alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.3


CERTIFICATION


I, Rich Williams, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Groupon, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2016;


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 statement made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading, with respect to the period covered by this report; and


3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly represent 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.


Date:  March 22, 2017 /s/ Rich Williams


Rich Williams


Chief Executive Officer


(Principal Executive Officer)
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v JAMES E. BURGESS, Jr., Private E-1, U. S. Army, Appellant

8 USCMA 163, 23 CMR 387

No. 10,001

Decided July 19, 1957

*Major Frank C. Stetson*was on the brief for Appellant, Accused. *Lieutenant Colonel Thomas J. Newton*was on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Homer Ferguson, Judge:

During the course of his instructions to the court-martial, relevant to a charge of desertion, in violation of Article 85, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 885, the law officer in this case charged the court as follows:

> “. . . You are instructed that if a condition of absence without authority *is muck prolonged*and there is no satisfactory explanation of it, the court would be justified in inferring *from that fact alone*an intent to *164remain absent permanently.” [Emphasis supplied.]

We discussed this instruction at length in the case of United States v Cothern, 8 USCMA 158, 23 CMR 382, and decided for reasbns stated therein that it was prejudicial error to so instruct a court-martial. Intent to remain away permanently is the key question in the instant case. The disposition of this case is governed by the law as stated in United States v Cothern, supra. Accordingly, the findings of guilty are set aside, and the record is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Army for reference to a board of review. The board may in its discretion approve the lesser oifense of absence without leave and reassess the entire sentence, or it may order a rehearing on the desertion charge.

Chief Judge Quinn concurs.

LatimeR, Judge

(dissenting):

I dissent.

There is ample evidence to support a finding of desertion, but the point in issue involves an instructional deficiency. In United States v Cothern, 8 USCMA 158, 23 CMR 382, this day decided, we were confronted with an absence of seventeen days, while here the facts show the accused was a military absentee without authority for over six months. The difference in the length of the absence makes a difference in the appropriateness of the instructions. I would conclude from the length of the absence in the case at bar that reasonable men could infer an intent to remain away from the service permanently and, accordingly, I would affirm the finding.
SPA 12 '. RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 97 

Exports of Hazardous Waste; Technical Correction
 

56 FR 43704-43705
 

September 4; 1991
 

(RCRA Cluster II, HSWA provisions)
 

Note: This Revision Checklist amends §262.53 and §262.56 originally introduced into the code by 

Revision Checklist 31 (August 8, 1986; 51 FR 28664); by changing the office to which notifications of 

export activities and annual export reports must be sent. 

STATE ANALOG IS: 

ANALOGOUS· EQUIV- MORE BROADER 

FEDERAL REQUIREMENT FEDERAL RCRA CITATION I STATE CITATION I ALENT I STRINGENT I IN SCOPE 

PART 262 - STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE WAC 173-303 

SUBPART E - EXPORTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
 

NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO EXPORT
 

• 

replace ..Office of
 

International
 

Activities (A-1 06),
 

EPA" with ..Office
 

of Waste Programs
 

Enforcement, RCRA
 

Enforcement Division
 

(OS-520),
 

.Environmental 

Protection Agencv" 262.53(b) 230(1 ) X 

replace ..Office of 

International 

Activities (A-1 06)" 

with "Office of Waste 

Programs Enforcement, RCRA Enforcement Division 

(OS-520), 

Environmental 

Protection Agency" 262.56(b) 230(1) X 

'. September 4, 1991 - Page 1 of 1 CL97 •12 - , 0/28/91 IPrWrtod:6113/96)
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 62 (Monday, April 2, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15682-15683]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6001]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 6641-067]


American Municipal Power--Ohio, Inc., City of Marion, Kentucky 
and Smithland Hydroelectric Partners; Notice of Availability of 
Environmental Assessment

March 27, 2007.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) 
regulations contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (18 CFR 
Part 380 [FERC Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897]), the Office of Energy 
Projects staff (staff) reviewed a proposal to amend the design 
authorized by the license for the Smithland Hydroelectric Project, to 
be located the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Smithland Locks and Dam on 
the Ohio River in Livingston County, Kentucky, and prepared an 
environmental assessment (EA) for the proposed amendment of the project 
license. In this EA, staff analyzes the potential environmental effects 
of replacing the authorized 170 small generator units with three 
conventional turbine and generator units and concludes that the 
amendment would not constitute a major federal action significantly 
affecting the quality of the human environment.
    A copy of the EA is attached to a Commission order titled ``Order 
Amending License'', issued March 22, 2007 and is available for review 
at the Commission in the Public Reference

[[Page 15683]]

Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, 
or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov 
using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last 
three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For 
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#edaba8bfaea28381848388be989d9d829f99ad8b889f8ec38a829b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="03454651404c6d6f6a6d66507673736c717743656671602d646c75">[email protected]</span></a>. For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-6001 Filed 3-30-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
DISMISSED and Opinion Filed August 7, 2024 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-24-00899-CV 

IN RE BYRON KEITH MCHANNY, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 303rd Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-16-15496 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Nowell, and Miskel 

Opinion by Justice Miskel 

Before the Court is relator’s July 31, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus 

challenging the trial court’s temporary orders. Based on our review of the petition 

and record, however, the trial court has since issued a final order resolving all claims 

at issue. “It is well-settled that a temporary order is superseded by entry of a final 

order, rendering moot any complaint about the temporary order.” Interest of B.W.S., 

No. 05-20-00343-CV, 2022 WL 2712494, at *4 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 13, 2022, 

no pet.) (mem. op. nunc pro tunc). We lack jurisdiction over a moot proceeding. See 

Elec. Reliability Council of Tex., Inc. v. Panda Power Generation Infrastructure 
 –2– 

Fund, LLC, 619 S.W.3d 628, 634–35 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding) (discussing 

mootness doctrine). 

Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for writ of mandamus for lack of 

jurisdiction. See id. Additionally, based on our review, relator’s petition and its 

attached appendix contain unredacted sensitive data—such as a minor’s birthdate—

in violation of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.9. 

Accordingly, we strike relator’s petition and its attached appendix. 

240899F.P05 

 

/Emily Miskel/

EMILY MISKEL 

JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

CAMILLE COOPER, ROBERT 

NEVAREZ, THE ORSALO 

GROUP, LLC, LARRY COOK, and 

5TH AVENUE ACQUISITIONS & 

VENTURE CAPITALISTS, LLC, 

Appellants 

No. 05-22-01295-CV V. 

TCH ALTERA AHCC, LLC, 

Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 471st Judicial 

District Court, Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 471-06464-

2018. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Garcia. 

Justices Reichek and Goldstein 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial 

court is AFFIRMED. 

 It is ORDERED that appellee TCH Altera AHCC, LLC recover its costs of 

this appeal from appellants Camille Cooper, Robert Nevarez, The Orsalo Group, 

LLC, Larry Cook, and 5th Avenue Acquisitions & Venture Capitalists, LLC. 

Judgment entered this 7th day of August 2024.
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

3/25/2015 COA Case No. 01-13-00373-CR

CLARK, NORMA JEAN Tr. Ct. No. 1295757 PD-0172-15

On this day, this Court has granted the Appellant’s motion for an extension of time

in which to file the Petition for Discretionary Review. The time to file the petition

has been extended to Wednesday, March 25, 2015. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS

WILL BE ENTERTAINED. NOTE: Petition for Discretionary Review must be filed

with the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Abel Acosta, Clerk

1ST COURT OF APPEALS CLERK

CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

301 FANNIN

HOUSTON, TX 77002-7006

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Federal Maritime Commission
 Notice is hereby given that the following Ocean Transportation Intermediary licenses have been reissued by the Federal Maritime Commission pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. Chapter 409), and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR part 515. License No.
Name/address
Date reissued019846N
Gunhill Shipping &  Receiving Headquarters, Inc., 1444 E. Gunhill Road, Bronx, NY 10469
January 10, 2007.003950N
Ocean-5 Express Line, Inc.,  520 E. Carson Plaza Court,  Suite 206  Carson, CA 90746
March 3, 2007.
 Sandra L. Kusumoto, Director,  Bureau of Certification and Licensing.


[FR Doc. E7-5685 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
No. 56537.

protest 168007-K (New York).

#### Baker, Irons & Dockstader, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the issue herein is similar in all material respects to that involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the merchandise, consisting of 2 pieces of white-figured shirtings out of the 21 pieces invoiced as contained in case numbered 8, and 2 pieces of white-figured shirtings out of the 20 pieces invoiced as contained in case numbered 11, reported by the inspector as landed in bad order, was not in fact imported. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty is not assessable upon said 2 pieces of white-figured shirtings out of the 21 pieces invoiced as contained in case numbered 8, and the 2 pieces of white-figured shirtings out of the 20 pieces invoiced as contained in case numbered 11. The protest was sustained to this extent.
I am Chris Horwitz, resident of Pittsburgh and CEO of Electrogrip, a manufacturer for

the semiconductor industry. I am enthusiastic about climate protection and energy saving. For example, my business has a green building. This comes at a cost, which has the potential to make us less competitive than other firms.

For more than 25 years I have been disappointed by Pittsburgh's deadly power station fine particle and mercury pollution. I could not believe just how many decades it took for the EPA to force our power stations to comply with its New Source regulations. I am now grateful for the EPA's New Source actions which will help Pittsburgh to maintain its goal of being a 'most livable city'.

I can understand the desire of the owners of coal mines to ignore safety regulations and to promote continued coal use. Similarly, I can understand the preference of utilities, viewed as private businesses, to continue polluting. However the societal cost of the lost lives of coal miners, and of pollution in all of our lives, is far greater than such short-term private savings.

Utilities are in a protected position with regulated and relatively predictable income streams, unlike private industry, and our decisions should prioritise public interest rather than their profits. If we delay modern emissions standards, we would continue relying on outdated generators. Why should this country have old and rusty systems,
rather than the best?

By moving to wind and solar generation we will gain more and better jobs, lower costs, and lessened climate change. For example, the peak output of the 2GW Homer City power station outside Pittsburgh could come from solar panel arrays for only double the $700 million cost of its proposed effluent dry scrubber. Alternatively, with current wind technology the entire USA could be powered by an area just 6 times larger than the central City of Pittsburgh. As proof that strict power station emissions standards work in the USA, over the past 6 years the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative of 10 NorthEast states has obtained lower energy costs AND faster economic growth than surrounding states. Thus taking care of our climate can also make our economy better off.

I applaud the new EPA carbon initiatives and strongly urge the EPA not to yield to polluting interests. Yielding would not only be betraying its duty to protect the public. It would also be betraying investors in modern energy systems, who would be forced to bear all of the costs. Due to fossil fuel subsidies this would yield a competitive advantage to more polluting firms. This cannot be in the public interest. A level and fair playing field which protects our population and our climate will help us all to claim a bright and sustainable future.

Chris M. Horwitz, PhD CEO, Electrogrip 6945 Lynn Way Pittsburgh PA 15208 USA
Before the Second Division,

May 8, 1946

No. 51099.

#### Protest 107368-K of Millinery Clearing House, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

An examination of the record disclosing nothing which would justify the court in disturbing the action of the collector, the protest was overruled.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The FirstMarblehead Corporation (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2004as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Donald R. Peck, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurerand Secretary of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated: February 11, 2005 |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
|                     |   |    /s/ Donald R. Peck |   |
|                     |   | Donald R. Peck |
|                     |   | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary |

 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to The First Marblehead Corporation and willbe retained by The First Marblehead Corporation and furnished to the SEC or itsstaff upon request.

 

1

----
Before the First Division,

February 3, 1943

No. 47986.

#### Protests 31187-K, etc., of Heinrich Herrmann & Weiss (New York).

*388Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

At the hearing plaintiff produced one witness who testified as to the various items being similar to those in the test case, reported in Abstract 45801, which was incorporated herein, and a list of items which he submitted was received in evidence as exhibit 1. On the record presented some of the cuff links were held dutiable at 35 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1531 and those imported subsequent to the said trade agreement were held dutiable at- 25 percent under paragraph 1531 as claimed.
#### CHARLES GILLARD, RESPONDENT, v. THE MANUFACTURERS CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT.

Argued June 4, 1918

Decided September 27, 1918.

Tlie words, injury — damage—loss : in an accident insurance policy filed under the act of *Pamph. L.*1936, *p.*283, *ch.*336, known as the auto bus or jitney act, include damages to personal property, such as, damage to an automobile.

On appeal from a judgment of the Orange District Court.

Before Justices Bergen, Kalisch and Black.

For the respondent, *Arthur B. Seymour.*

For the appellant, *Pomerehne & Laible*and *Jacob L. Newman.*

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Black, J.

The facts of this case are fully set out in the caso of Grace Gillard against the same defendant, in an opinion filed the present term. In this case, however, there is an additional point, not involved in that case, viz., whether the policy of insurance filed by the defendant company covers damages to personal property. We think the contract of insurance is not limited to personal injuries. The words used by the insurance company to express its contract are as follows : Suits, “on account of injuries sustained by any person or persons;” “including suits alleging such injuries and demanding damages therefor ;” “resulting in injuries or death *147sustained by any person or persons;” “shall he for the benefil of every person suffering loss, damage or injury as described in this contract or as described in the terms of the act.” *Pampli. L.*1916, *p. 283, oh.*1.86.

There is nothing to suggest that by the use of the words “injuries,” “damages,” “loss,” personal injuries, damages or loss were only intended; nor do these words in their definition exclude injuries or damage to property. These words mean destruction or impairment of value, injury or harm, injury means any wrong done or suffered; thus, we speak of an injury or damage to the person, to character or to reputation, as well as to property. *2 Words & Phrases*1812; 1 *Id.*3613; 5 *Id.*4232.

Sometimes the word “damage” is used to denote a partial destruction, while “loss” is more properly used io denote absolute or total destruction.

It is quite true the contract speaks of limiting the liability for one person injured to $5,000, and the statute *(Pamph. L.*1916, *p.*283, *ch.*136, § 2) speaks of “damages on account of bodily injury or death suffered.” If these were the only words used in the contract or statute descriptive of the liability covered by the insurance, there might be some force in the coniention that the policy covered only injuries to the person or death suffered.

Me think the contract is broad enough to cover damages to personal property.

The judgment is therefore affirmed, with costs.
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 Aladdin Systems Holdings, Inc., (the
"Registrant") on Form 10-KSB for the annual period ended December 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Alexandra Gonzalez, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant,
certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:


      (1)   The Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2,
            fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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 Registrant




Dated: April 14, 2004                           /s/ Alexandra Gonzalez
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Alexandra Gonzalez
                                                Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Registrant and will be
retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-KSB to which it relates, is not
deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the Securities
Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after
the date of the Form 10-KSB), irrespective of any general incorporation language
contained in such filing.
No. 38927.

#### Protests 949499-G, etc., of B. Altman & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

On the authority of *United States*v. *Field*(25 C. C. P. A. 308, T. D. 49422) and *Anniston*v. *Davis*(301 U. S. 337) the protests were dismissed.