alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.2


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



I certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for
the year ended December 31, 2002, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such Annual Report fairly presents in all material
respects the financial condition and results of operations of Nathaniel Energy
Corporation


Dated  April 14, 2003                       By:  /s/  Gene Bailey
                                                 ---------------------------
                                                 Name:  Gene Bailey
                                                 Title:  Chief Financial Officer
                                                 Nathaniel Energy Corporation
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 -

Attorneys for Defendant, County of Sacramento

Lou Blanas, Sheriff of the County of Sacramento 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IN AND FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAMES C. PLUMMER

Plaintiff,

vs.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPT, AND OTHERS TO BE

AMENDED

Defendants

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: CIV-04-2500 DFL GGH-P

Complaint Filed: November 23, 2004

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE

DISMISSAL

FRCP RULE 41(a)

Plaintiff JAMES C. PLUMMER and DEFENDANT SHERIFF LOU BLANAS by and

through his attorney of record, John A. Lavra, hereby Stipulate to a dismissal with prejudice of

this entire action.

IT IS SO STIPULATED:

Dated:

_________________________________________

JAMES C. PLUMMER

Dated: April 11, 2006 LONGYEAR, O’DEA & LAVRA, LLP

By:__________________________________________

Jeri L. Pappone, CSB No.: 210104

Attorney’s for Defendants

IT IS SO ORDERED:

Dated: 4/21/2006 By: /s/ David F. Levi 

Judge of the United States District Court

L O N G Y EAR, O ’ D EA & L AVRA , LLP

3620 American River Drive, Suite 230

Sacramento, California 95864-5923

Tel: 916-974-8500 Fax: 916 974-8510

John A. Lavra, CSB No. 114533

Jeri L. Pappone, CSB No. 210104 

Case 2:04-cv-02500-DFL-GGH Document 16 Filed 04/24/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 46738.

#### Protests 750605-G, etc., of S. M. Brachman & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6985
HENRY LEWIS ASTROP, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BRUNSWICK, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:06-cv-00640) Submitted: September 26, 2007 Decided: October 18, 2007 Before WILKINSON and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry Lewis Astrop, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Henry Lewis Astrop appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Astrop v. Brunswick , No. 3:06-cv-00640 (E.D. Va. Apr. 26, 2007 & May 21, 2007). 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
-78 -76 -74 -72

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲ ▲

▲

▲ 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

08/17

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 17 Aug 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.77 N 77.11 W Meters AGL
No. 54061.

#### Philip Colleck et al. *v.*United States,

protests 146612-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 I N T H E U N I T E D S T A TES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAMES SANFORD,

Plaintiff

v. CIV. NO. S-04-2280 DFL GGH

BLOCKBUSTER, INC. dba

BLOCKBUSTER #6222; VIRGINIA G.

WILLETT; and DOES 1 through 10,

Defendants.

 / RELATED CASE ORDER

JAMES SANFORD,

Plaintiff,

v. CIV. NO. S-05-748 FCD DAD

PEET'S COFFEE & TEA, INC.;

VIRGINIA G. WILLETT,

Defendants.

 /

Examination of the above-entitled actions reveals that 

these actions are related within the meaning of Local Rule 83-123

(E.D. Cal. 2005). Accordingly, the assignment of the matters to

Case 2:04-cv-02280-DFL-GGH Document 16 Filed 07/27/05 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

the same judge and magistrate judge is likely to effect a

substantial savings of judicial effort and is also likely to be

convenient for the parties.

The parties should be aware that relating the cases under

Local Rule 83-123 merely has the result that these actions are

assigned to the same judge and magistrate judge; no consolidation

of the actions is effected. Under the regular practice of this

court, related cases are generally assigned to the judge and

magistrate judge to whom the first filed action was assigned. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the action denominated CIV. NO.

S-05-748 FCD DAD be reassigned to Judge David F. Levi and

Magistrate Gregory G. Hollows for all further proceedings, and

any dates currently set in this reassigned case only are hereby

VACATED. The parties are referred to the attached Order

Requiring Joint Status Report. Henceforth, the caption on

documents filed in the reassigned case shall be shown as CIV. NO.

S-05-748 DFL GGH.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court make

appropriate adjustment in the assignment of civil cases to

compensate for this reassignment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 7/26/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02280-DFL-GGH Document 16 Filed 07/27/05 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

Case 2:04-cv-02280-DFL-GGH Document 16 Filed 07/27/05 Page 3 of 3
No. 49666.

#### Protests 36969-K, etc., of Columbia Co. et al. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The merchandise was assessed and claimed dutiable at the same rates and under the same paragraphs as similar merchandise covered by the decision in *Quong Yuen Shing Co.*v. *United States*(31 C. C. P. A. 43, C. A. D. 247). In accordance with stipulation of counsel and-on the authority of said cited ease the merchandise at bar was found to contain salt and was therefore excluded from paragraph 5 (chemical compounds). The protests were sustained to this extent.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Cano Petroleum, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, S. Jeffrey Johnson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toCano Petroleum, Inc. and will be retained by Cano Petroleum, Inc. and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 
| November 15, 2004 | /s/ S. Jeffrey Johnson  |   |
|-------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|              | S. Jeffrey Johnson      |
|              | Chief Executive Officer |
(Reap. Dec. 9515)

#### Border Brokerage Company *v.*United States

Entry No. C 05-5965.

*497(Decided September 30, 1959)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiff.

*George Oochran Douh,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

OmveR, Chief Judge:

"This appeal for reappraisement relates to certain plywood exported from Canada and entered at the port of Blaine, Wash.

Stipulated facts, upon which the case is before me, establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is export value, as defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and that such statutory value therefor is as follows:

> %" panels Canadian $1.25 per sq. ft., net, packed

> %" panels Canadian $0.75 per sq. ft., net, packed

I so hold and judgment will be rendered accordingly.
CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the accompanying Amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Anmore,
Inc. for the Quarter Ending March 31, 2005, I, Giorgio Saumat, Principal
Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of Anmore, Inc. hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:



1. Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005, fairly represents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Anmore, Inc.



Dated: May 23, 2005

ANMORE, INC.



By:
/s/ Giorgio SaumatPrincipal Executive Officer andPrincipal Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Lpath, Inc. (the “Corporation”) onForm 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, ScottR. Pancoast, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.

 
| Date:  August 14, 2008 |                                        |
|-----------------------------|---------------------------------------------|
|                        | /s/  Scott R. Pancoast                      |
|                        | President  and Chief Executive Officer      |
|                        |                                        |
|                        | /s/  Gary J. G. Atkinson                    |
|                        | Vice  President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Lpath, Inc.and will be retained by Lpath, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

This certificationaccompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated byreference into any filing of Lpath, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933,as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether madebefore or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any generalincorporation language contained in such filing.

 

----
Exhibit 32.02

                            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 Essential Innovations Technology
Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended July 31, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Kenneth G.C. Telford, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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 result of
                  operations of the Company.


/s/ Kenneth G.C. Telford
--------------------------
Kenneth G.C. Telford
Chief Financial Officer
September 13, 2005

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIRECTV, INC., a California corporation,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2304 JFM PS 

vs.

MARCUS WIGGINS,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

On May 4, 2005, counsel for plaintiff filed a notice of settlement of the instant

action. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. In accordance with the provisions of Local Rule 16-160, dispositional

documents are to be filed on or before May 31, 2005. 

2. All hearing dates set in this matter are vacated.

3. Failure to comply with this order may be grounds for the imposition of

sanctions on any and all counsel as well as any party or parties who cause non-compliance with

this order.

DATED: May 9, 2005.

001; directvwigg.045

Case 2:04-cv-02304-JFM Document 22 Filed 05/10/05 Page 1 of 1
Before the Second Division,

June 4, 1959

No. 63130.

#### General Chain & Belt Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 284936-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of extractors or parts thereof in chief value of metal the same in all material respects as those the subject of *General Chain & Belt Co.*v. *United States*(40 Cust. Ct. 5, C.D. 1948), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Case No. 6,348.

#### GEORGETOWN TURNPIKE ROAD CO. v. CUSTIS.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 585.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Nov. Term, 1809.2

Jurisdiction To Quash Inquisition Taken under Turn hike (Juarter.

This court has jurisdiction to quash an' inquisition taken under the charter ol' the Georgetown and Alexandria Turnpike Company. .The-inquisition need not be under the seals of the. jurors. If the jurors are not disinterested the inquisition will be quashed. -

This was a rule upon G. W. P. Custis to show cause why an inquisition which had awarded him three thousand dollars on con- ■ demnation of a part of his land for the road, should not be quashed and a new warrant issued.

E. J. Lee, for defendant,

contended that this court had no jurisdiction in this case. By the charter of the company (Act Cong. *239March 3, 1809, c. 31; 2 Stat. 539), the power to issue the warrant to summon the jury is given to one of the judges only, and the inquisition is to be returned to the clerk of the county, to be by him recorded, and the valuation is to be conclusive upon all persons. The court has no power to issue the warrant, nor to prevent the clerk from recording the inquisition. It is to be recorded only for safe-keeping.

C. Lee, contra.

This court has all the powers of a court of record. The clerk is the officer of this court, and cannot insert any thing in the records of the court without its order. If the inquisition has been legally taken it is conclusive; but this court is to decide whether it has been legally taken. The courts in Virginia have, by the common law, power to quash an inquisition of es-cheat. Bennett v. Com., 2 Wash. [Va.] 154. And this court has the same powers as the district courts of Virginia. If one judge has the power to issue the warrant, a fortiori, the court, consisting of three judges, has it

2

 [Reversed in 6 Cranch (10 U. S.) 233.]

THE COURT

(CRANCH, Chief Judge,

doubting) were of opinion that they had jurisdiction to prevent the recording, and to quash the proceedings if irregular or illegal.

F. S. Key then objected to the inquisition that it was not under the seals of the jurors.

E. J. Lee, contra, was stopped by THE COURT, upon that point. But it appearing in evidence that some of the jurors were interested, and others did not stand indifferent,—

THE COURT (nem. con.) refused to suffer the inquisition and proceedings to be recorded, and ordered them to be quashed.

This judgment was reversed by the supreme court of the United States (G Craneli [10 U. S.] 233j, upon the ground that this-court had no jurisdiction of the case. LSee Case No. 3,500.]
```

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 47 (Monday, March 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11016-11017]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4346]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-569-001]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Tariff 
Filing

March 5, 2007.
    Take notice that on February 28, 2007, Transcontinental Gas Pipe 
Line Corporation (Transco) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed on 
Appendix A to the filing, to become effective March 1, 2007.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance 
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding.

[[Page 11017]]

Such protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of 
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). 
Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the 
parties to the proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu 
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons 
unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies 
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First 
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
[email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-4346 Filed 3-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
#### Frenduta et ux. *v.*Yoscovitch et ux., Appellants.

Argued March 4, 1924.

Appeal, No. 4, Oct. T., 1924, by appellants, from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., Jan. T., 1923, No. 244, discharging rule to open judgment, in the case of Frank Frenduta and Margaret Frenduta v. Michael Yoscovitch and Mary Yoscovitch.

Before Poe-tee, Hendeeson, Teexlee, Kelleb, Linn and Gawtheop, JJ.

Affirmed.

October 13, 1924:

Opinion by

Porter, J.,

This appeal presents the same questions and involves a consideration of practically the same evidence discussed in the case of Foos v. Pogar, in which an opinion has this day been filed, and for the reasons there stated we are convinced that the court below did not abuse its discretion in refusing to open the judgment.

The order of the court below is affirmed and the appeal dismissed at cost of the appellants.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 45 (Thursday, March 8, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10581-10582]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4180]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Administrator's Line of Succession Designation, No. 1-A, Revision 
28

    This document replaces and supersedes ``Line of Succession 
Designation No. 1-A, Revision 27.''

Line of Succession Designation, No. 1-A, Revision 28:

    Effective immediately, the Administrator's Line of Succession 
Designation is as follows:
    (a) In the event of my inability to perform the functions and 
duties of my position, or my absence from the office, the Deputy 
Administrator will assume all functions and duties of the 
Administrator. In the event the Deputy Administrator and I are both 
unable to perform the functions and duties of the

[[Page 10582]]

position or are absent from our offices, I designate the officials in 
listed order below, if they are eligible to act as Administrator under 
the provisions of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, to serve as 
Acting Administrator with full authority to perform all acts which the 
Administrator is authorized to perform:
    (1) Chief of Staff.
    (2) General Counsel.
    (3) Associate Administrator for Management and Administration.
    (4) Chief Financial Officer.
    (5) Regional Administrator for Region 6.
    (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of SBA Standard Operating 
Procedure 00 01 2, ``absence from the office,'' as used in reference to 
myself in paragraph (a) above, means:

    (1) I am not present in the office and cannot be reasonably 
contacted by phone or other electronic means, and there is an 
immediate business necessity for the exercise of my authority; or
    (2) I am not present in the office and, upon being contacted by 
phone or other electronic means, I determine that I cannot exercise 
my authority effectively without being physically present in the 
office.

    (c) An individual serving in an acting capacity in any of the 
positions listed in subparagraphs (a)(1) through (5), unless designated 
as such by the Administrator, is not also included in this Line of 
Succession. Instead, the next non-acting incumbent in the Line of 
Succession shall serve as Acting Administrator.
    (d) This designation shall remain in full force and effect until 
revoked or superseded in writing by the Administrator, or by the Deputy 
Administrator when serving as Acting Administrator.
    (e) Serving as Acting Administrator has no effect on the officials 
listed in subparagraphs (a)(1) through (5), above, with respect to 
their full-time position's authorities, duties, and responsibilities 
(except that such official cannot both recommend and approve an 
action).

    Dated: February 28, 2007.
Steven C. Preston,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E7-4180 Filed 3-7-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P