alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 13.1

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of
the undersigned officers of Petrobras Energía Participaciones, S.A. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the Form 20-F) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: June 29, 2006 |  | /s/ Alberto Guimarães  
|                     |  | Alberto Guimarães      
|                     |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                     | 
|Dated: June 29, 2006 |  | /s/ Luis Sas           
|                     |  | Luis Sas               
|                     |  | Chief Financial Officer

A signed original 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.
Copyright © 1997 Global Compliance, LLC. A LL RIGHTS RESERVED. 

## Basics Case No: 12-008-U - Flint Creek Retrofit Date Entered: 03/08/2012 08:18:22 AM Party/Requestor: APSC Staff Date Received: 03/07/2012 Date Requested: 03/07/2012 Internal Due Date: 03/20/2012 Service Due Date: 03/22/2012 Answer Status: New Service Date: 

## Question No: 18 Please identify the 8,200 MW of coal-fired generation that have installed SCR systems since 2004. For each coal unit at which SCR was installed, p lease provide: a. Specific type of SCR system installed b. Year installation complete c. Project cost Answer: Refer to "APSC Staff 4-18 Attachment 1.xls" for a list of the plants included in the 8,200 MW of coal-fired generation that have installed SCR systems since 2004, and the associated requested information. Advanced Date Verified: Date Accepted: Confidential: No Yes Attachments:

Voluminous: No Yes Highly Sensitive: No Yes
Comments:
Preparer(s): Henry C Steele; Kevin J Munson; Michael L Wilkinson; Twana Banks-Smith; William E Mast Witness: Christian T Beam

Modification History Created by Twana Banks-Smith Created on 03/14/2012 02:12:51 PM Modified on 03/15/2012 04:27:03 PM Edit History 1. Twana Banks-Smith 03/15/2012 04:27:03 PM 0. Twana Banks-Smith 03/14/2012 02:13:22 PMCopyright © 1997 Global Compliance, LLC. A LL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 18, 2020.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-18-00817-CR

DEADRIAN KORTRY MCCLENNON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 263rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1515120

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Deadrian Kortry McClennon appeals his conviction for sexual 

assault, challenging in one issue the trial court’s admission at trial of a purported 

hearsay statement. We affirm.

In his sole issue on appeal, appellant contends the trial court erred in 

overruling his counsel’s hearsay objection to testimony from a paramedic who was 

dispatched to treat the complainant. Appellant also contends that his “constitutional 
2

right of confrontation was violated when the hearsay was allowed before the jury.”

To preserve error for appellate review, a defendant must timely object to the 

error during trial. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1; Taylor v. State, 572 S.W.3d 816, 822 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, pet. ref’d). Defense counsel must object every 

time allegedly inadmissible evidence is offered unless counsel obtains a running 

objection or requests a hearing outside the presence of the jury. Martinez v. State, 

98 S.W.3d 189, 193 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Taylor, 572 S.W.3d at 822. The 

failure to object to a violation of the Confrontation Clause waives the argument on 

appeal unless the specific grounds are apparent from the context. Wright v. State, 

28 S.W.3d 526, 536 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Ayala v. State, 267 S.W.3d 428, 437

(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, pet. ref’d).

The paramedic testified two times, “We were dispatched to an assault.”

After the second time the paramedic made the statement, defense counsel objected 

to the following question on hearsay grounds: “And did you have any other type of 

information on the type of assault that you were responding to?” Defense counsel

did not object on the basis that appellant’s right to confrontation was violated. The 

trial court overruled the objection and the paramedic answered, “We just got an 

assault. Can’t recall what the computer notes were saying, it’s been quite some 

time.” Later during the trial, the paramedic testified that he treated the complainant 

for “sexual assault.” That testimony did not draw an objection. 

Defense counsel did not object to the paramedic’s testimony regarding an 

assault. He objected to the question involving the type of assault for which the 

paramedic had been called to the scene. He did not seek a running objection, and 

evidence of the type of assault came in later during the trial without an objection.

Defense counsel, moreover, did not argue that his rights under the Confrontation 

Clause were violated. Therefore, appellant did not preserve this complaint for 
3

appeal. See Taylor, 572 S.W.3d at 822; Ayala, 267 S.W.3d at 437. We overrule 

appellant’s sole issue. 

/s/ Frances Bourliot

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Bourliot, and Hassan.

Do Not Publish — TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 57 (Monday, March 26, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14077-14078]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5502]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-583-831]


Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan; Notice of 
Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 26, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill Pollack, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4593.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 30, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published a notice of initiation of administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from 
Taiwan. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 71 FR 51573 
(Aug. 30, 2006). The period of review is July 1, 2005, through June 30, 
2006, and the preliminary results are currently due no later than April 
2, 2007. The review covers 12

[[Page 14078]]

producers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States.

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(the Act), the Department shall make a preliminary determination in an 
administrative review of an antidumping order within 245 days after the 
last day of the anniversary month of the date of publication of the 
order. Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act further provides, however, that 
the Department may extend the 245-day period to 365 days if it 
determines it is not practicable to complete the review within the 
foregoing time period. We determine that it is not practicable to 
complete this administrative review within the time limits mandated by 
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act because we require additional time to 
analyze the respondent's cost of production response and issue 
supplemental questionnaires. Therefore, we have fully extended the 
deadline for completing the preliminary results until July 31, 2007, 
which is 365 days from the last day of the anniversary month of the 
date of publication of the order. The deadline for the final results of 
the review continues to be 120 days after the publication of the 
preliminary results.
    This extension notice is published in accordance with sections 
751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: March 19, 2007.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-5502 Filed 3-23-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
#### FORMIGLIO CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. PRINCETON RECREATION CENTER, INC., DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

April 13, 1964. Denied.

*Mr. Alan H. Bernstein*for the petitioner.

*Messrs.*Schiff, *Gummis & Kent*and *Mr. Steven S. Radin*for the respondent.

On petition for certification to Superior Court, Appellate Division.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-19-00064-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 348th District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 348-264569-13

Before Pittman, Birdwell and Bassel, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

SIMONE BARRON AND WAHID J. YAMMINE AND WALID YAMMINE,

Appellants

V. 

ISSAM AL SHMAISANI AND SHARON SMITH, Appellees
2 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

We have considered appellant Wahid J. Yammine’s “Notice of Withdrawal of 

Notice of Appeal,” which we treat as a motion to dismiss his appeal. We grant the 

motion and dismiss the appeal of Wahid J. Yammine only. See Tex. R. App. P. 

42.1(a)(1), (b), 43.2(f).

The case shall hereafter be styled “Simone Barron and Walid Yammine v.

Issam Al Shmaisani and Sharon Smith.”

Wahid J. Yammine shall pay all costs of his appeal, for which let execution

issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d), 43.4.

Per Curiam

Delivered: June 20, 2019
No. 59062.

protests 247428-K and 248327-K (New York).

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

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

An examination of the record failing to disclose evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s classification, the protests were overruled.
#### City of Ann Arbor v The University Cellar, Inc.

(Docket No. 57822.)

*R. Bruce Laidlaw,*City Attorney, for plaintiff-appellant. *Forsythe, Campbell, Vandenberg, Clevenger & Bishop, P.C.,*for defendant-appellee.

Rehearing granted in part so as to change the last sentence of the majority opinion to read as follows:

"We reverse the Court of Appeals and remand the cause to the State Tax Tribunal for consideration of the issue of valuation as of December 31, 1970 and December 31, 1971 according to evidence presented by the parties.”

We retain no further jurisdiction.

Reported at 401 Mich 279.
Exhibit 32.2
                                                               ------------

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

         In  connection  with the Annual Report of Calypso  Financial  Services,
Inc. (the "Company" on Form 10- KSB for the period ending  December 31, 2006, as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report",  I,  Edward F. Cowle,  Principal  Accounting  Officer of the  Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1) The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
     15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


/s/   EDWARD F. COWLE
------------------------------
Edward F. Cowle
Principal Accounting Officer
February 14, 2007



     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906, or
     other document  authenticating,  acknowledging,  or otherwise  adopting the
     signature that appears in typed form within the electronic  version of this
     written  statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
     the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or its
     staff upon  request.  The foregoing  certifications  are  accompanying  the
     Company's Form 10-KSB solely pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
     Act of 2002  (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of title
     18,  United  States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-KSB
     or as a separate disclosure document.
EX-3.2
           CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT TO ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION

                            Certificate of Amendment to
                             Articles of Incorporation
                            For Nevada Profit Corporation
         (Pursuant to NRS 78.385 and 78.390 - After Issuance of Stock)

1.  Name of corporation: Syconet.com, Inc.

2.  The articles have been amended as follows (provide article
numbers, if available):

     Article I.  Name of Corporation: Point Group Holdings,
Incorporated.

3.  The vote by which the stockholders holding shares in the
corporation entitling them to exercise at least a majority of the
voting power, or such greater proportion of the voting power as
may be required in the case of a vote by classes or series, or as
may be required by the provisions of the articles of
incorporation have voted in favor of the amendment is:
108,962,800 *

4.  Officer Signature (Required)


/s/  John Fleming                          /s/  John Fleming
President                                  Secretary

* If any proposed amendment would alter or change any preference
or any relative or other right given to any class or series of
outstanding shares, then the amendment must be approved by the
vote, in addition to the affirmative vote otherwise required, of
the holders of shares representing a majority of the voting power
of each class or series affected by the amendment regardless of
limitations or restrictions on the voting power thereof.

IMPORTANT: Failure to include any of the above information and
remit the proper fees may cause this filing to be rejected.
CH

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0717

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

DARRELL DEAN SHARP, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to

and including September 18, 2024, within which to prepare, file, and serve the 

State’s response brief. 

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 2 2024

08/02/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0717
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1893

JUAN L. STEWARD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GWALTNEY OF SMITHFIELD, LTD.,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-95-1158)

Submitted: December 12, 1996 Decided: December 18, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Juan L. Steward, Appellant Pro Se. Leslie Robert Stellman, BLUM,

YUMKAS, MAILMAN, GUTMAN & DENICK, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's orders granting the

Appellee summary judgment in this employment discrimination action.

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Appellant's motion

for appointment of counsel and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Steward v. Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd., No. CA-95-

1158 (E.D. Va. June 20, 1996). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# _"_1_

LARAMIEREGIONAL 

# AIRPORT
55.5General Brees Road' Laramie, Wyoming 82070 • Office: (307) 742-4164 • FAX: 742-3303 • skinner@laramieairport.com Michael Martin Transportation Industry Analyst Office ofAviation Analysis US Department ofTransportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 RE: USDOT Essential Air Service Bids for Laramie, Wyoming Dear Mr. Martin: June 16,2014

The Laramie Regional Airport Board (LRAB) strongly supports the application ofSkyWest Airlines toprovide Essential Air Service tothe Laramie Regional Airport. The LRAB and the Laramie community have been extremely satisfied with SkyWest Airlines over the lasttwo years. Immediately after SkyWest was awarded the EAS bid (approximately two years ago) the traveling public's confidence inreliable air service increased dramatically. SkyWest's tie-in with United Airlines, the ease ofbooking flights inand out ofLaramie, andthe fare advantages we have with aUnited Express carrier, have been large factors in our increased passenger numbers over the lasttwo years. The increased passenger loads we've experienced over the last two years proves that an air carrier that isreliable, customer service oriented, and that provides acompetitive air fare can be successful in acommunity like Laramie and does make adifference. The LRAB isalso excited about the possibility ofSkyWest utilizing a50-seat regional jet to serve Laramie. We feel the introduction ofthis aircraft into our community would greatly enhance the travel experience and our passenger numbers would continue to increase. LRAB is excited to continue to work with, market, and support SkyWest Airlines as Laramie's air carrier. Thank you for considering our comments. Sincerely, 

# P:z~
Board Chairman
EX-10.8(a)



 Exhibit 10.8(a) 
 June 1, 2014 
 Aspect Capital Ltd. 

Nations House – 8th Floor 
 103
Wigmore Street 
 London W1U 1QS, U.K. 

Attention: Mr. Anthony Todd, CEO 
  

	 	Re:	Management Agreement Renewals 

 Dear
Mr. Todd: 
 We are writing with respect to your management agreements concerning the commodity pools to which reference is made below (the
“Management Agreements”). We are extending the term of the Management Agreements through June 30, 2015 and all other provisions of the Management Agreements will remain unchanged. 

 

	 	•	 	 Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P. 


  

	 	•	 	 Diversified 2000 Futures Fund L.P. 


  

	 	•	 	 Tactical Diversified Futures Fund L.P. 


  

	 	•	 	 CMF Aspect Master Fund L.P. 


  

	 	•	 	 Institutional Futures Portfolio L.P 


  

	 	•	 	 Global Futures Fund Ltd 



Please acknowledge receipt of this modification by signing one copy of this letter and returning it to the attention of Mrs. Alice Lonero at the address
above or fax to 212-296-6868. If you have any questions I can be reached at 212-296-1304. 
 Very truly yours, 

CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC 
  

			
	By:	 	 /s/ Alice Lonero

		 	  

		 	 Alice Lonero

		 	Chief Financial Officer 
	
	ASPECT CAPITAL LTD.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ A. J. Todd

		 	  



			
		
	Print Name:	 	 A. J. Todd




			
	AL/sr
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8486 

To direct the Secretary of Transportation, in coordination with the Secretary 

of Housing and Urban Development, to establish a thriving communities 

grant program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 21, 2024 

Mrs. TORRES of California introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Transportation, in coordination 

with the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, 

to establish a thriving communities grant program. 

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 ‘‘Thriving Communities 

5 Act of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. THRIVING COMMUNITIES PROGRAM. 

7 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary of Transpor8 tation, in coordination with the Secretary of Housing and 

9 Urban Development, shall establish a thriving commuVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:47 Jul 06, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H8486.IH H8486

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8486 IH

1 nities grant program to provide technical assistance and 

2 capacity building to help underserved communities ad3 vance transformative, equitable and environmentally 

4 friendly infrastructure projects. 

5 (b) REPORT.—The Secretary shall submit to the 

6 Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representa7 tives a report on— 

8 (1) the methods the Secretary uses in carrying 

9 out the program established under subsection (a) to 

10 promote transit-oriented development; 

11 (2) the level of coordination between the Sec12 retary of Transportation and the Secretary of Hous13 ing and Urban Development in carrying out such 

14 program, including the respective roles of each Sec15 retary; and 

16 (3) what equity metrics are used to distribute 

17 funding under such program. 

18 (c) AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

19 is authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year— 

20 (1) $100,000,000 to the Secretary of Transpor21 tation to carry out this section; and 

22 (2) $5,500,000 million to the Secretary of 

23 Housing and Urban Development to facilitate coVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:47 Jul 06, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H8486.IH H8486

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 8486 IH

1 ordination with the Secretary of Transportation to 

2 carry out this section. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
No. 63168.

#### D’Italia Sportswear, Ltd. *v.*United States,

protest 58/19315 (New York).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.