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

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

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of East Coast Diversified Corporation (the“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended July 31, 2005 (the“Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, I, Frank Rovito, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

1. TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

/s/ Frank Rovito

Frank RovitoChief Financial OfficerDated: September 20, 2005

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to East Coast Diversified Corporationand will be retained by East Coast Diversified Corporation and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### C. H. Pitt Corp., Appellant, *v.*Rosen.

Argued October 11, 1968.

Before Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien and Roberts, JJ.

*Ralph II. German,*with him *Robert E. Shoop, Jr.,*and *Houston, Cooper, Speer & German,*for appellant.

*Herbert B. Lebovitz,*with him *Lebovitz & Lebovitz,*for appellee.

November 12, 1968:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Judgment affirmed.

Mr. Justice Musmanno took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-546

In Re: RICHARD A. CAROLINA,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(CA-97-1312-6-17AK)

Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: September 1, 1998

Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard A. Carolina, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Richard A. Carolina has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus from this court seeking an order compelling the district court

to grant his motion to compel discovery in a civil case terminated

adverse to Carolina. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only

in extraordinary circumstances. See Kerr v. United States Dist.

Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Mandamus relief is only available

when there are no other means by which the relief sought could be

granted, see In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987), and

may not be used as a substitute for appeal. See In re Catawba

Indian Tribe of S. Carolina, 973 F.2d 1133, 1135 (4th Cir. 1992).

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis,

we deny mandamus relief. 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.

PETITION DENIED
# C_2007159EN.01000101.xml

| 12.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 159/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 159/1

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 159/01)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 29.5.2007 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | N 732/06 |
| Member State | Netherlands |
| Region | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | BioGeneration Ventures Fund |
| Legal basis | Wet van 7 juli 1987, houdende herziene regeling van de Nederlandse organisatie voor zuiver-wetenschappelijk onderzoek; Convenant Nationaal Regioorgaan Genomics, 30 augustus 2001 |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Objective | Risk capital, Innovation |
| Form of aid | Provision of risk capital |
| Budget | Overall budget: EUR 6 million |
| Intensity | — |
| Duration | Until 1.10.2018 |
| Economic sectors | All sectors |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO) |
| Laan van Nieuw Oost-Indië 300 |
| 2593 CE Den Haag |
| Nederland |

Date of adoption of the decision

29.5.2007

Reference number of the aid

N 732/06

Member State

Netherlands

Region

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

BioGeneration Ventures Fund

Legal basis

Wet van 7 juli 1987, houdende herziene regeling van de Nederlandse organisatie voor zuiver-wetenschappelijk onderzoek; Convenant Nationaal Regioorgaan Genomics, 30 augustus 2001

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

Risk capital, Innovation

Form of aid

Provision of risk capital

Budget

Overall budget: EUR 6 million

Intensity

—

Duration

Until 1.10.2018

Economic sectors

All sectors

Name and address of the granting authority

Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO)

Laan van Nieuw Oost-Indië 300

2593 CE Den Haag

Nederland

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

---
#### Candace G. Wilke, Respondent, v Lucile K. Price et al., Appellants.

[633 NYS2d 686]

—Crew III, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Lynch, J.), entered February 6, 1995 in Schenectady County, which granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

This action arises out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on September 3, 1992 at the intersection of State Route 146 and Tallow Wood Drive in the Town of Clifton Park, Sara-toga County. Prior to the accident, plaintiff was traveling westbound on Route 146 in the left lane and defendant Lucile K. Price, operating a vehicle owned by defendant Warren C. Reeves, was stopped at the intersection of Route 146 and Tallow Wood Drive, awaiting the opportunity to turn east onto Route 146. As plaintiff approached the intersection, Price pulled out into traffic and struck plaintiff’s vehicle. Price subsequently was charged with and pleaded guilty to failing to *847yield the right of way in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 (a). Plaintiff thereafter commenced this personal injury action and, following joinder of issue and discovery, moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. Supreme Court granted plaintiffs motion and this appeal by defendants followed.

Although defendants argue on appeal that the record raises a question of fact as to plaintiffs comparative negligence, we cannot agree. The crux of defendants’ claim is that plaintiff could have avoided the accident had she sounded her horn, reduced her speed or otherwise maneuvered her vehicle. Defendants testified at their respective examinations before trial, however, that they never saw plaintiffs vehicle until they hit it. Similarly, plaintiff testified that she only caught a glimpse of the Price vehicle once it began to make its turn and that it struck her vehicle almost instantly. Thus, it is apparent that the accident occurred within a matter of seconds and that there simply was not sufficient time for plaintiff to take evasive action *(see, Fuller v Blackbird,*211 AD2d 886, 887; *Bavaro v Martel,*197 AD2d 813; *compare, Gaeta v Morgan,*178 AD2d 732, 734).

As for defendants’ contention that plaintiff, who was traveling within the posted speed limit at the time of the accident, failed to reduce her speed as she approached the intersection in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 (e), we note that this provision, read in conjunction with Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 (a), "does not mandate that a driver reduce his or her speed at every intersection, but only when warranted by the conditions presented” *(Bagnato v Romano,*179 AD2d 713, 714, *lv denied*81 NY2d 701), and there is no proof to support defendants’ speculative and conclusory assertion that such a reduction in speed was warranted here *(see, Stinehour v Kortright,*157 AD2d 899, 900; *compare, Bagnato v Romano, supra).*Supreme Court’s order should, therefore, be affirmed.

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 51 (Friday, March 16, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 12612]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4790]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or 
Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than March 30, 2007.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Donna J. Ward, Assistant 
Vice President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. Douglas J. Compton, Lawrence, Kansas; to acquire voting shares 
of First Financial Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire 
voting shares of The Lawrence Bank, both in Lawrence, Kansas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 12, 
2007.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E7-4790 Filed 3-15-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
No. 55965.

protests 169620-K and 169622-K (New York).

#### I. L. Hartman Co. and Dorothy McCauslan *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER LEE JENKINS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2520 LKK JFM P

vs.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested an extension of time to file objections to the July 28, 2005

findings and recommendations. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's March 22, 2006 request for an extension of time is granted; and

2. Plaintiff shall file his objections to the July 28, 2005 findings and

recommendations on or before April 27, 2006.

DATED: April 6, 2006.

/mp:001

jenk2520.36(2)

Case 2:04-cv-02520-LKK -JFM Document 39 Filed 04/07/06 Page 1 of 1
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 03-825 

________________________________________________________________________ 

EXTRADITION 

 Treaty Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and PERU 

Signed at Lima July 26, 2001 

 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 PERU 

 Extradition 

Treaty signed at Lima July 26, 2001; 

Transmitted by the President of the United States of America 

 to the Senate May 8, 2002 (Treaty Doc. 107-6, 

 107th Congress, 2d Session); 

Reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 

 October 8, 2002 (Senate Executive Report No. 107-12, 

 107th Congress, 2d Session); 

Advice and consent to ratification by the Senate 

 November 14, 2002; 

Ratified by the President January 23, 2003; 

Exchange of instruments of ratification at Washington 

 August 25, 2003; 

Entered into force August 25, 2003.
SCALE 1:24,000

EAST BROOKFIELD QUADRANGLE

1 0.5 0 1 MILE

1 0.5 0 1 KILOMETER

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Prepared in cooperation with the OPEN-FILE REPORT 2006-1260-I

Explanatory pamphlet accompanies map

Surficial Geologic Map of the East Brookfield Quadrangle, Massachusetts

Compiled by Janet R. Stone

2013

Base from U.S. Geological Survey, 1969.

Map was scanned, processed, georeferenced,

rectified, and cropped by the Massachusetts

Geological Survey.

Map units were reproduced from Pomeroy (1975).

CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET

(SHEET 19 of 24)

(WA

R

R

E

N)

(LEIC

E

S

TE

R)

(SOUTHBRIDGE)

(NORTH BROOKFIELD)

72°0'0"W

72°0'0"W

72°7'30"W

72°7'30"W

42°15'0"N

42°15'0"N

42°7'30"N

42°7'30"N

Stone, J.R., compiler, 2013, Surficial geologic map

of the Mount Grace-Ashburnham-Monson-Webster

24-quadrangle area in central Massachusetts:

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1260-I

Available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1260/I.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

MASSACHUSETTS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

AND OFFICE OF GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION (MassGIS),

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the periodic report of 724 Solutions Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, John J. Sims, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

| | (1)  the Report fully complies with the   requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods   indicated.

|Date: March   17, 2005 | /s/ JOHN J. SIMS               
|---------------------- | -------------------------------
|                       |                                
|                       | Name:  John J. Sims            
|                       | Title:  Chief Executive Officer
**EXHIBIT 12.1****COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES**                           **Three Months Ended**  **Year Ended December 31,**   **March 31, 2007**  **2006**  **2005**  **2004**  **2003**  **2002** Fixed charges:                        Interest expense $186,649  $606,725  $185,935  $79,053  $39,956  $13,974 Interest capitalized  79   414   932   —   —   — Interest portion of rental expense  388   1,327   1,244   1,494   843   429                    Total fixed charges $187,116  $608,466  $188,111  $80,547  $40,799  $14,403                                             Earnings:                        Net income before noncontrolling interest expenses and income taxes $99,021  $350,749  $269,072  $205,421  $132,480  $41,582 Fixed charges  187,116   608,466   188,111   80,547   40,799   14,403 Less: Interest capitalized  (79)  (414)  (932)  —   —   —                    Total earnings $286,058  $958,801  $456,251  $285,968  $173,279  $55,985                                             Ratio of earnings to fixed charges  **1.5x**   **1.6x**   **2.4x**   **3.6x**   **4.2x**   **3.9x**
#### UNITED STATES, Appellant v DANIEL D. KING, Corporal, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellee

16 USCMA 142, 36 CMR 298

No. 19,055

March 18, 1966

*Colonel J. E. Hawthorn,*USMC, was on the brief for Appellant, United States.

*Major Brian B. Kent,*USMC, was on the brief for Appellee, Accused.

Opinion of the Court

Ferguson, Judge:

This case involves the certified question whether the Commanding Officer, Headquarters Company, Force Troops, Fleet Marine Force, Pacific, is empowered to convene special courts-martial. The board of review held he was not, deeming our decision in United States v Ortiz, 15 USCMA 505, 36 CMR 3, petition for reconsideration denied, 16 *143USCMA 127, 36 CMR 283, this date, in all respects controlling.

It appears that the Commanding General, Force Troops, in accordance with section 0103b (5) of the Navy JAG Manual, purported to designate Headquarters Company “a separate and detached command within the meaning of” Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 23(a)(6), 10 USC § 823. In United States v Ortiz, supra, we held a separate company not to be a separate and detached command within the meaning of Code, supra, Article 23(a)(6), and that, by section 0103b (5) of the Navy JAG Manual, supra, the Secretary of the Navy did not intend to confer special court-martial appointing authority upon these commands unless they were such “within the meaning of article 23.” The board, therefore, was correct, and the certified question is answered in the affirmative.

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Chief Judge Quinn concurs.

Kilday, Judge

(dissenting):

I dissent.

It is conceded that the decision in United States v Ortiz, 15 USCMA 505, 36 CMR 3, petition for reconsideration denied, 16 USCMA 127, 36 CMR 283, is controlling in the case at bar. For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion on the petition for reconsideration in *Ortiz,*I would answer the certified question in the negative, and reverse the decision of the board of review.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

ASF A Construction ) 

) 

Under Contract No. W912PB-13-P-0157 ) 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 61471 

Theodore P. Watson, Esq. 

Watson & Associates, LLC 

Aurora, CO 

Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 

Army Chief Trial Attorney 

L TC Robert B. Nelson, JA 

Trial Attorney 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

For reasons indicated by the parties, the Board is unable to proceed with 

disposition of these appeals for an inordinate length of time due to factors not within the 

control of the Board. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed without prejudice 

pursuant to Board Rule l 8(b ). Unless either party or the Board acts to reinstate the 

appeal within one year from the date of this Order, the dismissal shall be deemed with 

prejudice. 

Dated: July 11, 2019 

OWEN C. WILSON 

Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 61471, Appeal of ASFA Construction, 

rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
2400 City Center Square

1100 Main Street

Kansas City, MO 64105

Telephone 816.474.0777

Fax 816.472.0790

www.coolinglaw.com

Kansas Office

2400 N. Woodlawn Street, Suite 221 Wichita, KS 67220 Phone 816.474.0777 Fax 816.472.0790

7301 Mission Road - Suite 245; Prairie Village, KS 66208 Phone 913.362.9727 Fax 913.831.2413

April 22, 2015

Mr. Robert Finamore

Chief, Foreign Air Carrier

Licensing Division

U.S. Department of Transportation

Room W86-125

1200 New Jersey, Ave. SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Aeromodelo S.A. de C.V.

Docket DOT-OST-2004-17411

Dear Mr. Finamore:

Aeromodelo S.A. de C.V. (Aeromodelo) was issued a Foreign Air Carrier Exemption, 

which with the most current renewal expires on December 4, 2015. 

Aeromodelo is no long in need of the exemption and, therefore, is hereby voluntarily 

surrendering that exemption.

Sincerely,

Applicant Representative

James E. Ramsey, Esq.

COOLING & HERBERS, P.C.

JER/sls

cc: Marcela Alejandra Calderon Fernandez
(Reap. Dec. 8548)

#### Inter-Maritime Fowarding Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 772192.

(Decided February 21, 1956)

*Tompkins*<fc *Tompkins*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Rao, 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 by and between counsel for the Plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, Defendant, that the items marked “A” or “B” and initialed VCS by Assistant Appraiser V. C. Schug on the invoices covered by the above-named reappraisement appeal consist of printed linen fabric exported from England.

> That when said above mentioned items marked “A” or “B” and initialed by the Assistant Appraiser were exported from England such and similar merchandise was not being freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of England, nor was it being freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of England for exportation to the United States, nor was it being freely offered for sale in the principal market of the United States to United States purchasers.

> That at the time of exportation the “cost of production” as defined in Section 402 (f) Tariff Act of 1930, for the above mentioned items marked “A” and initialed by the Assistant Appraiser was £0/6/10 per yard (six shillings, ten pence) British sterling for the cost of materials, labor, and fabrication, (Section 402 (f) (1)), plus 10% for the usual general expenses (Section 402 (f) (2)), then plus 5% and then plus 25% for profits (Section 402 (f) (4)), net packed.

> That at the time of exportation the “cost of production” as defined in said Section 402 for the above mentioned items marked “B” and initialed by the Assistant Appraiser was £0/4/7 per yard (four shillings, 7 pence) British sterling for the cost of materials, labor, and fabrication, (Section 402 (f) (1)), plus 10% for the usual general expenses (Section 402 (f) (2)), then plus 5% and then plus 25% for profits (Section 402 (f) (4)), net packed.

*535That the above-named reappraisement appeals is submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find the cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise identified by the items marked *“A”*or “B” and initialed VCS by Assistant Appraiser Y. C. Schug on the invoice, and that such values were as follows:

> As to the items marked “A” and initialed by the assistant appraiser, English currency 6 shillings, 10 pence, per yard, plus 10 per centum, then plus 5 per centum, then plus 25 per centum, net packed.

> As to the items marked “B” and initialed by the assistant appraiser, English currency 4 shillings, 7 pence, per yard, plus 10 per centum, then plus 5 per centum, then plus 25 per centum, net packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.