alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.1



                      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 Unitrend, Inc.  (The
Company)  on  Form  10-QSB/A  for  the  period  ending  September  30,
2002,  as filed  with the Securities and Exchange Commission  on the
date hereof (the Report), I,  Conrad A.H. Jelinger, Chief  Executive
Officer and Interim 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 fully 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 results of
operations of the Company.

                                 /s/  Conrad A.H. Jelinger
                                 -----------------------------
                                 Conrad A.H. Jelinger
November 13, 2002
                                 Chief Executive Officer, Interim
                                 Chief Financial Officer and
                                 President
```

[107th Congress Public Law 179]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ179.107]

[[Page 116 STAT. 580]]

Public Law 107-179
107th Congress

                                 An Act

 
       To require a report on the operations of the State Justice 
            Institute. <<NOTE: May 20, 2002 -  [H.R. 2048]>> 

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

SECTION 1. REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL ON STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE.

    Section 213 of the State Justice Institute Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 
10712) is amended by striking ``On October 1, 1987'' and inserting ``Not 
later than October 1, 2002''.

    Approved May 20, 2002.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 2048:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107-189 (Comm. on the Judiciary).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 147 (2001):
                                    Sept. 5, considered and passed 
                                        House.
                                                        Vol. 148 (2002):
                                    May 7, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 1 r '~ 1£G-- ) ) ~ 41 2 -/0 

LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION 


PUBLICATION It. REGULATIONS 


BRANCH 

As of: August 20, 2010 

Received: August 09, 2010 PUBLIC Status: Posted

Posted: August 20, 2010 

Tracking No. 80b2c72a SUBMISSION Comments Due: August 16, ~~010 

Submission Type: Web 

Docket: IRS-2010-0010 

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Rules Relating to Status as a Grandfathered 

Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Afforable Care Act 

Comment On: IRS-2010-0010-0001 

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage: Interim Final Rules for Relating to Status as 

a Grandfathered Health Plan under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

Document: IRS-2010-0010-0284 

Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488 

------------------------------------------------------------------..---­

Submitter Information 

Name: Sarah Kunz 

Address: 

Dayton, OH, 

General Comment 

08/09/2010 

Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight 


Department of Health and Human Services 


Attention: OCIIO-9991-IFC 

P.O. Box 8016 


Baltimore, MD 21244-1850 


Re: Interim Final Rule for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Relating to Stctus 

as a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

As a consumer I wish to take this opportunity to formally comment 1m 

the interim final rule regarding health plans and "grandfather" status (Document ID IRS-2010­

0010-0001). 

I believe the consumer protections included as part of the new health care law are vitally 

important and should be extended to as many people as possible. Accordingly, every effort 

should be made to increase the number of individuals covered by the Patient Protection and 

Affordable Care Act (PPACA) via the above regulations. The triggers or conditions that would 

extend these protections to consumers under currently existing "grandfathered" plans should not 

be weakened or reduced in any way. I specifically support the position and detailed comments 

offered by the American Chiropractic Association with respect to the implementation of thesE: 

regulations. 

https:/ Ifdms.erulemaking.netlfdms-web-agency IcomponentlsubmitterInfoCoverPage ?Call=... 8/20/2010
#### § 25.210 Authority to modify agency application forms or formats.

To implement the policies in §§ 25.200 and 25.205, a Federal agency may add a UEI field to information collections previously approved by OMB, with no further approval required.
# Oct. 29: Military airstrikes continue against ISIL terrorists in Syria and Iraq

/ Published Oct. 29, 2014

October 29, 2014

Release #20141035FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

**TAMPA, Fla., Oct. 29, 2014 -** U.S. military forces continued to attack ISIL terrorists in Syria Tuesday and today using fighter and bomber aircraft to conduct eight airstrikes.  Separately, U.S. forces conducted six airstrikes in Iraq Tuesday and today using attack, fighter, and remotely piloted aircraft against ISIL terrorists.

In Syria, eight airstrikes near Kobani destroyed five ISIL fighting positions, a small ISIL unit, six ISIL vehicles, an ISIL-occupied building and an ISIL command and control node.  In Iraq, three airstrikes in the vicinity of Fallujah destroyed three small ISIL units.  Three airstrikes near Sinjar destroyed one small ISIL unit and two ISIL vehicles. All aircraft departed the strike areas safely.  Airstrike assessments are based on initial reports.

The strikes were conducted as part of Inherent Resolve, the operation to eliminate the terrorist group ISIL and the threat they pose to Iraq, the region and the wider international community.  The destruction of ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq further limits the terrorist group's ability to project power and conduct operations. Among the coalition nations conducting airstrikes in Iraq are the U.S., France, the United Kingdom, Australia, Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands.  Coalition Nations conducting airstrikes in Syria include the U.S., Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan and Bahrain.
#### JAMES GOODMAN AND LEWIS MOLNAR, PROSECUTORS, v. FRANK H. EGGERS, JUDGE OF THE FIRST CRIMINAL COURT OF JERSEY CITY, RESPONDENT.

Submitted May 12, 1933

Decided September 27, 1933.

*812Before Justices Case, Bodine aud Donges.

Bor the prosecutor, *Raskin <& Hornstein (Isidore Horn-stein) .*

Bor the respondent, *James A. Hamill (Charles A. Rooney).*

Per Curiam.

The writ brings up for review a conviction of the prosecutors under section 1 of the Disorderly Persons act. *2 Comp. Stat., p.*1926. The prosecutors were in a taxicab when stopped, and had in their possession $4,500 in worthless cashier’s checks used admittedly as a “flash.” They did not appear to have a fixed abode and could not give a good account of themselves.

Section! of the statute relates to paupers, beggars, family deserters, those who practice palmistry, vagabonds and other undesirables. No objection was made to the complaint and the men stood trial. The sufficiency of the charge cannot now be considered. *State*v. *Rosenblum,*102 *N. J. L.*125; 130 *Atl. Rep.*614.

The record indicates that the prosecutors had flown from Washington to Newark to get a check, won in gambling on a Blorida boat, certified. They could give no account of where they were going, and the home addresses which they gave were fictitious. The evidence indicates they were vagabonds. Webster’s new International Dictionary defines a vagabond to be: “One who wanders from place to place, having no fixed dwelling, or, if he has one, not abiding in it; a wanderer, especially such a person who is lazy and generally worthless and without means of honest livelihood.”

Obviously, these men fall within this definition. A conviction under the first section of the act can be sustained. The circumstance that they rode in a cab makes them no less vagabonds than if they went on foot. The big circumstance is that they had no fixed dwelling so far as can be discovered, and went about from place to place without visible means of support. Such persons are an obvious menace. *813The statute was intended as a speedy means of dealing with those who traveled around without a fixed abode and without any visible means of support.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 32-3



Certificate Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 United States Code



The undersigned officer hereby certifies, as to the Report on Form 10-K of Commonwealth Edison Company for the year ended
December 31, 2005, that (i) the report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Commonwealth Edison Company.



|                           |  |  |  |  |  |                       |  |                                                    
|-------------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | --------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------
|                           |  |  | 
|Date:    February 15, 2006 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/    FRANK M. CLARK
|                           |  |  |  |  |  |                       |  | Frank M. Clark Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
#### AUGUSTINE RODRIGUEZ, PLAINTIFF, v. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY, A CORPORATION, AND THE WEST JERSEY AND SEASHORE RAIDROAD COMPANY, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS.

Decided May 17, 1933.

Before Henry H. Eldredge, Circuit Court Judge.

For the plaintiff, *James Mercer Davis.*

For the defendants, Starr, *Summerill ■& Lloyd.*

Eldredge, C. C. J.

Counsel for the plaintiff in the above entitled suit propounded seventeen interrogatories to the defendants, to all or most of which an answer was refused. *376Upon argument, this court held that the first thirteen interrogatories should be answered, the fourteenth was held to be improper, and the fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth were held for further consideration. They are as follows:

“15. Did any servant of either of the defendants make report which concerned the plaintiff herein as of April 27th, 1932?

“16. If any report was made, by whom and to whom was such report made? Attach hereto copy of said report.

“17. If there were more than one report, attach copies of all reports.”

It appears to the court that the only purpose that could be served by the answer to these questions would be a possible use of the reports, if any were made, to impeach the testimony of the person making them should he be called as a witness. Answers to the first thirteen questions seem to cover every other feature of the plaintiff’s case for which such reports might be evidential. There must be some limit beyond which counsel cannot go in prying into his opponent’s ease, and it appears to the court that these questions go beyond that limit.

An order will be made requiring the defendant to answer the first thirteen questions and striking out the fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth questions.
#### Daniel C. Kingsland, Respondent, v. Jane M. Leonard, Appellant.

—Judgment affirmed,

with costs on the opinion of

Larremore, J.,

in the court below.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AP RIL 29, 2015

NO. 03

- 15

- 00212

- CR

Michael Jude Pirie, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 424TH DISTRICT COURT OF BURNET COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PE MBE RTON, AND BOURLAND

DISMISSED ON STATE ’S MOTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction signed by the district court

. The State has

filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. Find ing the motion meritorious, the Cour t grants the motion

and dismisses the appeal. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication

of costs is made.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsOptical control of an 8-element Ka-band phased array using a high-speed optoelectronic interconnectOptical distribution of control signals in electronically steered phased array antennas is being considered. A demonstration experiment is described in which a high speed hybrid GaAs optoelectronic integrated circuit (OEIC) was used to control an eight element phased array antenna. The OEIC, which accepts a serial optical control signal as input and converts it to 16 demultiplexed parallel outputs, was used to control the monolithic GaAs phase shifters of a Ka-band patch panel array antenna. Antenna pattern switching speeds of 2.25 microsec, limited by interface circuitry, were observed.Document ID19900011959Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsRichard, M. A.*(Case Western Reserve Univ. Cleveland, OH., United States)*Claspy, P. C.*(Case Western Reserve Univ. Cleveland, OH., United States)*Bhasin, K. B.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH., United States)*Bendett, M.*(Honeywell, Inc., Bloomington MN., United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1990Subject CategoryElectronics And Electrical EngineeringReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-102550NAS 1.15:102550E-5365Meeting InformationMeeting: 1990 AP-S International SymposiumLocation: Dallas, TXCountry: United StatesStart Date: May 7, 1990End Date: May 11, 1990Sponsors:IEEEAccession Number90N21275Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 506-44-20Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900011959.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
----

----

I Informácie

Komisia

----

Výmenný kurz eura (1)

22. júna 2004

(2004/C 164/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Zdroj: referenčný výmenný kurz publikovaný ECB.

----
#### Rhoda Clark, Respondent, v. The Glens Falls Insurance Company, Appellant.

Order affirmed with costs, on the opinion of Martin, J.. at Special Term.
From: Carol Scelsa [mailto:carol.scelsa@voyafa.com] 

Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 1:10 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: DOL Proposed Fiduciary Rule

I have been a Registered Representative for over 25 years. Even though I do not act as a Fiduciary I have 

always placed the best interest of my clients first. The majority of my clients have less than $100.000.00 

in their retirement accounts and are very much in need of my guidance and assistance. They do not 

want to access their accounts solely on the computer nor do they want to talk to a Customer Service rep 

from another country who is very difficult to understand. They like the fact that I am a constant who 

they can meet with and talk to on a regular basis.

I wish that lawmakers had a fiduciary responsibility to do what’s in the best interest of the citizens of the 

U.S. There are corrupt people all over the world who take advantage of people in every aspect of our 

lives. That is why my relationship with my clients is such an important one. I have known most of these 

people for many years and they trust me.

The new rules if passed in their current form, will make it almost impossible for me to continue on in 

this business. While I believe some steps could be taken to further protect investors these rules seem to 

do just the opposite. The wealthy will always be able to afford the best advice and guidance no matter 

the cost however they are in the minority.

Carol A. Scelsa

Voya Financial

2525 Cabot Drive, Suite 100

Lisle, IL 60532

Ph: 630-245-4036

Fax: 630-245-4057

email: carol.scelsa@voyafa.com

Registered Representative of and securities offered throughVoya Financial Advisors, 

Inc. (member SIPC)

Confidentiality Notice: This email transmission and its attachments, if any, are confidential and 

intended only for the use of particular persons and entities. They may also be work product 

and/or protected by the attorney-client privilege or other privileges. Delivery to someone other 

than the intended recipient(s) shall not be deemed to waive any privilege. Review, distribution, 

storage, transmittal or other use of the email and any attachment by an unintended recipient is 

expressly prohibited. If you are not the named addressee (or its agent) or this email has been 

addressed to you in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply email and permanently 

delete the email and its attachments.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7006

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL CRANDALE WILLIAMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Malcolm J. Howard,

Senior District Judge. (2:95-cr-00009-H)

Submitted: October 17, 2006 Decided: October 20, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Crandale Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Blaise

Hamilton, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Michael Crandale Williams appeals the district court’s

order denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court. United States v. Williams No. 2:95-cr00009-H (E.D.N.C. May 1, 2006). 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
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 Annual Report of Sentex Sensing Technology, Inc., (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending November 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
William R. Sprow, 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 fully 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 results of
                  operations of the Company.

/s/ William R. Sprow
--------------------

William R. Sprow
Chief Financial Officer
June 22, 2005

                                      21
**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 filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of South Jersey
      Gas Company (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      David A. Kindlick, Chief Financial 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, to the best of my knowledge:





(1)           The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 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.








/s/
      David
      A. Kindlick


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


Name:
      David A. Kindlick


Title:
      Chief Financial Officer


August
      9,
      2007
From: Mike Chini [mailto:michaelchini@yahoo.com] 

Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 6:24 PM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: Annuity

NO MORE PONZIS!!!!!!!!!!
§ 604.2 Applicability. ( a ) The requirements of this part shall apply to recipients of Federal financial assistance under the Federal Transit Laws, except as otherwise provided in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section.
( b ) The requirements of this part shall not apply to a recipient transporting its employees, other transit system employees, transit management officials, transit contractors and bidders, government officials and their contractors and official guests, to or from transit facilities or projects within its geographic service area or proposed geographic service area for the purpose of conducting oversight functions such as inspection, evaluation, or review.
( c ) The requirements of this part shall not apply to private charter operators that receive, directly or indirectly, Federal financial assistance under section 3038 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, as amended, or to the non-FTA funded activities of private charter operators that receive, directly or indirectly, FTA financial assistance under any of the following programs: 49 U.S.C. 5307, 49 U.S.C. 5309, 49 U.S.C. 5310, 49 U.S.C. 5311, 49 U.S.C. 5316, or 49 U.S.C. 5317.
( d ) The requirements of this part shall not apply to a recipient transporting its employees, other transit system employees, transit management officials, transit contractors and bidders, government officials and their contractors and official guests, for emergency preparedness planning and operations.
( e ) The requirements of this part shall not apply to a recipient that uses Federal financial assistance from FTA, for program purposes only, under 49 U.S.C. 5310, 49 U.S.C. 5311, 49 U.S.C. 5316, or 49 U.S.C. 5317.
( f ) The requirements of this part shall not apply to a recipient, for actions directly responding to an emergency declared by the President, governor, or mayor or in an emergency requiring immediate action prior to a formal declaration. If the emergency lasts more than 45 days, the recipient shall follow the procedures set out in subpart D of 49 CFR 601.
( g ) The requirements of this part shall not apply to a recipient in a non-urbanized area transporting its employees, other transit system employees, transit management officials, and transit contractors and bidders to or from transit training outside its geographic service area.