alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

I, Nathan Schlenker, Chief Financial Officer of Atlantic Express Transportation Corp. (the ‘‘Company’’), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

| |     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (i) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ‘‘Report’’), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, 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 the Company.

/s/ Nathan SchlenkerNathan Schlenker
Chief Financial Officer


Date: November 13, 2007

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

---
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-0045 

Comment on FR Doc # N/A 

Submitter Information 

Name: Brad E. Garton 

Address: 

Austin, TX, 

Organization: Self 

General Comment 

This is a treasonous idea. I will oppose this with every means at my disposal legal, physical and 

otherwise. The federal government has no right to the savings I have taken a lifetime to accumulate. 

Any elected official who supports such a scheme, I will make it my mission in life to see they never 

spend another day in public office. Any appointed official who supports this should expect to see myself 

and millions of others as soon as it is known whats in this proposal, outside their windows with signs and 

buckets of tar and feathers. Leave my savings alone or suffer the consequences. If there are shortfalls in 

the public coffers, start by cutting spending. I don't need your help, I need you off my back. 

PUBLIC SUBMISSION 

As of: March 01, 2010 

Received: February 22, 2010 

Status: Pending_Post 

Tracking No. 80aa9856 

Comments Due: May 03, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Page 1 of 1

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=Print&PrintId=0900006480aa98... 3/1/2010
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 31, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00363

- CR

Elincharles WILSON, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR7155C Honorable Mary D. Roman, Jud ge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s court

- appointed attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California

, 368 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal, and has informed the appellant of the right to file h is own pro se brief. Nichols v. State , 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State , 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1996, no pet.). The State has filed a letter waiving its right to file an appellee’s brief unless app ellant files a pro se brief. Appellant has timely filed a written request for a copy

of the appellate record to use in preparing a pro se brief. See Kelly v. State

, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that appellant sha ll be promptly provided with a copy of the appellate record. Appellant’s pro se brief is due within thirty (30) days from the date of this

order. See Bruns , 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1. If the appellant files a pro se brief, the State may file a responsive br ief no later than thirty (30) days after the date the appellant’s pro se brief is filed in

this court.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 31st day of October , 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 168 (Thursday, August 31, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 60246]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18790]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: August 31, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
August 22, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 6 to Competitive Product List. Documents are 
available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2023-237, CP2023-240.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2023-18790 Filed 8-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 07, 2015. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, December 07, 2015 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A16D0153. ANTHONY POINTER v. THE STATE.
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: CR141134
From: Christopher D. Brown AICP To: Hicks, Austin@ARB ; Lewis, Monica@ARB ; Sutkus, Carol@ARB Cc: Tim Mitro ; Sondra Spaethe ; Galen Ribellia Subject: FRAQMD Regulation 3.15 Submittal (Arc Coating SCM) Date: Thursday, August 21, 2014 9:14:24 AM

Good morning –

At FRAQMD we have made a slight change to our process on submitting rules to ARB. Because of email file size restrictions we now plan on using Dropbox for all submittal of adopted rules to ARB. This will prevent the need for multiple emails for individual submittals.

Please let me know if the use of Dropbox is not acceptable to ARB.

Below is a link to the District’s Dropbox folder which contains the recently adopted Regulation 3.15 and all the supporting documentation.

· Rule 3.15 SIP Checklist

· Final Rule 3.15

· Final Rule 3.15 LO-SO

· Rule 1.1 – Final (8-1-2011)

· Affidavit of Publication

· Rule 3.15 Resolution

· Workshop & Written Comments

· Rule 3.15 SIP Evaluation Form

· Rule 3.15 Proposed Staff Report

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/t0zhhc9ck6quhhh/AADViEAAprm1yy4QvAbvC56wa

Please contact Galen Ribellia (cc’d) for all technical questions on this regulation. Please contact Sondra Spaethe (cc’d) for all questions related to SIP issues or Air Quality Planning.

Thank you for your time.

Christopher D. Brown AICP Air Pollution Control Officer Feather River Air Quality Management District 1007 Live Oak Blvd., Ste B-3 Yuba City, Ca 95991 Phone 530-634-7659 Fax 530-634-7660 Web www.fraqmd.org
May 12, 2015

Mr. John Cymbalsky

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,

Building Technologies EE

- 5B

1000 Independence Ave. SW

Washington, DC 20585

Dear John

,

At the March 27, 2015 public meeting to discuss the notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR)

regarding amended efficiency standards for residential non

- weatherized gas furnaces and mo bile

home furnaces the slide “Base Case Efficiency Distribution Chart” was presented. At that time

we noted that the informat ion for the years 2010 through 2014 was incorrect. To address this

issue we are providing the following information on n ational annual shipments of non

condensing and condensing residential gas furnaces for 2010 through 2014.

Although this statistical data is not normally publicly available information, in this case we will

allow this information to be in the docket for this rule. If you have any questions about this

information, please contact me.

Respectfully submitted,

Frank A. Stanonik

Chief Technical Advisor Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Total Non

- Condensing 1,143,969 1,157,253 1,185,699 1,363,953 1,407,179

Total Condensing 1,309,310 1,058,907 1,057,698 1,237,807 1,327,534

Total 2,453,279 2,216,160 2,243,397 2,601,760 2,734,713

% Condensing 53% 48% 47% 47% 48.5%
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-19-00364-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 324th District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 324-595838-16

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Gabriel and Wallach, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Wallach

IN THE INTEREST OF H.L., A CHILD
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On October 4, 2019, pro se Appellants, the child H.L.’s parents (Parents), filed 

a notice of appeal from the associate judge’s September 17, 2019 report. Parents 

timely requested a de novo hearing before the referring district court, and that hearing 

was held September 30, 2019, but no resulting order has been signed. This court 

therefore notified the parties that absent a response showing grounds for continuing 

the appeal, this court could dismiss the appeal based on the absence of a final 

judgment or an appealable interlocutory order. In Parents’ response, they indicate 

that they are instead seeking a restricted appeal of the May 30, 2019 final judgment.

Either way, we lack jurisdiction.

We have appellate jurisdiction of appeals from final judgments and from 

interlocutory orders that the legislature has specified are appealable. See Lehmann v. 

Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); see, e.g., Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 

Ann. § 51.014. First, absent some exceptions not applicable here, when a party in a 

family law case files a timely request for a de novo hearing challenging the associate 

judge’s report, that report is not a final judgment or an appealable order. See Tex. 

Fam. Code Ann. §§ 201.015, 201.016; In re C.R-A.A., No. 04-16-00587-CV, 

2016 WL 6238237, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Oct. 26, 2016, no pet.) (per 

curiam) (mem. op.); Graham v. Graham, 414 S.W.3d 800, 801 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.). Accordingly, we do not have jurisdiction over an appeal 

from the associate judge’s September 17, 2019 report.
3

Second, to the extent Parents claim that their notice of appeal is in fact a notice 

of restricted appeal from the May 30, 2019 final judgment, Rule 30 of the Texas Rules 

of Appellate Procedure does not allow parties (like Parents) who participated in the 

hearing resulting in the judgment challenged to file a restricted appeal. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 30; Franklin v. Wilcox, 53 S.W.3d 739, 741 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, no 

pet.) (dismissing attempted restricted appeal for want of jurisdiction when Franklin 

“appeared at the hearing through his attorney” and “participated through his attorney 

in the hearing” by conducting cross-examination). The Rule 30 requirements are 

jurisdictional. In re B.H.B., 336 S.W.3d 303, 305 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2010, pet. 

denied).

Because the associate judge’s September 17, 2019 report is not a final judgment 

or an appealable order and because Parents cannot meet the Rule 30 requirements for 

filing a restricted appeal from the May 30, 2019 final judgment, we dismiss this appeal 

for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. 30, 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

/s/ Mike Wallach

Mike Wallach

Justice

Delivered: December 19, 2019
Exhibit 21.1

As of March 31, 2005, the wholly owned subsidiaries of USURF America, Inc. are
as follows:

            USURF Communications, Inc
            Connect Paging, Inc.
            USURF TV, Inc. (formerly NeighborLync, Inc.)
            USURF Systems and Technologies, Inc.
            UTel, Inc.
            Waveramp, LLC
            Sovereign Partners, LLC

As of March 31, 2005, the subsidiaries of Sovereign Partners, LLC are as
follows:

            Sovereign Pumpkin Ridge, LLC
            Millstone Development, LLC
            Legacy of Shorewood, LLC
            Lighthouse Lending, LLC
            SovCo Holdings, LLLP
            Sovereign Development, LLC
            Colony Ridge Development, LLC
            Colorado River KOA, LLC
            Foxhill Development, LLC
            Heritage Condominiums, LLC
            Kendal Hills, LLC
            Mountain View at T-Bone Ranch, LLC
            Pinnacle T-Bone Condominiums, LLC
            Riverplace Condominiums, LLC
            Riverview Condos Waukesha, LLC
            Settler's Chase Development, LLC
            Settler's Commercial Development, LLC
            Sovereign Companies, LLC
            Sovereign Realty
            Sovereign Homes of Colorado
            Sovereign Telecommunications
            Sovereign Equipment
            Sovereign Parker Enterprises, LLC
            SR Condominiums, LLC
            Patio Homes at T-Bone Ranch, LLC
            Stone Gate Summit, LLC
[No. 2087.]

#### The Board of County Commissioners of Yuma County v. Pendleton.

Fees and Salaries — District Attorneys — Trials Before Justices of the Peace.

The allowance or disallowance of fees of a district attorney for the trial or examination of any criminal case before a justice of the peace is wholly within the discretion of the board of county commissioners, and is not reviewable by the courts, and where the board had disallowed such fees it was error for the district court to allow them and enter judgment therefor against the county.

*Appeal from the District Court of Yuma Coumty.*

Mr. Jo. A. Fowler, for appellant.

Gunter, J.

Appellee sued to recover fees for services as district attorney in criminal trials and examinations be-' fore a justice of the peace; his bill therefor.had been disallowed by appellant; judgment below was for appellee.

*160Mills’ Ann. Stats., vol. 3, sec. 1905, as to this, a third-class county, provides: ‘ ‘ That the county commissioners may in their discretion disallow any charges against the county for fees or costs of dis-. trict attorneys, or other persons, for the trial or examination of any criminal case before any justice of the peace * * *

This section was construed in *Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County v. Sanders,*27 Colo. 122, 59 Pac. 402, the court saying: “ The obvious intent of our act unquestionably was to give to county commissioners, and its true meaning is, that they have the discretion, not reviewable, to disallow the statutory fees and costs of criminal trials and examinations claimed by all persons for whom fees are therein prescribed, and in whose favor costs are taxed

As the order of appellant disallowing the bill of appellee was not subject to review by the courts, the subsequent allowance thereof by the district court was error.

Judgment reversed. *Reversed.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information from the consolidated
balance sheet and the consolidated statements of operations and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1995
<CASH>                                       1,885,975
<SECURITIES>                                   209,559
<RECEIVABLES>                                  248,953
<ALLOWANCES>                                    27,162
<INVENTORY>                                    233,975
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,817,166
<PP&E>                                          48,991
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,876,892
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          118,149
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                     1,955,489
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,876,892
<SALES>                                      1,313,138
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,553,851
<CGS>                                          489,522
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,731,194
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                                  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (177,343)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (62,466)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (114,877)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 598 Agreed to House (ATH)]

107th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 598

Expressing the condolences of the House of Representatives on the death 
    of the Honorable Paul D. Wellstone, a Senator from the State of 
                               Minnesota.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 12, 2002

 Mr. Oberstar submitted the following resolution; which was considered 
                             and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the condolences of the House of Representatives on the death 
    of the Honorable Paul D. Wellstone, a Senator from the State of 
                               Minnesota.

    Resolved, That the House has heard with profound sorrow of the 
death of the Honorable Paul D. Wellstone, a Senator from the State of 
Minnesota.
    Resolved, That the Clerk communicate these resolutions to the 
Senate and transmit a copy thereof to the family of the deceased.
    Resolved, That when the House adjourns today, it adjourn as a 
further mark of respect to the memory of the deceased Senator.
                                 <all>
```
#### Mary E. Burke, as Survivor, v. William Jolley.

Motion to strike from the calendar granted, with ten dollars costs.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1026 Referred in House (RFH)]

  1st Session
                                S. 1026

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 5, 2001

             Referred to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the United States Post Office located at 60 Third Avenue 
 in Long Branch, New Jersey, as the ``Pat King Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF PAT KING POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    The United States Post Office located at 60 Third Avenue in Long 
Branch, New Jersey, shall be known and designated as the ``Pat King 
Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States Post Office referred 
to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the Pat King Post 
Office Building.

            Passed the Senate August 3, 2001.

            Attest:

                                                  JERI THOMSON,

                                                             Secretary.
```
From: Bryan and Susan Roberts

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 5:20:49 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

We commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers

to cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Bryan and Susan Roberts

405 Buckeye Trail

Austin, TX 78746
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-2472

_____________________________

MARY POSS, Wife,

Appellant,

v.

DAVID M. POSS, SR., Husband,

Appellee.

___________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Jennie Kinsey.

May 23, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and WOLF and RAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Laura E. Keene of Beroset & Keene, Pensacola, for Appellant.

Kenneth M. Jayne, Pensacola, for Appellee.