alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 
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 Hamptons Luxury Homes, Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Frank Dalene, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S. C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 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. May 15, 2007 /s/ Frank Dalene Frank Dalene Chief Financial Officer, Vice President and Secretary
§ 510.10 Supplementation of responses to process. ( a ) A person, sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, or other entity which has provided NHTSA with information under this part, which information was complete and accurate at the time the information was given to NHTSA, is not required to supplement that information in the light of after acquired information, except: ( 1 ) The person or entity to whom the process is addressed shall supplement the response with respect to any question directly addressed to the identity and location of persons having knowledge of information obtainable under this part.
( 2 ) The person or entity to whom the process is addressed shall seasonably amend a prior response if that person or entity obtains information upon the basis of which the person or entity knows that the response was incorrect when made or the person or entity knows that the response, though correct when made, is no longer true and the circumstances are such that a failure to amend the response is in substance a knowing concealment.
( b ) The requirement to supplement information set forth in paragraph (a) of this section terminates when: ( 1 ) The compulsory process stated that it was issued in connection with a contemplated rulemaking action, and a final rule is issued on that subject or a notice is issued announcing that the rulemaking action has been suspended or terminated.
( 2 ) The compulsory process stated that it was issued in connection with an enforcement investigation, and the investigation is closed.
( 3 ) The compulsory process does not state that it is issued in connection with a specific rulemaking action or enforcement investigation, and 18 months have passed since the date of the original response.
( c ) This section in no way limits NHTSA's authority to obtain supplemental information by specific demands through the means specified in § 510.3.
Multinational Task Force Completes Exercise in P-8 Flight over Arabian Gulf
 
  By U.S. Naval Forces Central Command Public Affairs
  A multinational naval coalition that monitors and patrols key waterways in the Middle East completed a naval exercise over the Arabian Gulf, July 26, with representatives from Bahrain, the United Kingdom and the United States. The 11-nation coalition, International Maritime Security Construct (IMSC), conducted exercise Sentinel Shield aboard a U.S. Navy P-8A Poseidon aircraft that patrolled waters near the Strait of Hormuz. The aircraft practiced airborne reconnaissance and surveillance while participants demonstrated interoperability. Sentinel Shield is a recurring exercise series led by IMSC’s operational arm, Coalition Task Force Sentinel, to enhance communication and coordination between partner naval forces. “I am pleased by the outcome of this month’s exercise,” said United Kingdom Royal Navy Commodore Peter Laughton, commander for IMSC and the task force. “We are strongest when we leverage our regional partnerships. Operating as a coalition highlights our collective commitment to maintaining regional maritime security.” The exercise supports multinational efforts led by the United States to increase the rotation of forces patrolling in and near the Strait of Hormuz with partners following a spate of merchant vessel seizures by Iran three months ago. “We are working across the coalition to proudly deliver our mission of deterrence and reassurance,” said Laughton. “Collaboration among IMSC nations through Sentinel Shield exercises remains more essential than ever.” IMSC was formed in July 2019 in response to increased threats to merchant mariners transiting international waters in the Middle East. The coalition’s operational task force was established four months later to deter state-sponsored malign activity and reassure the merchant shipping industry in the Bab al-Mandeb and Strait of Hormuz. The coalition’s partner-nations include Albania, Bahrain, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom and the United States.
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0657.html[7/21/2015 8:09:53 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jva-51jx

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0657

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: T F

Organization: Freedom Works

General Comment

I urge the DOL to cease & decist immediately regarding Its plans to regulate and restrict my 401K. I know what

 is best for me & my family, the government has no business telling me how to spend MY money. This is a

 nation that was founded on the idea that our government is a government that is governed BY AND FOR THE

 PEOPLE. Please refrain from infringing on my God given rights & liberties.

Sincerely,

T
**Exhibit 24-25**

**POWER OF ATTORNEY**

**KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS** that I, **Thomas J. Ridge** do hereby appoint John W. Rowe and Paul Bonney, or either ofthem, attorney for me and in my name and on my behalf to sign the annual Securities and Exchange Commission report on Form 10-K for 2007 of PECO Energy Company, together with any amendments thereto, to be filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission, and generally to do and perform all things necessary to be done in the premises as fully and effectually in all respects as I could do if personally present. 

**Thomas J. Ridge**

**DATE: February 1, 2008**
#### Commonwealth *v.*Filer, Appellant.

February 24, 1915:

Opinion by

Head, J.,

This appeal presents precisely the same questions we have just disposed of in the case of Commonwealth ex rel. v. Shecter, in which an opinion has this day been filed, ante, page 38.

For the reasons there given we dismiss the assignments of error and affirm the order or decree of the municipal court from which this appeal is taken.

Order affirmed.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-11-00702-CV

Joseph K. Rensin and Edison Worldwide, LLC, Appellants

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 419TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GV-10-000102, HONORABLE STEPHEN YELENOSKY, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellants have filed an agreed motion to dismiss their appeal, explaining that the

parties have reached a settlement of their dispute. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See

Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a).

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Puryear and Pemberton

Dismissed on Agreed Motion

Filed: December 14, 2012
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

Supreme Court Cause No. DA-22-0358

DAVID LOCKHART AND DOREEN 

LOCKHART,

Appellants/Cross-Appellees,

vs.

WESTVIEW MOBILE HOME PARK, 

LLC,

Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION 

OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF

The Court, having reviewed the Appellee/Cross-Appellant’s Motion for 

Extension of Time to File Brief, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee/Cross-Appellant is granted a 30 

day extension of time to file its response brief, this period is up to and including 

December 28, 2022.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 30 2022

11/30/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0358
**Exhibit 32**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

The undersignedcertify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that:

 

(1)  The accompanying QuarterlyReport on Form 10-QSB for the period ended April 30, 2004, fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

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

 
| Date:  June 11, 2004 |                    |
|---------------------------|-------------------------|
|                      |                    |
|                      |                    |
| /s/ Joseph C. Christenson |                    | /s/ Timothy C. Clayton |   |
| Joseph C.  Christenson    | Timothy  C. Clayton     |
| President                 | Chief Financial Officer |
|                           |                         |  |  |

 

----
----

(2004/C 84 E/0169)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4021/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 January 2004)

Subject:   Support for research in Portugal

The Operational Plan for Science, Technology and Innovation is the main source of funding for R&D projects in Portugal, with 50 % of the relevant funds coming from the Community.

However, the Portuguese institutions and centres which depend on the regular receipt of funds for R&D projects approved by the Foundation for Science and Technology are currently experiencing severe problems, as the Community funds concerned have not been transferred. The situation is serious, in view of the very considerable needs of research projects in Portugal.

Can the Commission state:

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2004)

In the context of the Third Community Support Framework (CSF), support for Research and Development (R&D) in Portugal is mainly provided by the Science, Technology, Innovation Operational Programme (POCTI) and, to a lesser extent, by the Information Society Operational Programme (POSI).

Following national and Community audits, which identified certain irregularities in the management of the POCTI programme, the Portuguese authorities have decided to suspend the certification of payments to be presented to the Commission under this programme until appropriate corrective action has been taken.

Given the importance of research in the context of regional development, the Portuguese authorities and the Commission are — in the framework of the mid-term review of the Portuguese Community Support Framework — currently discussing possible modifications aiming at strengthening the innovation aspects of the CSF.

Outside the context of the CSF, R&D can also be financed through the Research and Technological Development (RTD) Framework Programmes. The funds for the framework Programmes are not allocated by Member State and are subject to competitive tenders.

----
#### § 655.13 [Reserved]
# USS Monterey Seizes Illicit Weapons in the North Arabian Sea

/ Published May 8, 2021
NSA BAHRAIN, 
The guided-missile cruiser USS Monterey (CG 61) seized an illicit shipment of weapons from a stateless dhow in international water of the North Arabian Sea on May 6-7, 2021.

USS Monterey and its embarked U.S. Coast Guard Advanced Interdiction Team (AIT) discovered the illicit cargo during a routine flag verification boarding conducted in international water in accordance with customary international law.

The cache of weapons included dozens of advanced Russian-made anti-tank guided missiles, thousands of Chinese Type 56 assault rifles, and hundreds of PKM machine guns, sniper rifles and rocket-propelled grenades launchers.  Other weapon components included advanced optical sights. 

The original source and intended destination of the materiel is currently under investigation.

The materiel is in U.S. custody awaiting final disposition.

Assessment of the findings will be an interagency effort.

Monterey provided more than 36 hours of over watch and security for its boarding teams and the interdicted vessel throughout the two-day operation.

After all illicit cargo was removed, the dhow was assessed for seaworthiness, and after questioning, its crew was provided food and water before being released.

The U.S. Navy conducts routine patrols in the region to ensure the free flow of commerce for legitimate traffic, disrupt the transport of illicit cargo that often funds terrorism and unlawful activity, and safeguard the rules-based international order.
Order entered July 5, 2013 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00843-CV 

IN RE CHARLES MITCHELL, Relator 

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-11-14792-C 

ORDER 

Based on the Court’s opinion of today’s date, we DENY relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus as to the trial court and DISMISS the petition as to the court reporter. We ORDER

that relator bear the costs of this original proceeding. 

/s/ MOLLY FRANCIS 

 JUSTICE
Editorial Note on Part 389
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 389 appear at 66 FR 49873, Oct. 1, 2001.

§ 389.39 Direct final rulemaking procedures. A direct final rule makes regulatory changes and states that those changes will take effect on a specified date unless FMCSA receives an adverse comment by the date specified in the direct final rule published in the Federal Register. ( a ) *Types of actions appropriate for direct final rulemaking.* Rules that the Administrator determines to be non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse public comments may be published in the final rule section of the Federal Register as direct final rules. These include non-controversial rules that: ( 1 ) Make non-substantive clarifications or corrections to existing rules;
( 2 ) Incorporate by reference the latest or otherwise updated versions of technical or industry standards;
( 3 ) Affect internal FMCSA procedures such as filing requirements and rules governing inspection and copying of documents;
( 4 ) Update existing forms; and
( 5 ) Make minor changes to rules regarding statistics and reporting requirements, such as a change in reporting period (for example, from quarterly to annually) or eliminating a type of data collection no longer necessary.
( b ) *Adverse comment.* An adverse comment is a comment that FMCSA judges to be critical of the rule, to suggest that the rule should not be adopted, or to suggest that a change should be made to the rule. Under the direct final rule process, FMCSA does not consider the following types of comments to be adverse: ( 1 ) Comments recommending another rule change, unless the commenter states that the direct final rule will be ineffective without the change;
( 2 ) Comments outside the scope of the rule and comments suggesting that the rule's policy or requirements should or should not be extended to other Agency programs outside the scope of the rule;
( 3 ) Comments in support of the rule; or
( 4 ) Comments requesting clarification.
( c ) *Confirmation of effective date.* FMCSA will publish a confirmation rule document in the Federal Register, if it has not received an adverse comment by the date specified in the direct final rule. The confirmation rule document tells the public the effective date of the rule.
( d ) *Withdrawal of a direct final rule.* ( 1 ) If FMCSA receives an adverse comment within the comment period, it will either publish a document withdrawing the direct final rule before it becomes effective and may issue an NPRM, or proceed by any other means permitted under the Administrative Procedure Act.
( 2 ) If FMCSA withdraws a direct final rule because of an adverse comment, the Agency may issue a notice of proposed rulemaking if it decides to pursue the rulemaking.
[75 FR 29916, May 28, 2010, as amended at 84 FR 71733, Dec. 27, 2019; 86 FR 17296, Apr. 2, 2021]
Docket: EBSA-2010-0007 

Request for Information Regarding Lifetime Income Options for Participants and Beneficiaries in 

Retirement Plans 

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0007-0001 

Request for Information Regarding Lifetime Income Options 

Document: EBSA-2010-0007-DRAFT-0061 

Comment on FR Doc # N/A 

Submitter Information 

Name: john c mcfarlane 

Address: 

lusby, MD, 

Organization: me 

General Comment 

i do NOT believe the federal government has any business forcing a citizen to manage, allocate or utilize 

their personal retirement funds [ defined benefit OR defined contribution ] in any particular way 

WHATSOEVER ! 

what is essentially being discussed here is the nationalization of private property by the federal 

government in order to facilitate a 'guaranteed lifetime stream of income'. 

well, thank-you for your interest and concern, but no, i do NOT want your help, thank-you very much. 

i'm reminded of stanley moon talking to the devil in the original production of 'bedazzled' [1967] when 

the devil is telling stanley he can help him get all that he wants and stanley says 'no thanks george, i'd 

rather do it on my own' 

PUBLIC SUBMISSION 

As of: April 07, 2010 

Received: March 30, 2010 

Status: Pending_Post 

Tracking No. 80acbc3c 

Comments Due: May 03, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Page 1 of 1

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=Print&PrintId=0900006480acbc3... 4/7/2010
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

WILLIAM SLATTERY,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-50275

D.C. No. 2:04-cr-00950-DDP

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 12, 2014** 

Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

William Slattery appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

the revocation of supervised release and the 24-month sentence imposed upon

revocation. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Slattery’s

counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a

FILED

JUN 17 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Slattery the

opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or

answering brief has been filed. 

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED.

2 13-50275
<Page>


                                                                EXHIBIT 31.1


                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, WILLIAM J. MURPHY, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of COMPUTER HORIZONS;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects, the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
     information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
     subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
     particularly during the period in which this annual report is being
     prepared;

     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
     procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
     annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     (c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness
     of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
     Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

     (a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
     controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
     process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
     registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

     (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
     employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
     controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
annual report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: December 30, 2003

/s/ William J. Murphy
---------------------
WILLIAM J. MURPHY
Chief Executive Officer


                                      73