alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.6

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS

We hereby consent to the use of our name in the Annual Report on Form 40-F (the "Annual Report") of Enerplus
Corporation (the "Registrant"). We hereby further consent to the inclusion in the Annual Report of the Registrant's Annual Information Form dated March 11, 2011 for the year ended
December 31, 2010 which document makes reference to our firm and our report entitled "Appraisal of Oil and Gas Reserves Owned by Enerplus Resources Fund Located in Various Counties of
Pennsylvania and West Virginia as of December 31, 2010" dated February 10, 2011, evaluating the Registrant's oil, natural gas and natural gas liquids interests effective
December 31, 2010.

Dallas, Texas, U.S.A.
March 11, 2011

HAAS PETROLEUM ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC./s/ ROBERT W. HAAS Robert W. Haas, P.E.
President


---



QuickLinks
**Exhibit 12.1****FORM OF 302 CERTIFICATIONS**I, Heinz Sundt, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Telekom Austria AG;  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 company as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report;  4. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the company 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 company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  (b) Reserved;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’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 company’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report thathas materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the company’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 5. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditorsand the audit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent 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 company’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 company’s internal control over financial reporting.       Date: April 10, 2006               By /s/ Heinz Sundt    Name:  Heinz Sundt    Title: Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Reliant Resources, Inc.'s
Registration Statement Nos. 333-60124, 333-60328, 333-74754, 333-74790,
333-86608, 333-86610, 333-86612 and 333-98273 on Form S-8 of our report dated
March 28, 2002, July 3, 2002, as to the effects of the restatement discussed in
Note 1 (which expresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory
paragraphs relating to the restatement described in Note 1 and the change in
method of accounting for derivatives and hedging activities described in Note 6)
appearing in this Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Reliant
Resources, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2001.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


Houston, Texas
November 12, 2002
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In Re Asbestos Products :

Liability Litigation (No. VI) : MDL 875

:

See Attached List of Cases :

____________________________________X

O R D E R

This Court has previously administratively dismissed each of the cases listed on the attachment

to this order pending the determination of certain issues by the Bankruptcy Court. Those issues

having now been resolved, these cases are hereby reinstated for the purposes set forth herein.

Each of these cases was originally filed in the state court and subsequently either removed or

transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistric Litigation to the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The removal in each case was predicated upon the theory of

“related to” bankruptcy jurisdiction, vis-a-vis the bankruptcy filing in the United States District Court

for the District of Delaware by Federal Mogul Corporation or the bankruptcy filing by Armstrong

World Industries. A large number of similar cases were directly transferred or removed to the

Bankruptcy Court in Delaware the Third Circuit designated the Honorable Alfred M. Wolin as the

presiding judge. Having completed an extensive briefing and hearing process, Judge Wolin, on

February 8, 2002, issued his ruling that the Bankruptcy Court lacked jurisdiction in these matters and

thereupon ordered their transfer back to the various state courts. The order was appealed to the

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and on July 31, 2002, Judge Slovitor issued the

Court’s opinion upholding Judge Wolin’s decision. The Supreme Court denied cert and all avenues

for appeal appear to have been exhausted by the parties.

Case 2:02-cv-04095-ER Document 6 Filed 10/09/2002 Page 1 of 2
The actions before this Court are all cases similarly situated with regard to their removal from

the state court. The Court can find no reason not to comply with Judge Wolin’s decision as it relates

to the removal of these cases to the federal court.

IT IS ORDERED that each of these cases is hereby reinstated and remanded to the State of

Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court from whence it was removed to this Court.

DONE this 3rd day of October, 2002.

BY THE COURT

___________________________

Charles R. Weiner S.J.

Case 2:02-cv-04095-ER Document 6 Filed 10/09/2002 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the quarterly report of Shoe Pavilion, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period
ended June 30, 2007 (the "Report"), I, Dmitry Beinus, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to  §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 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/Dmitry BeinusChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
                   August 9, 2007

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such
filing.

---
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 China Nuvo Solar Energy, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended July 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Barry S. Hollander, Principal Accounting Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company, as of, and for the periods presented in the Report.


| |                             
| | ----------------------------
| | /s/ Barry S. Hollander      
| | Barry S. Hollander          
| | Principal Accounting Officer
| | November 14, 2011           

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to China Nuvo Solar Energy, Inc. and will be retained by China Nuvo Solar Energy, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 2:04-cv-01970-EL Document 1 Filed 05/06/04 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:04-cv-01970-EL Document 1 Filed 05/06/04 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:04-cv-01970-EL Document 1 Filed 05/06/04 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:04-cv-01970-EL Document 1 Filed 05/06/04 Page 4 of 4
# C_2015138EN.01006501.xml

| 27.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/65

---

Action brought on 2 March 2015 — International Management Group v Commission

(Case T-110/15)

(2015/C 138/84)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: International Management Group (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Burgstaller, Solicitor, and E. Wright, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision THOR/C4/LL/el/(S)(2015)4287 of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 6 February 2015 refusing to grant access to certain documents pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision THOR/C4/LL/el/(S)(2015)4287 of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 6 February 2015 refusing to grant access to certain documents pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents; and

| — | order the European Commission to pay for the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay for the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed in its duty to give reasons when it refused to grant access to the requested documents, relying upon a general presumption of applicability of the protection of the purposes of inspections, investigations and audits. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed in its duty to give reasons when it refused to grant access to the requested documents, relying upon a general presumption of applicability of the protection of the purposes of inspections, investigations and audits.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to explain why the protection of privacy and integrity of individuals prevents partial access to the requested documents. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to explain why the protection of privacy and integrity of individuals prevents partial access to the requested documents.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached the applicant’s right to good administration. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached the applicant’s right to good administration.

---
No. 59921.

#### The Kemper-Thomas Co. *v.*United States,

protest 265787-K (Cleveland).

*434Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the items in controversy consist of molds in chief value of metal, designed only for use on bending machines for shaping decorated glass pieces; that said bending machine is powered by an electric motor which is an essential part of the machine; and that the said bending machine cannot properly perform the function for which it was designed without such molds, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
EXHIBIT 99.5

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 Enerplus Corporation (the "Corporation") on Form 40-F/A for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ian C. Dundas, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

/s/ IAN C. DUNDAS Ian C. Dundas
President and Chief Executive Officer
of Enerplus Corporation


February 25,
2014

The foregoing certification shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such
certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it
by reference.

---



QuickLinks
No. 56904.

#### East Asiatic Co., Inc., and W. J. Byrnes & Co. of N. Y., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 128313-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of shredded or grated coconut meat, cooked in sugar sirup and packed in tins, a product of Cuba, similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Allied Food Corporation of America*v. *United States*(28 Cust. Ct. 222, C. D. 1412), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 216 (Thursday, November 9, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 77238]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24843]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1673; Airspace Docket No. 22-AGL-38]
RIN 2120-AA66


Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Paoli, IN

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: This action withdraws the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 
published in the Federal Register on December 22, 2022, proposing to 
establish Class E airspace at Paoli, IN. The FAA has determined that 
withdrawal of the NPRM is warranted as the airport has withdrawn its 
request to develop public instrument flight procedures necessitating 
the establishment of Class E airspace.

DATES: Effective as of 0901 UTC, November 9, 2023, the proposed rule 
published December 22, 2022 (87 FR 78616), is withdrawn.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation 
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Reason for Withdrawal

    The FAA published a NPRM on December 22, 2022 (87 FR 78616), Docket 
No. FAA-2022-1673, to amend 14 CFR 71 by establishing Class E airspace 
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Paoli Municipal 
Airport, Paoli, IN, to support instrument flight rule operations at 
this airport. Subsequent to publication, the FAA was notified that the 
airport has withdrawn its request to develop public instrument flight 
procedures at this airport which necessitated the Class E airspace.

Conclusion

    The FAA determined that the NPRM published on December 22, 2022 (87 
FR 78616), is unnecessary. Therefore, the FAA withdraws that NPRM.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November 6, 2023.
Martin A. Skinner,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2023-24843 Filed 11-8-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
# Intro

# Part II

# Changes
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the quarterly report of Shoe Pavilion, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for
the period ended March 31, 2007 (the "Report"), I, Bruce Ross, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to  §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 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/Bruce RossExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
                   May 15, 2007

---
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 32

                    CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO 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 of Consumers Funding LLC (the
"Company") for the annual period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Laura L.
Mountcastle, as President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer, hereby certifies, 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
her knowledge:

            (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/ Laura L. Mountcastle
---------------------------------
Name:  Laura L. Mountcastle
Title: President, Chief Executive
       Officer, Chief Financial
       Officer and Treasurer

Date:  March 10, 2005

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Order filed, February 18, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-01020-CV

____________

MARIANO DIAZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND A/N/F OF MARIANO DIAZ II, A 

MINOR CHILD, Appellant

V.

KEVIN JOHNSON, JOHN EDWARD JOHNSON, JOHNNIE M. 

WILLIAMS, AND JOE ORAN WILLIAMS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 405TH District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 13-CV-0009

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due February 17, 2015. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the 

record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record 

has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Cylena Korkmas, the substitute court reporter, to file the record 

in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 99-4501

JOHN PEARSON, a/k/a JP,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington.

Robert C. Chambers, District Judge.

(CR-99-15)

Submitted: November 18, 1999

Decided: November 30, 1999

Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

George A. Mills, III, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellant.

Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Ray M. Shepard, Assistant

United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

John Pearson pled guilty to aiding and abetting the distribution of

cocaine base (crack), see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1994), and was sentenced as a career offender to a term of 151 months imprisonment.

See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1 (1998). Pearson

seeks to appeal the district court's decision not to depart below the

career offender guideline range on the ground that it over-represented

his criminal history. See USSG § 4A1.3, p.s. We dismiss.

A sentencing court's decision not to depart is not reviewable on

appeal unless the decision is based on a perception that the court lacks

authority to depart. See United States v. Hall, 977 F.2d 861, 863 (4th

Cir. 1992); United States v. Bayerle, 898 F.2d 28, 31 (4th Cir. 1990).

There is no doubt in this case that the court understood its authority

to depart. The court simply decided that a departure was not warranted. To the extent that the court relied on our pre-Koon* decision

in United States v. Brown, 23 F.3d 839, 840-42 (4th Cir. 1994) (holding that a § 4A1.3 departure is not justified by the fact that a prior

drug conviction involved a small amount of drugs), the court did not

err. See United States v. Pearce, ___ F.3d ___, 1999 WL 710315, at

*10 (4th Cir. Sept. 13, 1999) (reaffirming holding in Brown).

We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

DISMISSED

_________________________________________________________________

*Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 100 (1996).

 2
Before the Third Division,

January 25, 1949

No. 52846.

#### Everett Trading Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 143608-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.