alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)







In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Southern Star Central Corp. (the Company), a Delaware corporation, for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned, Jerry L. Morris, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Susanne W. Harris, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, 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 results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods presented in the Report.



The foregoing certification is provided solely for purposes of complying with the provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not intended to be used or relied upon for any other purpose.



|    |                       |                                                        |                 
|--- | --------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------ | ----------------
|    | Signature             | Title                                                  | Date            
|By: | /s/ Jerry L. Morris   | President and Chief Executive Officer                  | January 30, 2006
|    | Jerry L. Morris       |                                                        |                 
|By: | /s/ Susanne W. Harris | Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Treasurer | January 30, 2006
|    | Susanne W. Harris     |                                                        |                 



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Southern Star Central Corp. and will be retained by Southern Star Central Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or staff upon request.
Exhibit 99.11


Purchase Agreement





(Unofficial English Translation)





Contract No. C-JM20110101


Place of execution: Pindingshan


Date of execution: January 1, 2011





Seller: Pingdingshan Hongfeng Coking Factory


Buyer: Baofeng Coking Factory of Henan Province Pingdingshan Coal and Coke Co., Ltd.





I. Purchase Order


Amount of Purchase (metric tons)Name of Receiver

Goods

Specification

Yearly Total

Purchase


First

Quarter


Second

Quarter


Third

Quarter


Fourth

QuarterBaofeng Coking Factory of Henan Province Pingdingshan Coal and Coke Co., Ltd.

Processed Coal

Water ≤ 8%

Volatility ≤ 35%

Ash ≤ 10.3%

Sulfur ≤ 0.5%

G Value ≥ 80


72,000



36,000



36,000



36,000



36,000





II. The price of the goods shall be RMB 1,000 per metric ton, subject to further negotiation between the parties according to the market price at the time of delivery.





III. A difference of 0.8 metric tons per truckload from the order amount shall be allowed without requiring additional payment or refund. Any difference of more than 0.8 metric tons per truckload from the order amount shall be resolved by additional payment or refund based on the actual amount delivered.





IV. Seller shall not deliver the goods until Buyer completes a sample inspection and gives permission to Seller to deliver.





V. Buyer shall pay for the goods when the goods are loaded and ready for delivery.





VI. Any unsettled matter under this Agreement shall be resolved through consultation between the parties. This Agreement is effective through December 31, 2011.





Seller: Pingdingshan Hongfeng Coking Factory [corporate seal]


Buyer: Baofeng Coking Factory of Henan Province Pingdingshan Coal and Coke Co., Ltd. [corporate seal]
Secretary Chu 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Attachments: 

The Honorable Steven Chu 

Hamilton, Scott [SHamilton@ArkansasEDC.com] 

Tuesday, February 12, 2013 1:08 PM 

Secretary Chu 

Lowery, JD; Tennille, Grant; marc.harrison@governor.arkansas.gov 

Endorsement of the Joint Petition to Adopt Joint Stakeholder Proposal As it Relates to the 

Rulemaking on Energy Conservation Standards for Electric Motors, Docket No. EERE-201 0-

BT-STD-0027 ,( d I . -tt:,_;, 

DOE NEMA Electric Motor Support Letter to DOE.docx ~ lht C)-tret me'~ I.S 

/e.-~'!/' 13m 

Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Ave. SW 

Washington DC 20585 

Dear Secretary Chu, 

RE: Docket No. EERE-201Q-BT-STD-Q027 

The Arkansas Economic Development Commission- Energy Office is committed to and interested in promoting 

measures of energy efficiency as a means of positively addressing our nation's energy usage and its continued 

availability. With this, we understand and fully support the benefits of developing policies that encourage energy 

efficiency. More importantly, we appreciate strategies that strike a balance between the needs of our energy future and 

what is required to maintain a strong state and national economy. 

Recently, a joint petition for Docket Number EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027 lead by the National Electrical Manufacturers 

Association (NEMA) and several other national energy efficiency advocacy organizations was presented to the DOE; we 

wish to lend our support to this petition's contents and goals as an alternative to the proposed immediate increase 

efficiency requirements. The strength of this petition lies in the early, continued collaboration of the many stakeholders 

who developed it, its straightforwardness and its feasibility. We applaud the combined efforts of manufacturers and 

energy-efficiency advocates to advance policy and regulation in a responsible and meaningful way. We encourage the 

DOE to adopt the principles and content of the petition. 

Arkansas is the home of a major electric motor manufacturer that employs over 2,000 Arkansans. Many of the 

company's competitors have gone overseas, while this company has chosen to remain in Fort Smith, AR. This group has 

been a partner with the DOE in the past and is a leading advocate of efficiency in our state. We believe the current DOE 

proposal could potentially adversely impact this economic and energy efficiency leader in our state. 

Again, the Arkansas Economic Development Commission- Energy Office endorses the petition and alternative strategy 

presented by the NEMA coalition. We encourage DOE to consider this request. 

Sincerely, 

Scott D. Hamilton 

Director Arkansas Energy Office 

This E-mail and any files and attachments transmitted with it are private and intended solely for the use of the 

individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent 

responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, any use of this information or dissemination or 

1
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8689 

To require Amtrak to publicly disclose certain bonus compensation paid to 

Amtrak executives, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 11, 2024 

Mr. MOLINARO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To require Amtrak to publicly disclose certain bonus compensation paid to Amtrak executives, 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 ‘‘Amtrak Executive 

5 Bonus Disclosure Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF TAXPAYER-ASSISTED EX7 ECUTIVE COMPENSATION. 

8 (a) BRIEFING.—Not later than 30 days before Am9 trak awards performance-based bonus compensation to an 

10 Amtrak executive, Amtrak shall brief the Committee on 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8689 IH

1 Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Rep2 resentatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, 

3 and Transportation of the Senate on the proposed bonus 

4 and the criteria and metrics used to calculate such a 

5 bonus. 

6 (b) PUBLIC DISCLOSURE.—Amtrak shall publish in 

7 the Federal Register— 

8 (1) notice of any bonus compensation awarded 

9 to an Amtrak executive not later than 30 days after 

10 awarding such bonus; and 

11 (2) an explanation of the criteria and metrics 

12 used to calculate such bonus. 

13 (c) AMTRAK EXECUTIVE DEFINED.—In this section, 

14 the term ‘‘Amtrak executive’’ means a full-time employee 

15 of Amtrak in a management position, including the fol16 lowing positions: 

17 (1) Chief Executive Officer. 

18 (2) Executive Vice President and General Coun19 sel and Corporate Secretary. 

20 (3) President. 

21 (4) Vice President, Government Affairs, and 

22 Corporate Communications. 

23 (5) Executive Vice President, Capital Delivery. 

24 (6) Executive Vice President, Strategy, Plan25 ning and Accessibility. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 8689 IH

1 (7) Executive Vice President and Chief Safety 

2 Officer. 

3 (8) Executive Vice President and Chief Human 

4 Resource Officer. 

5 (9) Executive Vice President, Service Delivery 

6 and Operations. 

7 (10) Executive Vice President and Chief Finan8 cial Officer. 

9 (11) Executive Vice President, Digital Tech10 nology and Innovation. 

11 (12) Any individual whose duties and respon12 sibilities are substantially similar the personnel list13 ed in paragraphs (1) through (11), or as defined in 

14 section 700.2(b) of title 49, Code of Federal Regula15 tions. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### Utica City National Bank and others, *Respondents, v.*Catherine M. Doring and others, *Appellants.*

— So much of the judgment appealed from as declares void and sets aside the four judgments in favor of the defendant Sylvester Doring, as committee, *613etc., is reversed and a new trial ordered as to tlie issues respecting said judgments, with costs to abide event, and the residue of the judgment appealed from affirmed, with costs as against the’ defendants other than the said committee. Opinion by Barker, J.; dissenting opinion by Hardin, J.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7693

NIGEL MACCADO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CAPTAIN KANE; STEVE WILLIAMS, Warden of Dorchester County Jail, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-479-AW) Submitted: February 9, 2005 Decided: February 16, 2005 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nigel MacCado, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Bock Karpinski, Matthew Douglas Peter, ALLEN, KARPINSKI, BRYANT & KARP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Nigel MacCado appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment for the Defendants on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See MacCado v. Kane , No. CA-04-479-AW (D. Md. Oct. 7, 2004). 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

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 38664

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

WAYDE EUGENE EPHRAIM,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 414

Filed: March 28, 2012

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Canyon County. Hon. Bradly S. Ford, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and concurrent unified sentences of life, with minimum 

periods of confinement of twenty-five years, for two counts of lewd conduct with 

a minor under sixteen, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Diane M. Walker, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and GUTIERREZ, Judge

PER CURIAM

Wayde Eugene Ephraim pled guilty to two counts of lewd conduct with a minor under 

sixteen. Idaho Code § 18-1508. The district court sentenced Ephraim to concurrent unified 

terms of life, with a minimum period of confinement of twenty-five years. Ephraim appeals, 

requesting this Court to reduce the determinate portion of his sentence.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court's discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 
2

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Ephraim’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Gary L. Whitlock, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of CenterPoint Energy Transition BondCompany, LLC;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual 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(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably 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 orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.Date:March 29, 2007                                                      /s/ Gary L. Whitlock   Gary L. Whitlock   President and Manager (Principal Executive Officer)
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In re Steven Mack McGee

No. 06-22-00137-CR

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Chief 

Justice Morriss, Justice Stevens and Justice 

van Cleef participating. 

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that Relator is not entitled to the relief 

sought. Therefore, we deny the petition.

RENDERED OCTOBER 27, 2022

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 201 4

- NM

- 079

- AD

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8681 

To ensure that hospitals are considered an eligible entity when awarding 

health profession opportunity grants under section 2008 of the Social 

Security Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 11, 2024 

Mr. HORSFORD introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To ensure that hospitals are considered an eligible entity 

when awarding health profession opportunity grants 

under section 2008 of the Social Security Act. 

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 ‘‘Health Providers 

5 Training Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY OF HOSPITALS FOR HEALTH PROFES7 SION OPPORTUNITY GRANTS. 

8 Section 2008(a)(4)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 

9 U.S.C. 1397g(a)(4)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘or a comVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:13 Jul 30, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H8681.IH H8681

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8681 IH

1 munity-based organization’’ and inserting ‘‘, a community2 based organization, or a hospital (as defined in section 

3 1861(e))’’. 

4 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

5 The amendment made by this Act shall take effect 

6 on October 1, 2024. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2013-0543 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2012-NM-202-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

 Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.1

    CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 USC SS.1350,
         AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SS.906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2006 of Metalink Ltd. (the "Company") as filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission") on the date hereof (the
"Report"), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Tzvika Shukhman, Chief
Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board, certify that:

     1. the 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: May 29, 2007

                                                By: /s/ Tzvika Shukhman
                                                -----------------------
                                                Name: Tzvika Shukhman
                                                Title: Chief Executive Officer
                                                       and Chairman of the Board
```
July 23, 1941

No. 46224.

Suit 4336.

#### *United States*v. *Ernest E. Marks*Co.

C. D. 338 reversed. C. A. D. 173.
From: Yannayon, Laura

To: Monica Soucier

Cc: Buchanan, Tiffini

Subject: NSR rules

Date: Friday, September 20, 2013 10:00:02 AM

Hi Monica,

I had a new person in our office do a check of your proposed rules to ensure you had

 incorporated all of EPA's comments, and it appears you did! She did find a couple of typo's

 though that we wanted to point out (a fresh set of eyes always helps!). Otherwise things look

 good. I don't think EPA's pointing out typo's rise to comments that you need to include in

 your staff report. Please keep me in the loop as you move towards rule adoption.

In Rule 207:

 In Section A.2.d, it appears several defined terms need to be capitalized.

 In the definition of :

 AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT, the C in construction should be capitalized.

 CARGO CARRIERS, the R in rule should be capitalized.

 RACT is missing a period at the very end of the definition.

 In Sections D.1.c, D.1.d, and D.4.a.2, the word Rule should be capitalized.

In rule 206, the definition of minor project, the word "containments" should be

 contaminants.

In Rule 101, the definition of:

 "ASPHALT", the term bitumen's, should be capitalized and with no apostrophe

 "BOILER OR STREAM GENERATOR" Stream should be Steam.

 "HEAVY DUTY VEHICLE" has a typo: manufacturer=s

 "MEDIUM DUTY VEHICLE" has the same typo

 "OPEN-TOP VAPOR DEGREASER" is missing the "e" in degreaser.

 "PERMANENT" should the "actual" be capitalized since it is a defined term?

Laura

COMMENT THREE (E-MAIL)

1

2

3