alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.4

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF

UCDP FINANCE, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In
connection with the quarterly report of UCDP Finance, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 2, 2006 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael J.
Short, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



|(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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: August 16, 2006



By:

/S/ MICHAEL J. SHORTMichael J. ShortPrincipal Financial Officer
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

RANDALL MCCOY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-3419

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Respondent. )

)

Opinion filed February 13, 2019. 

Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the

Circuit Court for Polk County; William D.

Sites, Judge. 

 

Randall McCoy, pro se. 

 

Ashley Brooke Moody, Attorney

General, Tallahassee, and Michael

Schaub, Assistant Attorney General,

Tampa, for Respondent. 

PER CURIAM.

Denied. 

CASANUEVA, VILLANTI, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

      I, Merrill B. Blanksteen, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer hereby certify that NewAlliance Bancshares, Inc.’s report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of NewAlliance Bancshares, Inc.

|   | / s / Merrill B. Blanksteen               |
|--------|-------------------------------------------|
|   | Merrill B. Blanksteen                     |
|   | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial |
|   | Officer and Treasurer                     |

Date:   May 10, 2005

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

Note: A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to NewAlliance Bancshares, Inc. and will be retained by NewAlliance Bancshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### *In re*Kasuba Estate (Department of Treasury v Rickle).

(Docket No. 57723.)

*Radka & Lewis*and *Arthur J. Tarnow*for defendant-appellant.

Rehearing denied.

Reported below: 401 Mich 560.
(Reap. Dec. 8755)

#### Gerhard & Hey Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 737975; 871965; 884092.

(Decided March 6, 1957)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant,

LaweeNOe, Judge:

The records indicate that there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff when the appeals for a reappraisement enumerated on the schedule attached to and made part of this decision were called for hearing, and the cases were ordered submitted by the court.

Rule 5 (a) of the rules of the court provides that—

> The submission for decision of any case shall be made in open court by the parties thereto or their attorneys, or by stipulation, or by written request to the court, or by the court on its own motion. Where the plaintiff, petitioner, or appellant, or his attorney, in a case does not appear when the same is called, and after the opposite party has had opportunity to present evidence on the issues, it may be deemed submitted and may be decided by the court on the record as it appears therein.

*604Accordingly, I have examined the records in the appeals before the court and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold, therefore, that the proper values of the merchandise are the values returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### Leonhard Estate.

Argued October 3, 1969.

Before Bell, 0. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ.

*Thomas A. Ehrgood,*for appellants.

*William F. Richey*and *James R. Whitman,*with them *Lewis, Brubaker, Whitman & Christia/nson,*for appellee.

November 11, 1969:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Decree affirmed. Estate to pay costs.
Before the Third Division,

September 28, 1945

No. 50536.

#### Protest 60852-K of J. Mitsunaga (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Nippon Co.*(32 C. C. P. A. 164, C. A, D. 303), which record was admitted in evidence herein. In accordance therewith the protest was sustained as claimed.
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |                               |   |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------|--------|
|   | By:    | /s/ John R. Sprouls                |   |
|   |   | Name: John R. Sprouls              |   |
|   |   | Title: Principal Executive Officer |   |
|   |   |                               |   |
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: VICTORY ROCK TEXAS, LLC,

Relator. '

'

'

'

' No. 08

- 16

- 00349

- CV

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

J U D G M E N T

The court has considered this cause on the Relator = s petition for writ of mandamus

against the Honorable Robert E. Cadena, Judge of the 83rd District Court of Pecos County,

Texas, and concludes that Relator = s petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. We

therefore deny the petition for writ of mandamus, in accordance with the opinion of this court.

Relator has also filed a motion for emergency relief asking that we stay all proceedings in the

trial court pending resoluti on of the mandamus. We also deny the motion for emergency relief.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 11 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2017

.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
From: kenneth.gardner@metso.com [mailto:kenneth.gardner@metso.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 8:37 AM 

To: Erik Boleman 

Subject: RE: Low-NOx Burners for Taconite Indurating Furnaces

Metso has a patent to inject on board air into a kiln. The technology is based on running the firing zone of 

the kiln deficient in O2 or very low and adding mid kiln air to complete combustion. Iron ore kilns have a 

substantial amount of excess air coming from the cooler that we do not believe the on board air will 

reduce NOx. Kenneth L. Gardner, P. E. 

Vice President 

Pyro Systems 

Tel: 570-271-7637 

Fax: 570-275-6789 

Mobile: 570-850-3050

Item 9
#### CITY OF MINOT et al. v. WALTON.†

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

December 19, 1910.)

No. 3,406.

Municipal Corporations (§ 821*) — Excavations in Streets — Action fob Injuries — Questions for Jurt.

In an action against a city to recover for an injury to plaintiff from ' falling into an excavation in a street at night, where the controlling issues were whether the excavation was properly guarded and that of contributory negligence, and there was substantial evidence on both in support of the verdict, the ease was one for the jury.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. §§ 1745-1757; Dec. Dig. § 821.*]

In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of North Dakota.

Action at law by Ernest L. Walton against the City of Minot and David Dinnie. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error.

Affirmed.

George A. Bangs (R. H. Bosard, on the brief), for plaintiffs in error.

John E. Greene (L. J. Palda, Jr., on the brief), for defendant in error.

Before VAN DEVANTER and HOOK, Circuit Judges, and CAREAND, District Judge.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. <& Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

†

Rehearing denied February 24, 1911.

HOOK, Circuit Judge.

This is a writ of error to review a judgment obtained by Ernest L. Walton against the city of Minot, in North Dakota, and David Dinnie, for personal injuries caused by falling into an excavation in a street. The liability of the city arose from neglect of its duty with respect to the condition of its thoroughfares. The excavation was made by and was in charge of Dinnie, a contractor, and, though mainly in private property, it extended into the sidewalk space along which pedestrians traveled. The accident occurred at night.

A motion by defendants at the close of the evidence for a directed verdict was denied by the trial court. The controlling issues of fact were: Was the excavation properly guarded at the place where plaintiff fell; and was he guilty of contributory negligence? A thorough examination of the record shows there was substantial evidence on both these matters to support the verdict. Some minor objections are urged, but we think it plain no error was committed.

The judgment is affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

CERTIFICATION

I, Nadeem Lila, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Varca Ventures, Inc.

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant  as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and I have:

a.

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant is made known to me, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b.

Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under my supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles

c.

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my 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

d.

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's forth fiscal year in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a.

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b.

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.

 

 

 

By: /s/ Nadeem Lila                      

Nadeem Lila
**Exhibit      32.1**

**SECTION      1350 CERTIFICATION**

|   | 1. | The                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended                December 31, 2006 (the “Periodic Report”) fully complies with the                requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange                Act of                1934 (15 U.S.C. §§78m or 78o(d));                and |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The                information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in                all                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                of                the Company. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### John A. Morgan, Resp’t, v. William Wilsey, App’lt.

Judgment and order of the Oneida county court affirmed, with costs.
No. 44117.

#### Protest 787970-G/10400 of Frazar & Co. (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

On the authority of *Lamborn*v. *United States*(27 C. C. P. A. 46, C. A. D. 60) the protest was dismissed.
Exhibit 10(a)

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Amendment No. 10 to Registration
Statement No. 811-7885 on Form N-1A of Quantitative Master Series Trust of our
reports dated as follows:

January 30, 2001    Master International (Capitalization Weighted) Index Series
January 31, 2001    Master Extended Market Index Series
January 31, 2001    Master Mid Cap Index Series
February 1, 2001    Master Aggregate Bond Index Series
February 1, 2001    Master Small Cap Index Series
February 15, 2001   Master S&P 500 Index Series
February 23, 2001   Master Enhanced International Index Series
February 23, 2001   Master Enhanced S&P 500 Index Series
February 23, 2001   Master International (GDP Weighted) Index Series

appearing in their respective December 31, 2000 Annual Reports.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
---------------------------
Princeton, New Jersey
April 26, 2001
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 5729] 

*Summary:*                     Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                     *et seq.*; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                     *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Edward Hopper”, imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Massachusetts, beginning on or about May 6, 2007, until on or about August 19, 2007, the National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, beginning on or about September 16, 2007, until on or about January 21, 2008, and the Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, beginning on or about February 16, 2008, until on or about May 11, 2008, and at possible additional venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                 

*For Further Information Contact:*                     For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Julianne Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: (202) 453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.                 

Dated: March 20, 2007. 

C. Miller Crouch, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs Department of State.

 [FR Doc. E7-5485 Filed 3-23-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
Case: 2:10-cv-00903-EAS-EPD Doc #: 27 Filed: 01/03/12 Page: 1 of 1  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-07T20:21:32-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
No. 65625.

#### Raymor Mfg. Div., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 60/11419, 60/15026, and 60/15947 (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bookshelves, etc., similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Fabry Associates, Inc.*v. *United States*(45 Cust. Ct. 88, C.D. 2203), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
EXHIBIT 32.01

                  CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER &

                            CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Michael Pacult, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
White Oak Financial Services, Inc. as general partner of Providence Select
Fund, L.P., certify that (i) the Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009
of Providence Select Fund, L.P. fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the
information contained in the Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of Providence Select Fund, L.P.


PROVIDENCE SELECT FUND, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
By:	White Oak Financial Services, Inc., General Partner


By: 	/s/ Michael Pacult
Michael Pacult
Chief Executive Officer &
Chief Financial Officer

Date:	May 20, 2009

<page>
1 District Judge of the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by designation

.

2 Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

___________________________

No. 95-10945

___________________________

RUSSELL THOMAS JOHNSON,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

DAVID W ILLIAMS, ET AL.,

Defendant-Appellant,

___________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(4:93-CV-632-Y)

____________________________________________________ July 15, 1996

Before DAVIS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges, and FALLON, District Judge. 1

PER CURIAM: 2

Defendants, David W illiam s, J.A. Smedley, and Hank Pop e appeal the district

court’s order dismissing their motion for summary judgment. W e dismiss the appeal for

lack of appellate jurisdiction.

This court can exercise jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals only where the order

appealed from (1) “conclusively determine[s] the disputed question” and (2) “involve[s] a

claim of right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action.” Mitchell v.

Forsyth , 472 U.S. 511, 527 (1985). The district court in this case dismissed defendants’2

motion for summary judgment as moot on the ground that defendants have not yet filed an

answer and, therefore, have not yet pled the affirmative defen se of qualified im m unity.

The district court’s order does not determine whether the defendants in this § 1983 action

are entitled to qualified immunity and does not have the practical effect of requiring

defendants to proceed to trial or allowing broad-reaching discov ery on the merits of the

plaintiff’s claim. It merely requires defendants to file an answer in which they plead the

affirmative defense of qualified immunity before they move for summary judgment on that

ground again. Because the district court’s order does not conclusively adjudicate any of

the defendants’ rights under qualified immunity, we have no ju risdiction to hear this

interlocutory appeal. The appeal is

DISMISSED.
### FOR PUBLICATION 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA , No. 04-30007

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 

#  CR-03-02059-EFS L UIS E MILO G ONZALES , ORDER

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 

Filed December 21, 2006
Before: Mary M. Schroeder, Chief Judge.

ORDER
Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused regular active judges of this court, it is ordered that this case be reheard by the en banc court pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3.

19781PRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO
The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2006 Thomson/West.