alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, R. Byron Carlock, Jr., President and Interim Chief Executive Officer, certifies that
(1) this Quarterly Report of CNL Income Properties, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this Report), fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (2) the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company
as of June 30, 2006 and December 31, 2005, and its results of operations for the quarters and six months ended June 30, 2006 and 2005.



|                      |  |                                                     
|--------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|                      |  | /s/ R. Byron Carlock, Jr.                           
|Date: August 11, 2006 |  | Name: R. Byron Carlock, Jr.                         
|                      |  | Title: President and Interim Chief Executive Officer
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22**  **- 0424**  SHAWN FOWLER ,

Plaintiff/Appellee , v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE MONTANA HOGHWAY PATROL ,

Defendant/Appellant
. **GRANT OF APPELLEE’S EXTENSION OF TIME**  Pursuant to the authority granted under Rule 26, M.R.App.P., Appell ee ’s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time is granted. Appell ee ma y file and serve its Response B rief in this matter on or b ef ore June 18 , 202 3
. **ELECTRONICALL Y SIGNED AND DATED BELOW** 
cc: Karl Knuchel/Webster Crist Michael Kauffman

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court May 15 2023

05/15/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0424
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Larry Taylor, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of OBN Holdings, Inc.

2.   Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 of the circumstances under which such
     statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
     this quarterly report.

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this quarterly 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
     quarterly 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 Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we
     have:

     a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
         material information relating to the registrant, including its
         consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
         entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly 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 disclosure controls and procedures as of the end
         of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     c)  disclosed in this report any changes in the registrant's internal
         control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
         most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
         reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
         controls over financial reporting.

5.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
     our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
     the registrant's auditor's and the audit committee of 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 control over financial reporting which are
         reasonably likely to adversely affect 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
         control over financial reporting.


Dated:  May 13, 2005

By: /s/ LARRY TAYLOR
    --------------------------
    Larry Taylor
    Chief Financial Officer

                                    Page 27
#### ACCIDENT INDEX BUREAU, INC., AND HILLSIDE METAL PRODUCTS, INC., BOTH CORPORATIONS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. RAYMOND F. MALE, COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY, AND HERBERT KORANSKY, DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Argued January 8,1968

Decided January 22,1968.

*Mr. Edward B. Meredith*for appellants *(Messrs. Meredith, Meredith & Demslci,*attorneys).

*Mr. Stephen Sldllman*for respondents *(Mr. Arthur J. Sills,*Attorney General, attorney; *Mr. Alan B. Handler,*of counsel).

Pee. Cueiam.

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge Kilkenny in the Appellate Division.

*For*affirmance—Chief Justice Weinteatjb and Justices Jacobs, Peafcis, Peoctoe, Hall, Sohettino and HaneMAN'—7.

*For*reversal—Hone.
No. 54745.

#### Olavarria & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 127243-K, etc. (Tampa).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of sugar sirups similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Olavarria & Co., Inc.*(37 C. C. P. A. 40, C. A. D. 417), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### In the Matter of Glenn Jones, Petitioner, v John F. Hudacs, as Commissioner of Labor of the New York State Department of Labor, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 827]

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of John F. Hudacs, Commissioner of Labor of the State of New York Department of Labor, dated November 18, 1993, which, after a hearing, found the petitioner guilty of misconduct and incompetence in the exercise of his duties and suspended him from service without pay for one month.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

To annul an administrative determination made after a hear*532ing, a court must conclude that the record lacks substantial evidence to support the determination *(see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly,*71 NY2d 135, 140; *Matter of Silberfarb v Board of Coop. Educ. Servs.,*60 NY2d 979, 981; *see also, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176, 181; *Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222, 230). Here, the determination of the Commissioner of Labor was supported by substantial evidence. The testimony and exhibits adduced at the hearing established the facts necessary to sustain the numerous specifications of incompetency and misconduct against the petitioner.

Further, the penalty of suspension without pay for one month was not so disproportionate to the offenses committed as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness *(see, Matter of Linfield v Nyquist,*48 NY2d 1005; *Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., supra).*Sullivan, J. P., Thompson, Hart and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4986 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to improve permitting 

of energy transport facilities, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 1, 2024 

Mr. LANKFORD introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to improve permitting of energy transport facilities, and for 

other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Unlock Pipeline Direct 

5 Access To Entry Act’’ or the ‘‘UPDATE Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4986 IS

1 SEC. 2. IMPROVING PERMITTING OF ENERGY TRANSPORT 

2 FACILITIES BY ELIMINATING DUPLICATIVE 

3 STATE CERTIFICATION OVER FEDERAL PER4 MITS OR LICENSES. 

5 Section 401(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Con6 trol Act (33 U.S.C. 1341(a)) is amended by adding at the 

7 end the following: 

8 ‘‘(7) No certification shall be required under 

9 this subsection for a license or permit issued to a fa10 cility for the transportation of natural gas in inter11 state or foreign commerce under section 3 or 7 of 

12 the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717b, 717f).’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
State Implementation Plan Revision: 2011 Base Year Inventory for 

the Pennsylvania Portion of Five 2008 Ozone Nonattainment Areas:

Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Lancaster, 

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, 

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, Reading

MOVES Files

To support its mobile source emissions MOVES modeling for its 2011 

base year emission inventories, Pennsylvania submitted hundreds of files

whose cumulative size is approximately 242 MB. Many of these files 

are multi-spreadsheet Microsoft EXCEL files or model input and output 

files that are not easily converted to the pdf format for uploading to 

www.regulations.gov. Because of the large number of files and the 

format of these file, they are not available for download from 

www.regulations.gov. Copies of these files are available for public 

inspection at the EPA Region III address listed in the Federal Register 

Proposed Rule document. For further information, EPA Region III's 

point of contact (POC) is listed in this docket.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, William D. Davis, Chief Executive Officer of MD
Technologies Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of MD Technologies Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 fully complies
with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of MD
Technologies Inc.



|                      |  |  |  |                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: August 10, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/ William D. Davis   
|                      |  |  |  | William D. Davis       
|                      |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 57 (Monday, March 26, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14091-14092]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5450]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Nevada

AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Nevada Test Site. 
The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) 
requires

[[Page 14092]]

that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal 
Register.

DATES: Wednesday, April 11, 2007; 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: 7710 West Cheyenne Avenue, Conference Room <greek-i>130, Las 
Vegas, Nevada.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Snyder, Deputy Designated 
Federal Officer, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, Nevada 89193. Phone: (702) 
295-2836; E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#087b66716c6d7a6348667e266c676d266f677e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b2c1dccbd6d7c0d9f2dcc49cd6ddd79cd5ddc4">[email protected]</span></a> or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9ef0eaedfdfffcdefff1f2b0fdf1f3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="69071d1a0a080b29080605470a0604">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make 
recommendations to DOE in the areas of environmental restoration, waste 
management, and related activities.
    Tentative Agenda:
    1. Briefing entitled ``Radiation Fundamentals''
    2. Updates by the Board's working committees
    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written 
statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the 
meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral presentations pertaining to 
agenda items should contact Kelly Snyder at the telephone number listed 
above. The request must be received five days prior to the meeting and 
reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the 
agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct 
the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of 
business. Individuals wishing to make public comment will be provided a 
maximum of five minutes to present their comments.
    Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public 
review and copying at the U.S. Department of Energy's Freedom of 
Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and 4 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Minutes will also 
be available by writing to Kelly Snyder at the address listed above.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on March 20, 2007.
Rachel Samuel,
Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
 [FR Doc. E7-5450 Filed 3-23-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
(Reap. Dec. 8462)

#### Hensel, Bruckman & Lorbacher, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 971582; 970948; 971166.

(Decided July 14, 1955)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

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

Olivee, Chief Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have 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 market value or price at time of exportation of cameras and cases, covered by invoices and entries noted on schedule attached herewith and made a part hereof at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, including all costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States was 32.30 Deutsch Marks, net packed for the cameras and 5.60 Deutsch Marks, net packed for the cases, and that there was no higher export value for such or similar merchandise herein at the time of exportation thereof.

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

*378On the agreed facts I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the cameras and cases here involved, and that such values were- 32.30 deutschemarks, net packed for the cameras, and 5.60 deutschemarks, net packed for the cases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

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 CanoPetroleum, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q, as amended by this Amendment No. 1 on Form10-Q/A,  for the quarterended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Morris B. Smith, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities andExchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company, asof, and for, the periods presented in the Report.

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished as anexhibit to the Form 10-Q/Apursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 202 (subsections (a) and (b) ofSection 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and,accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q/A for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated byreference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the datehereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

 
| December 26, 2006 | /s/ Morris B. Smith     |   |
|-------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|              | Morris B. Smith         |   |
|              | Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
No. 63174.

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

protest 311075-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of rangefinder prisms built into the Leica camera and are necessary for the operation of the camera, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 04-51424

_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff - Appellee

v. IGNACIO GOMEZ-DE LA ROSA Defendant - Appellant

--------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas, El Paso

3:04-CR-1721-ALL

---------------------
Before DeMOSS, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

IT IS ORDERED that Appellee’s unopposed motion to vacate the
sentence is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellee’s unopposed motion to

remand the case to the Western District of Texas, El Paso Division for resentencing is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellee’s alternative request

for an extension of time to file the Ap pellee’s brief 14 days

from the denial of Appellee’s motion to vacate and remand is

MOOT. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## F I L E D June 17, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
No. 51062.

#### Protests 117455-K, etc., of Johnson Bros. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of oat-meals or oatmeal saucers and puree cups, or chowder cups the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *Copeland & Thompson, Inc.*v. *United States*(12 Cust. Ct. 85, C. D. 833) and *Johnson Bros.*v. *United States*(15 id. 113, C. D. 955). In accordance therewith the merchandise was held dutiable as claimed.
June 3, 1948

No. 52368.

Suit 4579.

#### Florea & Co., Inc. *v.*United *States.*

Reap Dec. 7155 reversed and remanded March 2, 1948. C. A. D. 387.
#### DISPOSAL ASSOCIATES, INC., PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. SOUTH RIVER TRANSPORT COMPANY, *ETC., ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

*Messrs. Williams, Willette & Faccone*for the petitioner.

*Messrs. Kaufman & Kaufman*for the respondents.

March 12, 1968.

Denied.
#### In the Matter of Dianne Ryan, Appellant, v Thomas W. Schmidt, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 558]

—In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4 for modification of a child *450support order, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Bivona, J.), dated May 27, 1994, which granted the father’s petition and terminated his support obligation for the three children.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Orange County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

The mother contends that the Family Court erred in summarily terminating the father’s support obligation based solely upon an unauthenticated Texas order which purportedly changed the children’s surname. We agree. Although a father has a recognized interest in having his child bear his surname, he has no legal entitlement to require the child to bear his name *(see, Swank v Petkovsek,*216 AD2d 920; *Matter of Cohan v Cunningham,*104 AD2d 716). Moreover, since the focus of a support proceeding is the best interests of the child, "there is no basis in law or reason to condition the duty of support upon a child’s bearing the surname of the payor parent” *(Matter of Bell v Bell,*116 AD2d 97, 99). Accordingly, the court erred in relieving the father of his support obligation based solely upon the change of the children’s surname. Moreover, even if the children consented to take their stepfather’s surname, and even if, as the father alleges, the children refuse to speak with him, they did not forfeit their right to continued support. While a child of employable age who actively abandons the noncustodial parent by refusing all contact and visitation may be deemed to have forfeited his or her right to support, here the children ranged in age from 10 to 15 at the time the modification petition was filed, and were thus not of employable age *(see, Matter of Alice C. v Bernard G. C.,*193 AD2d 97; *Yokaitis v Yokaitis,*184 AD2d 695; *Basi v Basi,*136 AD2d 945). Accordingly, the children could not, as a matter of law, abandon their father *(see, Yokaitis v Yokaitis, supra; Basi v Basi, supra).*

However, we remit this matter for a hearing to determine whether modification of the support order is warranted based upon the remaining ground cited in the father’s petition. Miller, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.