alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

**EXHIBIT      32.5**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO § 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY      ACT OF 2002**

|   | (1) | the                Report fully complies with the requirements of § 13(a) or 15(d) 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 1, 2007 | By:    | /s/                W. Douglas Hobbs           |
|------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------|
|                               |   | W.                Douglas Hobbs               |
|                               |   | President                and                  |
|                               |   | Chief                Executive Officer        |
|                               |   | Texas-New                Mexico Power Company |
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

National Business Aviation Association, Krueger Aviation, 

Inc., Harrison Ford, Justice Aviation, Kim Davidson 

Aviation, Inc., Aero Film, Y ouri Bujko, James Ross, 

Wonderful Citrus LLC and Aircraft Owners and Pilots 

Association 

Complainants 

v. 

City of Santa Monica, California 

Respondent 

Docket No. 16-14-04 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the above referenced 

complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted Airport Enforcement 

Proceedings, 14 CFR, part 16. Pursuant to 14 CFR, part 16, subpart B, the date by which the Final 

Agency Decision will be issued in this matter is hereby extended to on or about August 1, 2016. 

An extension of time is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in this case. 

ii~Jl.?J_ 

Eduardo A. Angeles 

Associate Administrator 

for Airports 

. j Uri€, ;/_d J U) /It; 

Y Date 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 22, 2016, I caused to be placed in the United States mail (first class 

mail, postage paid) a true copy of the Notice of Extension of Time, addressed to: 

FOR COMPLAINANT 

Richard K. Simon, Esq. 

1 700 Decker School Lane 

Malibu, CA 90265 

rsimon3@verizon.net 

FOR RESPONDENT 

Marsha Jones Moutrie 

Joseph Lawrence 

Lance S. Garns 

I van Campbell 

Santa Monica City Attorney's Office 

1685 Main Street, Room 310 

Santa Monica, CA 90401 

G. Brian Busey 

Paul Varnado 

James Sigel 

Morrison & Foerster LLP 

2000 Pennsylvania A venue, NW 

Washington, DC 20006 

Zane O. Gresham 

Morrison & Foerster LLP 

425 Market Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Copy to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

FAA Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, 

AC0-100
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

August 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131319 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 131319 

 COA: 268739 

Ingham CC: 05-000809-FH

ANTOINE JUARDINE OWENS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 11, 2006 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

Kelly, J., would grant leave to appeal for the reasons in her dissenting statement in 

People v Conway, 474 Mich 1140 (2004). 

s0821 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

August 29, 2006 

 Clerk
#### § 392.13 [Reserved]
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23-A



                                     CONSENT


                  As independent petroleum and natural gas consultants, we
hereby consent to the filing of this Letter Report dated January 23, 1998 in its
entirety as an Exhibit to the 1997 Annual Report of Columbia Energy Group, to
the Securities and Exchange Commission on Form 10-K, and any Registration
Statement of Columbia Energy Group, relating to the issue of securities to the
public during 1997; to the quotation or summarization of portions of this Letter
Report, subject to our approval of the related page(s) of the document(s), in
the 10-K, the Prospectus included in said Registration Statement(s) or the 1997
Annual Report to Stockholders; and, subject to approval of the related page(s)
of the document(s), to the use of our name and the reliance upon our authority
as experts in said Annual Report to Stockholders, Form 10-K and Prospectus(es)
and in Part II of said Registration Statement(s). We have no interest of a
substantial or material nature in Columbia Energy Group, or in any affiliate,
nor are we to receive any such interest as payment for the preparation of this
Letter Report; we have not been employed for such preparation on a contingent
fee basis; and we are not connected with Columbia Energy Group, or any affiliate
as a promoter, underwriter, voting trustee, director, officer, employee, or
affiliate.





                                                             RYDER SCOTT COMPANY
                                                             PETROLEUM ENGINEERS


Houston, Texas
January 23, 1998
# Esper: U.S. continues to deploy, reposition troops in Middle East

/ Published Jan. 7, 2020
WASHINGTON, 

                A U.S. Marine with 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines, assigned to the Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force-Crisis Response-Central Command (SPMAGTF-CR-CC) 19.2, stands post during the reinforcement of the Baghdad Embassy Compound in Iraq, Jan. 4, 2020. The SPMAGTF-CR-CC is a quick reaction force, prepared to deploy a variety of capabilities across the region. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Sgt. Kyle C. Talbot)            

                The reinforcement of the Baghdad Embassy Compound            

SHARE IMAGE:

Download Image

Image Details

Photo By: Sgt. Kyle Talbot

VIRIN: 200104-M-ZX256-175
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.A

                           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 for the period ending
December 31, 2002, of El Paso CGP Company (the "Company") as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ronald
L. Kuehn, Jr., Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, certify (i)
that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                               /s/ RONALD L. KUEHN, JR.
                                          --------------------------------------
                                                   Ronald L. Kuehn, Jr.
                                                Chairman of the Board and
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                              (Principal Executive Officer)

                                          June 25, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to El Paso CGP Company and will be retained by El Paso CGP Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 3

Authorizing the Speaker to appoint a committee to notify the President

of the assembly of the Congress.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 3, 2001

Mr. ARMEY submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

Authorizing the Speaker to appoint a committee to notify

the President of the assembly of the Congress.

1 Resolved, That a committee of two Members be ap2 pointed by the Speaker on the part of the House of Rep3 resentatives to join with a committee on the part of the

4 Senate to notify the President of the United States that

5 a quorum of each House has assembled and Congress is

6 ready to receive any communication that he may be

7 pleased to make.

Æ
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MIGUEL ANGEL OCHOA-FUENTES,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-71951

Agency No. A088-769-298

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 22, 2015** 

Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Miguel Angel Ochoa-Fuentes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal. We dismiss the petition for

review.

FILED

APR 28 2015

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).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary denial of cancellation

of removal for failure to establish the requisite hardship, see 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir. 2009),

and Ochoa-Fuentes has not set forth a colorable constitutional claim or question of

law that would invoke our jurisdiction, see Mendez-Castro, 552 F.3d at 978 (any

challenge to an IJ’s discretionary determination must present a colorable

constitutional claim or question of law in order for this court to exercise

jurisdiction).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

2 11-71951
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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.
 Dated: November 3, 2010
    
    /s/ Ben M. BrighamBen M. Brigham
Chief Executive Officer, President and
Chairman of the Board
#### George Stanley v. The State.

No. 1567.

Decided June 24, 1898.

Witness—Competency—Convict.

Under provisions of Penal Code, article 27, an accused person is termed a convict after final condemnation by the highest court of resort which has jurisdiction of his case, and to which he may have thought proper to appeal. Held, a witness is not disqualified because of a conviction for felony until sentence has been passed upon and accepted by him; or, if he has appealed, until the judgment against him has been affirmed.

*483Appeal from the District Court of San Jacinto. Tried below before Hon. L. B. Hightower,

Appeal from a conviction for murder in the second degree; penalty, ten years imprisonment in the penitentiary.

The indictment charged appellant with the murder of Jack Lawson, on the 8th of July, 1897, by shooting him with a gun.

There is no statement of facts in the record.

No brief for appellant.

*Mann Trice,*Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellant was convicted for murder in the second degree, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of ten years; hence this appeal.

The record does not contain a statement of the facts. A bill of exceptions was reserved to the action of the court permitting Tom Fitze te -testify against appellant. As the ground for this objection, it is stated that said Fitze was convicted during that term of the court in two cases, each being a felony; that these convictions occurred about eight days before he was permitted to testify against appellant, and no motion for a new trial had been made in either case. The court states, in connection with this bill, and in explanation thereof, that the witness had not been sentenced in either case, and had not had counsel to defend him, and had himself asked the court to defer passing sentence upon him until he could secure the services of an attorney to file motions for new trial. This request was granted by the court. This action of the court was not erroneous. Article 27, Penal Code, provides: “An accused person is termed a convict after final condemnation by the highest court of resort which, by law, has jurisdiction of his case, and to which he may have thought proper to appeal.” It has been held that under this statute an accused person is not a convict until sentence has been passed upon and accepted by him, or, if he sees proper to prosecute an appeal from the sentence, he would not be a convict until the judgment against him should be affirmed. Hntil he becomes a convict in fact, either by accepting sentence, or the judgment against him has been affirmed, he would be a competent witness. See Arcia v. State, 26 Texas Crim. App., 193; Woods v. State, 26 Texas Crim. App., 490; Jones v. State, 32 Texas Crim. Rep., 135; Evans v. State, 35 Texas Crim. Rep., 485.

The other questions suggested for consideration pertain exclusively to the facts, and, as before stated, the evidence is not before us. We can not, therefore, revise the questions. The judgment is affirmed.

*Affirmed.*
**Exhibit 31.1****OFFICER CERTIFICATION**I, Joseph M. O’Donnell, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Artesyn Technologies, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-159(f)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting./s/ Joseph M. O’Donnell
§ 37.133 Subscription service. ( a ) This part does not prohibit the use of subscription service by public entities as part of a complementary paratransit system, subject to the limitations in this section.
( b ) Subscription service may not absorb more than fifty percent of the number of trips available at a given time of day, unless there is non-subscription capacity.
( c ) Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, the entity may establish waiting lists or other capacity constraints and trip purpose restrictions or priorities for participation in the subscription service only.
1210-AB32-2-1606.html[7/26/2015 8:53:22 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 12, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jxx-2zsc

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-2103

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: K. Craig Keate

General Comment

The American investor has the personal responsibility for their investments and receives the outcomes of their

 investment decisions whether good or bad. As such they deserve the widest possible choice of investment

 options available to them without government intervention and oversight. Government interference in these

 choices will eventually lead to government control over investments that will limit pursuit of life, liberty and

 happiness.
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0997.html[7/22/2015 6:08:45 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvc-pn12

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-0997

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Harold Blackmore

Address:

PO Box 1406

Lumberton, NC, 28359

Email: h_blackmore@bellsouth.net

Phone: 910-739-2520

General Comment

I want the Federal government to stay out of my business especially my IRA's and 401K. I can plan my own

 retirement without any help from the government. In fact there really isn't much that the government does well

 or efficiently. Leave my retirements alone!!!
#### § 633.1 Purpose.

This part implements 49 U.S.C. 5327 regarding oversight of major capital projects. The part provides for a two-part program for major capital projects receiving Federal financial assistance. First, subpart B discusses project management oversight, designed primarily to aid FTA in its role of ensuring successful implementation of Federally-funded projects. Second, subpart C discusses the requirement that, to receive Federal financial assistance for a major capital project for public transportation under Chapter 53 of Title 49, United States Code, or any other provision of Federal law, a recipient must prepare a project management plan approved by the Administrator and carry out the project in accordance with the project management plan.
WILLIAM JOHNSON,

Appellant,

v.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 

REVENUE,

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. 1D14-3057

_____________________________/

Opinion filed March 16, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.

Stanley H. Griffis, III, Judge.

Willam Johnson, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and William H. Branch, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, SWANSON, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
Exhibit 10.25Description of the 2006 Executive Incentive Plan of Artesyn Technologies, Inc.     The 2006 Executive Incentive Program (EIP) is an annual executive bonus program designed toincentivize management to achieve specified performance objectives. Each executive participating inthe plan has a targeted incentive award based on competitive practice that represents a statedpercentage of the executive’s base salary. There are four performance criteria for the 2006 EIP,incorporating both internal and external performance measurements. For internal performance, theEIP incorporates three financial criteria — revenue growth, earnings before interest, taxes,depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”) improvement, and cash improvement, as compared to fiscalyear 2005. For external performance, the Compensation Committee set one performance criterion thatmeasures the Company’s revenue growth over 2005 relative to a peer group of selected competitors.Each of the four criteria is weighted as a percent of the total incentive as follows: revenuegrowth (40%), EBITDA improvement (35%), cash flow improvement (10%) and revenue growth versus peers(15%). Each of the performance criteria has a threshold, target and maximum payout level. Noincentive is paid for performance below threshold. Payment at target is 100% and payment at maximumis 200%. In addition, there is a cap related to the maximum aggregate incentive payment under theplan, equal to 10% of 2006 EBITDA.     Eligibility to participate in the EIP, payment of bonus amounts and other material terms ofthe Plan are described in the Current Report on Form 8-K filed by the Company on February 21, 2006.All descriptions of the EIP are qualified by reference to the EIP, a copy of which is attached asExhibit 10.24 to this Annual Report.
#### § 577.3 Application.

This part applies to manufacturers of complete motor vehicles, incomplete motor vehicles, and replacement equipment. In the case of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, compliance by either the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle, any subsequent manufacturer, or the manufacturer of affected replacement equipment, shall be considered compliance by each of those manufacturers.