enters
. , Inc. , No. 2:10

- cv - 00434

- RBS

- FBS; and Patterson v. United States , No. 2:10

-

cv - 00614

- RBS

- FBS (E.D. Va. Nov. 23, 2010; Nov. 5, 2010; and
Jan. 12, 2011) . We dispense with oral arg ument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.1526 Further proceedings. ( a ) Ordinarily, the determination of an award will be made on the basis of the written record. However, on request of either the applicant or Bureau counsel, or on her own initiative, the presiding officer may order further proceedings, such as an informal conference, oral argument, additional written submissions or, as to issues other than excessive demand or substantial justification, an evidentiary hearing. Such further proceedings shall be held only when necessary for full and fair resolution of the issues arising from the application, and shall be conducted as promptly as possible. Whether or not the position of the agency embodied an excessive demand or was substantially justified shall be determined on the basis of the administrative record, as a whole, which is made in the adversary adjudication for which fees and other expenses are sought.
( b ) A request that the presiding officer order further proceedings under this section shall specifically identify the information sought or the disputed issues and shall explain why the additional proceedings are necessary to resolve the issues.
[47 FR 3786, Jan. 27, 1982, as amended at 52 FR 11653, Apr. 10, 1987; 61 FR 39899, July 31, 1996; 85 FR 63184, Oct. 6, 2020]