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



MARKETWATCH, INC.



CERTIFICATION



In connection with the periodic report of MarketWatch, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 16, 2004 (the Report), I, Joan P. Platt, the Chief Financial 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 therein.



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 required by Section 906, 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.



This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



Date: August 16, 2004



|    |  |                                       
|--- |  | --------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Joan P. Platt                     
|    |  | Joan P. Platt, Chief Financial Officer
No. 62613.

#### Leading Forwarders, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 325510-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protest was dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4846 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4846

 To provide for referral of denied applicants to the Service Academies 
                    to the senior military colleges.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 30, 2024

 Mr. Cruz (for himself and Mr. Warnock) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for referral of denied applicants to the Service Academies 
                    to the senior military colleges.

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

SECTION 1. SERVICE ACADEMIES: REFERRAL OF DENIED APPLICANTS TO THE 
              SENIOR MILITARY COLLEGES.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act the Secretary of Defense shall establish a system 
whereby a covered individual may elect to have the Secretary share 
information regarding such covered individual with a senior military 
college.
    (b) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Covered individual.--The term ``covered individual'' 
        means an individual whose application for an appointment as a 
        cadet or midshipman at a Service Academy is denied.
            (2) Senior military college.--The term ``senior military 
        college'' means a school specified in section 2111a of title 
        10, United States Code.
            (3) Service academy.--The term ``Service Academy'' has the 
        meaning given such term in section 347 of title 10, United 
        States Code.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Michael McShane, certify that:
1.    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of Grant Prideco, Inc.; 
2.    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact 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 the period covered by this report; 
3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 
4.    The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;
 (b)    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 
(c)    disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5.    The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 
(a)    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 
(b)    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financialreporting.      Date: September 30, 2004                           Signature:     /s/ Michael McShane          President and Chief Executive Officer
No. 53046.

#### British & South American Import Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 144346-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

By virtue of the decision in *United States*v. *American Viscose Corporation*(30 C. C. P. A. 240, C. A. D. 239), the protests were dismissed.
**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

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title18 of the United States Code), I, S. Jeffrey Johnson, Chief Executive Officerof Cano Petroleum, Inc. (the “Company”), certify that the Company’sQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009(the “Form 10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that informationcontained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:      November 13,  2009 |   | /s/ S. Jeffrey Johnson  |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                                                             |   |                    |
|                                                             |   | S. Jeffrey Johnson      |
|                                                             |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-2000
<CASH>                                           1,268
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,268
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,268
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,206
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,938)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,268
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,207
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,207)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,207)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C.

__________________________________________ ) Application of ) ) ISLAND WINGS LIMITED ) DOCKET DOT-OST-2012- ) for an exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 ) (Bahamas-U.S. charters) ) _________ ________________________________)

MOTION OF ISLAND WINGS LIMITED FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT

Communications with respect to this document should be sent to:

John R. Mietus, Jr. Law Office of John Mietus, LLC 6701 Democracy Blvd., Suite 300 Bethesda, MD 20817-7500 (202) 747-5212 (240) 396-5362 fax john@mietuslaw.com

Counsel for ISLAND WINGS LIMITED

August 28, 2012BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C.

__________________________________________ ) Application of ) ) ISLAND WINGS LIMITED ) DOCKET DOT-OST-2012- ) August 28, 2012 for an exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 ) (Bahamas-U.S. charters) ) _________ ________________________________)

MOTION OF ISLAND WINGS LIMITED FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT

Pursuant to Rule 12 of the Department 's Rules of Practice, 14 C.F.R. § 302.12, Island Wings Limited respectfu lly moves to withhold from public disclosure the contents of Confidential Exhibit 1 (2 pages total). In accordance with Rule 12, the exhibits have been marked "Confidential" and are being filed under seal. Confidential Exhibit 1(d) contains the FAA certificate number of the President and owner of Island Wings. The Department previously has found that confidential treatment of such numbers is appropriate, among other reasons because they may be keyed to social security numbers. See, e.g., Letter dated September 1, 2006 in Docket DOT-OST-2006-24295.

The remainder of Confidential Exhibit 1 contains financial and operational information and projections relating to the airline’s proposed service. They incorporate private, financial and commercial information of aIsland Wings Motion Page 2 type that is not usually disclosed to the public, and they are being provided to the Department solely in support of the carrier's application. Disclosure of

this information would cause material harm to its competitive position. Thus, the information sought to be withheld from public disclosure

meets the standards for nondisclosure fo und in exemption (4) of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4), in that it is: (1) commercial or financial, (2) obtained from a person outside the government, and (3) privileged or confidential. See Gulf & Western Indus., Inc. v. United States , 615 F.2d 527, 529 (D.C. Cir. 1979); National Parks and Conservation Assoc. v.

Morton , 498 F.2d 765, 770 (D.C. Cir. 1974). The Department has granted

confidential treatment to similar information in similar circumstances. See, e.g., Inter Island Charters Limited, Notice of Action Taken dated March 16, 2009 in Docket DOT-OST-2009-0039; BA European Ltd. t/a OpenSkies , Order 2008-5-19.
#### In the Matter of Isaac Prescott, Appellant, v Thomas A. Coughlin, III, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

[634 NYS2d 410]

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Bradley, J.), entered February 8, 1995 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services denying petitioner’s request to participate in a temporary release program.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, challenges the denial of his request to participate in a temporary release program on due process grounds. However, inasmuch as petitioner reapplied for temporary release after issuance of the determination at issue and was given a new hearing at that time, we find that his appeal is now moot. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
No. 49704.

#### Protests 818478-G, etc., of G. Foti, Inc., et al. (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the cheese in question is similar to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706). The protests were therefore sustained.
SCWC-18-0000536

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

________________________________________________________________

DL, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

CL, Respondent/Defendant-Appellee.

________________________________________________________________

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-18-0000536; FC-D NO. 16-1-1014)

ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant DL’s application for writ of 

certiorari filed on January 7, 2020, is hereby accepted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that no oral argument will be heard 

in this case. Any party may, within ten days and pursuant to 

Rule 34(c) of the Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure, move for 

retention of oral argument.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, February 10, 2020.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-18-0000536

10-FEB-2020

03:53 PM
#### Michael Phillips, Appellant *v.*The Board of Commissioners of Hanover Township, Appellee.

Argued March 6, 1981,

before Judges Rogers, MacPhail and Palladino, sitting as a panel of three.

*Elliot B. Edley,*for appellant.

*John L. McDonald,*for appellee.

April 2, 1981:

Opinion by

Judge Rogers,

Michael Phillips has appealed from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County upholding the action of the Board of Commissioners of Hanover Township refusing to rezone Phillips’ parcel of land.

Phillips wrote to the Board of Commissioners as follows:

> Gentlemen:

> I am requesting a rezoning of the property located on the San Souci Highway, which was recently purchased from Mark Realty.

> I am requesting it to be changed from residential C-l Commercial. I would appreciate *207it if this can be enacted upon as soon as possible for I wish to make use of it in the near future.

The Commissioners conducted a hearing, after which they refused Phillips’ request. Phillips appealed and the Court below conducted a hearing and received evidence, which on the part of Phillips consisted of his description of other commercial activities in the vicinity of his land, of an expression of his desire to conduct one or more of a number of commercial uses on his tract and of the' testimony of a real estate expert to the effect that development in the vicinity of Phillips’ tract causes Phillips to suffer economic detriment by reason of the residential zoning of his tract.

We need not reach the merits of this appeal. The general rule is that “the refusal to rezone by a municipal governing body is not subject to review by this or any other court.” *Warren v. Supervisors of McKean Township,*17 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 421, 423, 333 A.2d 237, 238 (1975); *Clover Hill Farms, Inc. v. Lehigh Township Board of Supervisors,*5 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 239, 289 A.2d 778 (1972). Section 1004 of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, 53 P.S. §11004 permits a landowner to suggest to the governing body a curative amendment as part of a substantive challenge to the validity of a zoning provision; but Phillips doesn’t contend that this ordinance must be amended because it is substantively invalid. Indeed, his evidence does not rise to a showing of the unnecessary hardship required to support a variance, had he applied for such *to the zoning hearing board*as allowed by Section 912 of the Code, 53 P.S. §10912.

The general rule of the nonreviewability of mere requests for rezoning is applicable and the court below properly refused to disturb the Commissioners’ action. Order affirmed.

*208Order

And Now, this 2nd day of April, 1981, the decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County shall be and the same hereby is affirmed.

Judge Wilkinson did not participate in the decision of this case.
No. 52636.

protests 52083-K, etc. (New York).

#### Eugene Dietzgen Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the ease within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries. The protests were sustained to this extent.
DONALD K. MCCLURE

,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,
Respondent. ___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FIL ED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 3103

Opinion filed August 5, 2014.

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

-- Original Jurisdiction

.
Donald K. McClure, pro se , Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED. See Baker v. State , 878 So. 2d 1236, 1245 (Fla. 2004) (“The remedy

of habeas corpus is not available in Florida to obtain the kind of collateral

postconviction relief available by motion in the sentencing court pursuant to rule

3.850.”).

VAN NORTWICK, CLARK, a nd SWANSON, JJ.

, CONCUR.
<PAGE>

[TRANSLATION FROM HEBREW]

EXHIBIT 4.(a).31

                                  [State Seal]

             GENERAL LICENSE FOR PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY LTD.
             FOR THE PROVISION OF MOBILE RADIO PHONE SERVICES BY THE
                              CELLULAR METHOD (MRP)

                                AMENDMENT NO. 16

By virtue of my power under section 4(e) of the Communications Law
(Telecommunications and Broadcasting), 5742-1982(1), and after hearing claims by
Partner Communications Company Ltd. (hereinafter-"Partner") I hereby amend the
general licence for the provision of mobile radio phone services by the cellular
method (MRP) granted to Partner as follows:

REPLACEMENT OF ARTICLE 75.9

     1.   Article 75.9 shall be replaced by:

          "75.9   (a)   The licensee may collect from a subscriber that
                        initiates a call using the 1-800 access code to a
                        network of another licensee, a rate that is less than
                        the rate charged to the subscriber for calls made not
                        using the above-mentioned access code, as long as it
                        does not exceed the amount agreed upon between the
                        licensee and the other licensee and in the absence of
                        such agreement, shall not exceed the amount set by the
                        Minister(2).

                  (b)   The above-mentioned in sub-section (a) shall not apply
                        to calls to 1-800 numbers in the special numbering plan,
                        that have been allocated for the use of the
                        international operators for the purpose of providing
                        international telecommunications message services, as
                        defined in the license of the international
                        operator"(a).

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

(1) Sefer Hachukim; 5752 p.218; 5761 p.530

(2) On 26.11.02 the Minister ruled the following: for a call that originates in
an MRT operator's network to a subscriber of the "Bezek" company with 1-800
service, "Bezek" will remit to the MRT operator the sum of 22 agorot per minute
(not including V.A.T.); "Bezek" may collect the above sum from the 1-800
subscriber; In addition, the MRT operator will collect from it's subscriber who
initiates the call a sum that does not exceed 22 agorot per minute (not
including V.A.T.).

(a) Simultaneous bi-directional transmission of speech as well as simultaneous
transmission of facsimile messages, in an international telecommunications
system.

<PAGE>

EFFECT

     2.   Article 75.9 shall take effect as of December 15, 2002.

                                    (signed)

November 26, 2002                   Reuven (Ruby) Rivlin
                                    Minister of Communications
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

HAROLD ALLBRITTON, No. CIV S-04-1985 MCE JFM P

Petitioner, 

v. ORDER

JEANNE WOODFORD, ET AL., 

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an

application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General

Order No. 262.

On July 22, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and

recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which

contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days.

///

Case 2:04-cv-01985-MCE -JFM Document 14 Filed 09/07/05 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

Neither party has filed objections to the findings and

recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and

recommendations to be supported by the record and by the

magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed July 22, 2005,

are adopted in full; and 

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. See Local

Rule 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

DATED: September 7, 2005

_________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01985-MCE -JFM Document 14 Filed 09/07/05 Page 2 of 2