alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
 2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Corporate Property Associates 16  Global
Incorporated.
  /s/ Gordon F. DuGan

Gordon F. DuGanChief Executive Officer
  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 Corporate Property Associates 16  Global
Incorporated.
  /s/ Mark J. DeCesaris

Mark J. DeCesarisacting Chief Financial Officer
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY ESKRIDGE, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0865 LKK GGH P

vs.

A. CORREA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s April 13, 2006, request for extension of

time to extend the discovery cut-off date. Pursuant to the January 20, 2006, scheduling order, the

discovery cut-off date is May 5, 2006.

In support of the pending request, plaintiff states that on December 13, 2005, he

served defendants with his first request for interrogatories, admissions and production of

documents. Plaintiff alleges that defendants’ responses were evasive and that he is waiting for

defendants to respond to his request to meet and confer. Plaintiff also states that he will have to

file a second set of discovery requests.

The court makes the following observations regarding the pending motion. 

Pursuant to the October 31, 2005, discovery order, Local Rule 37-251, which requires the parties

Case 2:04-cv-00865-LKK -GGH Document 55 Filed 04/25/06 Page 1 of 2
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

to meet and confer regarding discovery disputes, does not apply to this action. On February 28,

2006, the court granted defendants’ first request for extension of time to respond to plaintiff’s

first request for interrogatories, admissions and documents. The court ordered the responses due

on or before March 16, 2006. On March 16, 2006, defendants filed a second request for

extension of time to respond to plaintiff’s first request for interrogatories. On March 27, 2006,

the court ordered the interrogatories due on or before April 15, 2006.

The court will grant plaintiff an extension of time to file a motion to compel

regarding defendants’ responses to his first request for interrogatories, admissions and

documents. Plaintiff has not shown good cause to grant his request to conduct additional

discovery.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s April 13, 2006, motion for extension of time to extend the discovery

cut-off date is granted in part;

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order to file a motion to

compel regarding defendants’ responses to his first request for interrogatories, admissions and

documents;

3. The pretrial motion cut-off date of June 30, 2006, is vacated and re-set for

August 11, 2006.

DATED: 4/25/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:kj

esk865.eot(2) 

Case 2:04-cv-00865-LKK -GGH Document 55 Filed 04/25/06 Page 2 of 2
Faulk, Scott (OST)
From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments:

Mr. Kyle Potthoff Public Works Director CityofMcCook DearMr. Potthoff: Schlemmer, Kevin (OST) Monday, February 03, 2014 12:41 PM potthoff@cityofmccook.com; ldoak@cityofmccook.com; lori@cityofmccook.com Doug Voss (dvoss@flygreatlakes.com); Chuck Howell; Tim Sieber; Carrier, Seaport, Rob McKinney; Devany, Dennis (OST); Faulk, Scott (OST) Requesting Comments from the City of McCook on EAS proposal? Great Lakes.pdf; SeaPort.pdf

.... ·· ..·-····

................

I would like to update you on the Essential Air Service situation at McCook and give you an opportunity to submit any comments for the record ifyou wish. In anticipation ofthe end ofGreat Lakes' current contract on May 31, 2014, the Department issued Order 2013-12-10, on December20, 2013, to solicit proposals from all interested air carriers to provide service at McCook. In response to that Order, we receivedproposals from the incumbentair carrier, GreatLakes Aviation, Ltd. ("GreatLakes"), and SeaPortAirlines, Inc. ("SeaPort"). Copies of the proposals are attached and may be accessed online through the Department's Dockets Management System at: http://www.regulations.gov/ by entering "DOT-OST-1997-3005" in the "Enter Keyword or ID" field, so wewill onlybriefly summarizetheproposalshere. Great Lakes' proposal would continue to offer 12 weekly nonstop round trips between McCook and Denver utilizing a 19-seatBeechcraft 1900D aircraft, at arequested annual subsidyrate of$2,254,017. SeaPort'sproposal consists ofthe following three options, all utilizing a 9-seat CessnaGrand Caravanaircraft: 1. 12 weekly nonstop round trips between McCook and Wichita, at an annual subsidy request of $1,938,697; 2. 12 weekly nonstop round trips between McCook and Omaha, at an annual subsidy request of $2,022,382; and 3. 12 weekly nonstop round trips between McCook and Wichita, and 6 weekly nonstop round trips betweenMcCookandKansas City, at a combined annual subsidyrequest of$2,706,256. We want to give you an opportunity to submit any formal comments for the record before we submit a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs. We request that you submit any comments you may have as soon as possible, but in any case no later than March 7, 2014. We will carefully consider your comments before we submit a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for a decision. Ifyou have any questions or ifyou find thatyouneed additional time to draft your comments, please letmeknow. Please send your comments to me at the following email address: EAS@dot.gov or by fax to 202-366-7838. If youhave any questions, please feel free to contact Scott Faulk ofmy staffat scott.faulk@dot.gov or 202-366- 9967. Sincerely,
1Kevin Schlemmer Chief, Essential Air Service & Domestic Analysis Division United States Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Ave SE Washington, DC 20590 (202) 366-3176 phone (202) 366-7638 fax

2
Before the First Division,

June 22, 1938

No. 38862.

#### Petition 5649-R of Globe Fastener Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

McClelland, P. J.

Entry was made at the invoice value and the examiner called attention to the fact that he believed the invoice price too low. The petitioner stated that he firmly believed his entered value to be correct but to avoid litigation agreed to amend the entry. It was found that there was every indication that the importer acted in good faith and, while there was a difference of opinion, there was no disposition to defraud the Government. The petition was therefore granted.
(Reap. Dec. 8247)

#### A. L. Tuska Son *&*Co., Inc. (Frank P. Dow Co., Inc.—Broker) *v.*United States

Entry No. 199.

(Decided August 13, 1953)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson (Sidney Mandell*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, *(Richard E. FitzGibbon,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the issues in the appeals for reappraisement enumerated above are the same in all material respects as the issues involved in *United States*v. *New York Merchandise Co., Inc.,*A. R. D. 17, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appraised values of the merchandise covered by the invoices subject to the reappraisement herein, less the item of a buying commission of *7%%*and/or 10% as noted on the invoices' and deducted on entry, are equal to the price at the time of exportation of the merchandise involved herein at which such or similar merchandise is freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which *395exported, in the usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise is no higher.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this case may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On tbe agreed facts I find tbe export value, as tbat value is defined in section 402 (d) of tbe Tariff Act of 1930, to be tbe proper basis for tbe determination of tbe value of tbe merchandise bere involved, and tbat sucb values were the appraised values, less tbe item of a buying commission of 7% per centum and/or 10 per centum as noted on tbe invoices and deducted on entry.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 47 (Monday, March 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11009-11010]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4386]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-324-000]


Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC; Notice of Proposed Changes 
in FERC Gas Tariff

March 6, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 1, 2007, Florida Gas Transmission 
Company, LLC (FGT) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Fourth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to become 
effective April 1, 2007:


[[Page 11010]]


Third Revised Sheet No. 7
Third Revised Sheet No. 8
Third Revised Sheet No. 9
Third Revised Sheet No. 11
Third Revised Sheet No. 12
Third Revised Sheet No. 13
Third Revised Sheet No. 14

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of 
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). 
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on 
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions 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 or intervention 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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1d5b584f5e5273717473784e686d6d726f695d7b786f7e337a726b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0b4d4e594844656762656e587e7b7b64797f4b6d6e7968256c647d">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-4386 Filed 3-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 13
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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 the dates and for the periods expressed in the
Report.
 Date: March 24, 2010/s/ Yeung Chu Kwong, WilliamName:
    
    Yeung Chu Kwong, WilliamTitle:
    
    Chief Executive Officer/s/ Lai Ni QuiaqueName:
    
    Lai Ni QuiaqueTitle:
    
    Chief Financial Officer
Renewable Energy Atlas of the West: A Guide to the 

Region’s Resource Potential, is available at: 

http://www.energyatlas.org/
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT BARABINO, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. 2:04-cv-02359-MCE-EFB

)

v. ) 

 ) ORDER RE NOTICE OF RELATED

FLEETWOOD MOTOR HOMES OF ) CASE DOCUMENT 

PENNSYLVANIA, FLEETWOOD )

ENTERPRISES, INC., )

)

Defendants. )

)

) No. 2:09-cv-00086-GEB-KJM

ROBERT BARABINO, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

CITIZEN AUTOMOBILE FINANCE, INC., a)

corporation, JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, )

a corporation; and DOES ONE through)

TWENTY, )

)

Defendants. )

)

)

ROBERT BARABINO, ) No. 2:10-cv-00035-MCE-EFB

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

CITIZENS AUTOMOBILE FINANCE, INC., )

a corporation; JP MORGAN CHASE )

BANK, a corporation; WESTERN SURETY)

COMPANY, a corporation; and DOES ) 

ONE through TWENTY, )

)

Defendants. )

)

The Notice of Related Case document filed January 6, 2010,

fails to mention the earliest filed case entitled Barbino v. Fleetwood

Case 2:04-cv-02359-MCE-EFB Document 296 Filed 01/07/10 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Motor Homes of Pennsylvania, et al., 2:04-cv-02359-MCE-EFB, as

required by Local Rule 123. An order filed August 12, 2009 closed

action 2:09-cv-00086-GEB-KJM, and action 2:10-cv-00035-MCE-EFB is

already assigned to the judges assigned the earliest filed case.

Dated: January 7, 2010

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

 

Case 2:04-cv-02359-MCE-EFB Document 296 Filed 01/07/10 Page 2 of 2
No. 61870.

#### Manca, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 257222-K (New York).

*536Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of parts of a photomicrographic camera, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

DEBRA L. SHEPPARD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CIH VENTURES, INCORPORATED; CIH

WOODMORE, INCORPORATED; CIH

WOODMORE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP;

CIH PROPERTIES, INCORPORATED; CIH No. 96-2073

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

FOURPAR CORPORATION; THE CIH

COMPANIES,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.

(CA-95-2252)

Argued: June 4, 1997

Decided: June 30, 1997

Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and

BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL

ARGUED: Gary Howard Simpson, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellant. Douglas Bennett Mishkin, MCKENNA & CUNEO, L.L.P.,

Washington, D.C., for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Lisa A. Lavelle,

MCKENNA & CUNEO, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Debra L. Sheppard appeals from the district court's entry of summary judgment against her in her Title VII sexual harassment action

against her former employer, CIH.1 CIH hired Sheppard in October

1992 as a sales associate. Sheppard claims that beginning in October

1992 her supervisor at CIH, William Scott, engaged in an ongoing

pattern of sexual harassment against her until she left in January 1994.

Sheppard initiated three separate courses of action. She first filed a

sexual harassment charge with the EEOC. While her EEOC charge

was pending, she filed an action alleging common law claims against

CIH in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia. Later, Sheppard's state court action was dismissed with prejudice for failure to

prosecute. Sheppard then filed this Title VII sexual harassment suit

in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The

district court granted CIH summary judgment, holding (1) that Sheppard's Title VII and common law claims were part of the same cause

of action and (2) that Sheppard's action in federal court was barred

by res judicata because her Title VII claims could have been (but

_________________________________________________________________

1 CIH Ventures, Inc.; CIH Woodmore, Inc.; CIH Woodmore Limited

Partnership; CIH Properties, Inc.; and CIH Development Corporation.

These corporations and partnership are an affiliated group engaged in

real estate development and sales in the Washington, D.C., area.

 2
were not) litigated with her common law claims in state court. Sheppard's appeal is now before us for decision.

After considering the joint appendix, the briefs, and the arguments

of counsel, we affirm for the reasons stated in the district court's thorough opinion. See Sheppard v. CIH Ventures, Inc. , No. JFM-95-2252

(D. Md. June 24, 1996).

AFFIRMED

 3
1

John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment. Tex. Gov’t

Code Ann. §75.002(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2002). 

NO. 07-02-0360-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL E

SEPTEMBER 12, 2002

______________________________

STEVEN A. WARD,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 2000-471265; HON. DRUE FARMER, PRESIDING

_______________________________

DISMISSAL

 _______________________________

Before QUINN and REAVIS, J.J. and BOYD, S.J.1

Appellant, Steven A. Ward, appealed from an order revoking his probation and

sentencing him to 180 days in the Lubbock County Jail. We dismiss the proceeding for

lack of jurisdiction.

The order revoking appellant’s probation indicates that sentence was imposed on
2

May 13, 2002. Appellant then filed a motion for new trial on May 15, 2002. To be timely,

a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the sentence is imposed or suspended

in open court or within 90 days after that date if a motion for new trial is filed. TEX. R. APP.

P. 26.2(a). Thus, appellant’s notice of appeal was due to be filed on August 12, 2002 but

was not filed until August 26, 2002. The deadline for filing the notice of appeal may be

extended if the notice of appeal is filed in the trial court and a motion seeking an extension

of time is filed in this court within 15 days after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal.

TEX.R. APP. P. 26.3. However, no such motion has been filed with this court. A timely

filed notice of appeal is essential to invoke our appellate jurisdiction. Olivo v. State, 918

S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). If the notice is not timely, then the court of

appeals can take no action other than to dismiss the proceeding. Id. at 523. Because

appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider the

appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
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

RICHARD E. NOSKY, JR., City Attorney

State Bar No. 130726

SHELLEY L. GREEN, Deputy City Attorney

State Bar No. 161521

425 N. El Dorado Street, Second Floor

Stockton, California 95202

Telephone: (209) 937-8333

Attorneys for Defendant

CITY OF STOCKTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM LAWSON, ) CASE NO. CIV.S-04-2307 LKK DAD

)

Plaintiff, ) ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION TO 

) REPORT SETTLEMENT STATUS TO

v. ) COURT

)

CITY OF STOCKTON; and )

DOES 1 through 50, )

Inclusive, )

)

Defendants. )

)

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the date for the parties to report the

status of settlement negotiations to the court is extended from

September 12, 2005, to September 30, 2005.

DATED: September 9, 2005.

Case 2:04-cv-02307-LKK -DAD Document 19 Filed 09/09/05 Page 1 of 1
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

BRADY ARMSTRONG,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2136 GEB PAN P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff requests appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme Court has

ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in

§ 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain

exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v.

Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court does not

find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s February 23, 2006, request for the

appointment of counsel will therefore be denied.

Plaintiff requests an extension of time to file and serve a response to defendants’

January 19, 2006, motion to dismiss. 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02136-GEB-EFB Document 85 Filed 03/08/06 Page 1 of 2
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

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s February 23, 2006, request for the appointment of counsel is denied;

2. Plaintiff's February 23, 2006, request for an extension of time is granted; and

3. Plaintiff is granted 60 days from the date of this order to file and serve a

response to defendants’ January 19, 2006, motion to dismiss. Defendants' reply, if any, shall be

filed seven days thereafter.

DATED: March 7, 2006.

/mp

/004

arms2136.36+31

Case 2:04-cv-02136-GEB-EFB Document 85 Filed 03/08/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 58056.

protest 112927-K (Cleveland).

#### Distilled Liquors Import Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 55246.

#### Barr Shipping Company *v.*United States,

protest 164678-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers in the case the court was unable to find any evidence sufficient to overcome the action of the collector, which was presumptively correct. The protest was therefore overruled.
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS4081 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.