alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32**
**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**
The undersigned officers of **United Components, Inc.**hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:
 1.  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of United Components, Inc. for the quarter endedMarch 31, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2.  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of United Components, Inc.     Date: May 11, 2005          By: /s/ Bruce M. Zorich     Name: Bruce M. Zorich Title: Chief Executive Officer     Date: May 11, 2005          By: /s/ Charles T. Dickson     Name: Charles T. Dickson Title: Chief Financial Officer
The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§. 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether madebefore or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.
# Official Journal L 126/2011

| | ISSN 1725-2555
  doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2011.126.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 126 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5414 May 2011 |

ISSN 1725-2555

doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2011.126.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 126

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5414 May 2011

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | | 2011/274/EU |
| | * | Commission Decision of 26 April 2011 concerning a technical specification for interoperability relating to the ‘energy’ subsystem of the trans-European conventional rail system
  (notified under document C(2011) 2740)

   (1) | 1 |
| | | 2011/275/EU |
| | * | Commission Decision of 26 April 2011 concerning a technical specification for interoperability relating to the ‘infrastructure’ subsystem of the trans-European conventional rail system
  (notified under document C(2011) 2741)

   (1) | 53 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

2011/274/EU

*

Commission Decision of 26 April 2011 concerning a technical specification for interoperability relating to the ‘energy’ subsystem of the trans-European conventional rail system
  (notified under document C(2011) 2740)

   (1)

(notified under document C(2011) 2740)

1

2011/275/EU

*

Commission Decision of 26 April 2011 concerning a technical specification for interoperability relating to the ‘infrastructure’ subsystem of the trans-European conventional rail system
  (notified under document C(2011) 2741)

   (1)

(notified under document C(2011) 2741)

53

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
VIRGINIA:

 In the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court 

Building in the City of Richmond on Friday, the 6th day of November, 

1998. 

Donnie Lee Bruce, Appellant, 

 against Record No. 980019 

 Court of Appeals No. 0931-95-2 

Commonwealth of Virginia, Appellee. 

 Upon an appeal from a judgment rendered by the Court of 

 Appeals of Virginia on the 16th day of April, 1996. 

Upon consideration of the record, briefs, and argument of 

counsel, the Court is of opinion that there is no error in the 

judgment appealed from. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the 

opinion of the Court of Appeals, Bruce v. Commonwealth, 22 Va. App. 

264, 469 S.E.2d 64 (1996), the judgment is affirmed. 

 The appellant shall pay to the Commonwealth of Virginia thirty 

dollars damages. 

It is ordered that the Circuit Court of Albemarle County allow 

counsel for the appellant a fee of $725 for services rendered the 

appellant on this appeal, in addition to counsel's costs and 

necessary direct out-of-pocket expenses. 

 The Commonwealth shall recover of the appellant the amount paid 

court-appointed counsel to represent him in this proceeding, 

counsel's costs and necessary direct out-of-pocket expenses, and the 

fees and costs to be assessed by this Court and the courts below. 

 This order shall be published and shall be certified to the 

Court of Appeals and to the Circuit Court of Albemarle County. 

 A Copy, 

 Teste: 

 David B. Beach, 

Clerk 
Costs due the Commonwealth 

 by appellant in the 

 Supreme Court of Virginia: 

Attorney's fee $725.00 plus costs and expenses
Case: 2:11-cv-00133-MHW-TPK Doc #: 6 Filed: 04/08/11 Page: 1 of 5  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00133-MHW-TPK Doc #: 6 Filed: 04/08/11 Page: 2 of 5  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00133-MHW-TPK Doc #: 6 Filed: 04/08/11 Page: 3 of 5  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00133-MHW-TPK Doc #: 6 Filed: 04/08/11 Page: 4 of 5  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00133-MHW-TPK Doc #: 6 Filed: 04/08/11 Page: 5 of 5  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-08T21:52:20-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
Bureau of Labor Statistics

Series Id:

Series title:

Labor force status:

Type of data:

Age:

Years:

Year Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Annual

2011 110763

Employed full time (persons who usually work 

Number in thousands

16 years and over

2011 to 2011

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Original Data Value

LNU02500000Q

Not Seasonally Adjusted

(Unadj) Employed, Usually Work Full Time

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Generated on: May 16, 2011 (02:06:29 PM)
----

Action brought on 23 May 2006 — Guarnieri v Commission

(Case F-62/06)

(2006/C 165/72)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Daniela Guarnieri (St-Stevens-Woluwe, Belgium) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a Commission official and mother of two children, received dependent child allowance under Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations. Following her spouse's death on 10 April 2005, she was informed that because of the amendment to Article 80 of the Staff Regulations, the Commission would not pay her any orphans' pension. On the other hand, she obtained family allowances and orphans' pension from the Belgian authorities. As the total amount of the benefits paid by the latter exceeded the amount of the Community family allowances, the Commission decided that the applicant was no longer entitled to the latter allowances.

In support of her action, the applicant alleges, first, infringement of Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations. The allowances which she receives from the Belgian authorities are not allowances of like nature to those paid by the Community and so should not give rise to the deduction provided for by that provision.

The applicant next pleads breach of the obligation, laid down in Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, to state the grounds on which any decision relating to a specific individual is based, breach of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations, legal certainty, equal treatment and sound administration, and of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.

She also raises a plea of illegality against the part of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities (1) which amends Article 80(4) of the Staff Regulations without providing for transitional measures. According to the applicant, the withdrawal of the orphans' pension for children whose deceased parent was not an official or member of the temporary staff should have been accompanied by transitional measures enabling officials to make a full actuarial calculation of their position.

----

(1)OJ L 124, 27.4.2004, p. 1

----
# C_2008152EN.01002601.xml

| 18.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 152/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 152/26

---

Call for proposals under the Annual Implementation Plan 2008 of the IMI Joint Undertaking

(2008/C 152/06)

Notice is hereby given of the launch of a call for proposals under the Annual Implementation Plan 2008 of the IMI Joint Undertaking.

Proposals are invited for the following call:

| | IMI_Call_2008_1. |
| --- | --- |

IMI_Call_2008_1.

IMI_Call_2008_1.

Call documentation including deadline and budget is given in the call text, which is published on the following website:

http://imi.europa.eu

---
| 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. |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |                                 |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                 |
|   |   |                                 |
|   |   |                                 |   |
|   | By:    | /s/ J.F. Hughes                 |   |
|   |   | Chairman of the Board,               |   |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer and Director |   |
|   |   |                                 |   |
|   |   | April 1, 2011                        |   |

----
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 77 (Monday, April 23, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 20139]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-7615]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-60,548]


Alan White Company, Sulligent, AL; Notice of Affirmative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application postmarked March 28, 2007, a petitioner requested 
administrative reconsideration of the Department of Labor's Notice of 
Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker 
Adjustment Assistance, applicable to workers and former workers of the 
subject firm. The determination was issued on March 8, 2007 and 
published in the Federal Register on March 22, 2007 (72 FR 13528).
    The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination 
based on the finding that imports of upholstered furniture did not 
contribute importantly to worker separations at the subject firm and no 
shift of production to a foreign source occurred.
    The Department reviewed the request for reconsideration and has 
determined that the petitioner has provided additional information. 
Therefore, the Department will conduct further investigation to 
determine if the workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade 
Act of 1974.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim 
is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the Department of 
Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th of April, 2007.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7-7615 Filed 4-20-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-18-00295-CV

In the Matter of M. A. T., a Juvenile

On Appeal from the

130th District Court of Matagorda County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 17-0040-J

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. No costs are assessed due to 

appellant’s inability to pay costs.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

October 25, 2018
#### *In re*Mary J. Clark, Ex’rx.

No papera.

Motion to amend remittitur denied, with costs.

See 29 N. Y. State Rep., 682.
**Exhibit32.2**

 

**Certificationof Chief Financial Officerof Tipperary Corporation Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q/A of Tipperary Corporation (the “*Company*”)for the period ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “*Report*”),I, Joseph B. Feiten, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuantto 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

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

 

2.               the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|   | /s/ Joseph B. Feiten                                                                 |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Name: Joseph B. Feiten  Title: Chief Financial Officer  Date: December 10, 2004 |

 

1

----
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**

  MAC R1204-010  9062 Old Annapolis Road  Columbia, MD 21045  Tel: 410 884 2000  Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 Re: Annual Statement ofCompliance for Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp., CommercialMortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-C3

 

 

Per the Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of August 1, 2015 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned,a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as CertificateAdministrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of andfor the year ending December 31, 2016 (the "Reporting Period"):

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo'sactivities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under theAgreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of suchofficer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

February 27, 2017

 

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
Case: 2:12-cv-01095-TPK Doc #: 57 Filed: 05/16/14 Page: 1 of 3  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-01095-TPK Doc #: 57 Filed: 05/16/14 Page: 2 of 3  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-01095-TPK Doc #: 57 Filed: 05/16/14 Page: 3 of 3  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-11T21:48:02-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

WILLIAM HENSON,

 Plaintiff,

 v. 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY, 

Defendant.

Case No. 2:12-cv-624 

Judge Peter C. Economus

Magistrate Judge Terence P. Kemp

ORDER

This matter is before the Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation of 

the Magistrate Judge. (Dkt. 15.) The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Plaintiff’s 

statement of errors be overruled and judgment entered in favor of the Defendant, the 

Commissioner of Social Security. 

The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge specifically advised the parties 

that failure to object to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen days results in a waiver 

of the right to de novo review by the District Judge and waiver of the right to appeal the 

judgment of the District Court. (Dkt. 15 at 11.) The time period for filing objections to the 

Report and Recommendation has expired. No party has objected to the Report and 

Recommendation. 

The Court reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Noting that no objections have been filed and that the time for filing such 

objections has expired, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate 

Judge. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s statement of errors is overruled and the Clerk is DIRECTED 

to enter judgment in favor of the Defendant. 

Case: 2:12-cv-00624-PCE-TPK Doc #: 16 Filed: 06/13/13 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case: 2:12-cv-00624-PCE-TPK Doc #: 16 Filed: 06/13/13 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
No. 50210.

#### Protests 958717-G, etc., of American Straw Goods Co. (New York).

*260Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the merchandise consist of manila hemp hats similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Armand Schwab*(30 C. C. P. A. 72, C. A. D. 218), and that other items consist of hats of cellophane and ramie similar to those involved in Abstract 47291. The records in said cases were admitted in evidence herein. In accordance therewith the items of merchandise in question were held dutiable as claimed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7664

WINSTON LLOYD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

EARL BESHEARS, Warden, E.C.I.; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA97-3562-S)

Submitted: March 12, 1998 Decided: March 26, 1998

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Winston Lloyd, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

Lloyd v. Beshears, No. CA-97-3562-S (D. Md. Nov. 5, 1997). We deny

Appellant's motion to supplement the evidence. 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
Case: 2:11-cv-00385-EAS-TPK Doc #: 32 Filed: 02/01/12 Page: 1 of 2  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00385-EAS-TPK Doc #: 32 Filed: 02/01/12 Page: 2 of 2  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-08T17:17:05-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
(Reap. Dec. 9351)

#### S. H. Pomerance Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 872516.

(Decided March 17, 1959)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

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

Lawrence, Judge:

There was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff when the above-enumerated appeal for a reappraisement was called for hearing. The court thereupon ordered the case submitted.

*562It is provided by the rules of the court that, in such an instance, after the opposite party has had an opportunity to present evidence on the issues, the case may be decided by the court on the record before it.

Accordingly, I have examined the record in the present appeal for a reappraisement 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 value of the merchandise is the value returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 24-10095 

Summary Calendar 

____________ 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Edwin Viera, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:19-CR-353-1 

______________________________ 

Before Jolly, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Edwin Viera, federal prisoner # 59534-177, appeals from the district 

court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate 

release. We review the denial of Viera’s motion for an abuse of discretion. 

See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). 

_____________________ 

*

 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

September 5, 2024 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 24-10095 Document: 41-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/05/2024
No. 24-10095 

2 

In his pro se brief, Viera argues that there were extraordinary and 

compelling reasons for a reduction in his sentence because the district court, 

at his original sentencing, imposed “an incorrect statutory penalty” and 

selected a guidelines sentence that is unjust and unfair. He contends that the 

sentencing error provides extraordinary and compelling reasons under 

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(5), p.s., and that the district court erred in concluding 

otherwise. 

Because Viera fails to show that the purported error at his sentencing 

is “similar in gravity” to the considerations listed in § 1B1.13(b)(1)-(4), he 

has not demonstrated that the district court abused its discretion in 

determining that he had not shown extraordinary and compelling reasons 

warranting a reduction in his sentence. See § 1B1.13(b)(5). Furthermore, “a 

prisoner cannot use § 3582(c) to challenge the legality or the duration of his 

sentence.” United States v. Escajeda, 58 F.4th 184, 187 (5th Cir. 2023). 

Viera also argues that the district court erred by failing to consider 

whether the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors warrant a sentence 

reduction. However, given its determination that Viera failed to show 

extraordinary and compelling reasons, the district court was not required to 

consider the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Thompson, 984 F.3d 431, 

433-35 (5th Cir. 2021). The district court’s decision is AFFIRMED. 

Case: 24-10095 Document: 41-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/05/2024
|    |
|----|
|    |  |
| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Lonestar Resources US Inc.; and |

|    |
|----|
|    |  |
| 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. |

|                   |
|-------------------|
|                   |  |  |  |  |
| May 14, 2020 |   |   |   | /s/ Frank D. Bracken, III |
|              |   |   |   | Frank D. Bracken, III |
|              |   |   |   | Chief Executive Officer |
|              |   |   |   | (Principal Executive Officer) |