alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant to Section 906

Certification of Chief Financial
Officer

Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012 (the Report) of SOLAR SENIOR CAPITAL LTD. (the Registrant), as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, RICHARD L. PETEKA, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, 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 Registrant.



/S/    RICHARD L.
PETEKAName:

Richard L. PetekaDate:

February 25, 2013
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of The
Valspar Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 27, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William L. Mansfield, Chief Executive Officer of the Company
and I, Paul C. Reyelts, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.     The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities 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.



| | /s/   William L. Mansfield                                           
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
| | William L. MansfieldPresident and Chief Executive OfficerJune 6, 2007

| | /s/   Paul C. Reyelts                                                       
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Paul C. ReyeltsExecutive Vice President(Chief Financial Officer)June 6, 2007

---
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-16-00148-CV

EX PARTE R.J.F.

From the 85th District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15-002473-CV-85

MEMORANDUM OPINION

R.J.F filed a petition to expunge criminal records of his arrest on October 14, 2006, 

for the offenses of possession of a controlled substance (two counts), possession of 

marijuana, and possession of a dangerous drug. After a hearing, the trial court granted

R.J.F.’s request for an expunction. The Texas Department of Public Safety filed a

restricted appeal of the trial court’s order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(c); 30. We reverse and 

remand.

The Department argues in its second issue that R.J.F. failed to present legally 

sufficient evidence that he was entitled to an expunction. The record shows that R.J.F.

filed a motion for expunction pursuant to Chapter 55 of the Texas Code of Criminal
Ex parte R.J.F. Page 2

Procedure. See TEX. CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. ch. 55 (West 2006). The Department filed an

answer but did not appear at the hearing on R.J.F.'s motion, participate in the hearing,

or file any post- judgment motions or a request for findings of fact.

Pursuant to Rules 26.1(c) and 30 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the 

Department may prevail in a restricted appeal only if it meets the following requirements:

(1) it filed notice of the restricted appeal within six months after the 

judgment was signed; (2) it was a party to the underlying lawsuit; (3) it did 

not participate in the hearing that resulted in the judgment complained of 

and did not timely file any postjudgment motions or requests for findings 

of fact and conclusions of law; and (4) error is apparent on the face of the 

record.

Ins. Co. of the State of Pa. v. Lejeune, 297 S.W.3d 254, 255 (Tex. 2009); TEX.R. APP. P. 26.1(c);

30. Only the fourth requirement is at issue in this appeal.

The reporter’s record only contains a statement from the assistant district attorney 

that he has no objection to any of the expunctions. There is no other evidence in the 

reporter’s record. R.J.F. had the burden to produce evidence that he was entitled to an 

expunction. See Texas Department of Public Safety v. Borhani, No. 03-08-00142-CV, 2008 

Tex.App. LEXIS 7509 (Tex.App.—Austin 2008, no pet.). There is no evidence in the record 

to support the trial court’s finding. We note that the assistant district attorney stated that 

he had no objection to the expunction; however, he did not represent the Department.

Texas Deptartment of Public Safety v. Deck, 954 S.W.2d 108, 111 (Tex.App. – San Antonio 

1997, no pet.). We sustain the Department’s second issue on appeal. We need not address 

the Department’s first issue. TEX.R.APP.P. 47.1.
Ex parte R.J.F. Page 3

Conclusion

We reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings. 

AL SCOGGINS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Reverse and remand

Opinion delivered and filed January 4, 2017

[CV06]
(Reap. Dec. 8411)

Entry No. 782000.

#### Domenico Orsi *v.*United States

(Decided April 6, 1955)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Ford, Judge:

Tbe appeal listed above has been submitted for decision upon a stipulation to the effect that on or about the date of exportation such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of Italy in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States at $3.50 per meter, plus packing, as invoiced, and that such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale for home consumption in Italy on or about said date.

Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact, I find and hold the proper dutiable export value of the merchandise covered by this appeal to be $3.50 per meter, plus packing, as invoiced, as claimed by plaintiff. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 225 (Thursday, November 21, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 69850]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27925]

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

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES

[Public Notice: 2013-0055]

Application for Final Commitment for a Long-Term Loan or 
Financial Guarantee in Excess of $100 Million: AP088285XX

AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of the United States.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice is to inform the public, in accordance with 
Section 3(c)(10) of the Charter of the Export-Import Bank of the United 
States (``Ex-Im Bank''), that Ex-Im Bank has received an application 
for final commitment for a long-term loan or financial guarantee in 
excess of $100 million (as calculated in accordance with Section 
3(c)(10) of the Charter). Comments received within the comment period 
specified below will be presented to the Ex-Im Bank Board of Directors 
prior to final action on this Transaction.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 16, 2013 to be 
assured of consideration before final consideration of the transaction 
by the Board of Directors of Ex-Im Bank.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted through Regulations.gov at 
WWW.REGULATIONS.GOV. To submit a comment, enter EIB-2013-0055 under the 
heading ``Enter Keyword or ID'' and select Search. Follow the 
instructions provided at the Submit a Comment screen. Please include 
your name, company name (if any) and EIB-2013-0055 on any attached 
document.
    Reference: AP088285XX.
    Purpose and Use:
    Brief description of the purpose of the transaction:
    To support the export of U.S.-manufactured aircraft to Russia.
    Brief non-proprietary description of the anticipated use of the 
items being exported:
    To provide passenger air service between Russia and other 
countries.
    To the extent that Ex-Im Bank is reasonably aware, the item(s) 
being exported may be used to produce exports or provide services in 
competition with the exportation of goods or provision of services by a 
United States industry.
    Parties:
    Principal Supplier: The Boeing Company.
    Obligor: OJSC VEB-Leasing.
    Guarantor(s): N/A.
    End-User: Aeroflot Russian Airlines.
    Description of Items Being Exported:
    Boeing 777 aircraft.
    Information on Decision: Information on the final decision for this 
transaction will be available in the ``Summary Minutes of Meetings of 
Board of Directors'' on http://exim.gov/newsandevents/boardmeetings/board/.
    Confidential Information: Please note that this notice does not 
include confidential or proprietary business information; information 
which, if disclosed, would violate the Trade Secrets Act; or 
information which would jeopardize jobs in the United States by 
supplying information that competitors could use to compete with 
companies in the United States.

Cristopolis Dieguez,
Program Specialist, Office of the General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2013-27925 Filed 11-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Unifab International,
Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, who is the Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certifies
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      1.    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            Section 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 for the period covered by the Report.

                                              /s/ William A. Hines
                                              ---------------------------
                                              Name: William A. Hines.
                                              Title: Principal Executive Officer
                                              Date: January 24, 2005

                                       28
No. 53218.

#### American Express Company et al. *v.*United States,

protests 128492-K/1047, etc. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 44253.

#### Protests 936035-G, etc., of A. L. Tuska Son & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of Rockingham earthenware the same as that passed upon in *Butler*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 120, C. D. 303). The claim at 25 percent under paragraph 210 was therefore sustained.
# C_2016222EN.01004401.xml

| 20.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/44

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 28 April 2016 — Silva Rodriguez v Commission

(Case F-115/15) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Pension - Calculation of pension rights - Management premium - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure))

(2016/C 222/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: José Manuel Silva Rodriguez (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, Agents)

Re:

Application seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision limiting the applicant’s pension rights; a declaration that the Conclusions of the Heads of Administration of 16 June 2005 are inapplicable inasmuch as they limit the bonus applied to the applicant’s pension rights, and that the defendant be ordered to pay the applicant the retirement pension to which he is entitled.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action brought by Mr José Manuel Silva Rodriguez is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action brought by Mr José Manuel Silva Rodriguez is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.

| 2. | Mr Silva Rodriguez shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Silva Rodriguez shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 320 of 28/9/2015, p. 56.

---
Filed 10/22/13 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2013 ND 180

Nicole C. Beauclair, Plaintiff, Appellee, and Cross-Appellant

v.

David J. Vanderveer, Defendant, Appellant, and Cross-Appellee

No. 20130115

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Donald L. Jorgensen, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Clark J. Bormann (argued) and Sophie Y. Morgan (appeared), P.O. Box 995, Bismarck, N.D. 58502-0995, for plaintiff, appellee, and cross-appellant.

Tyler S. Carlson (argued) and Krista L. Andrews (on brief), P.O. Box 10247, Fargo, N.D. 58106-0247, for defendant, appellant, and cross-appellee.

Beauclair v. Vanderveer

No. 20130115

Per Curiam.

[¶1]David J. Vanderveer appeals and Nicole C. Beauclair cross-appeals from a divorce judgment distributing the parties’ property under the terms of a premarital agreement.  Vanderveer argues the district court erred in awarding Beauclair the value of her investment account and in awarding her the cash value of her life insurance policy.  These are questions of fact subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review under N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(a).  See, e.g., Dieterle v. Dieterle, 2013 ND 71, ¶ 25, 830 N.W.2d 571 (in a short-term marriage the district court may award parties the property each brought into the marriage, and the court’s decision will not be reversed on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous).  Beauclair argues the court erred in failing to rule there was an implied contract between the parties that Vanderveer would reimburse her for her expenditures and in finding Vanderveer’s reimbursement checks to her were issued for no identifiable reason other than the mutual living expenses of the parties.  These are also findings of fact.  See, e.g., Lord & Stevens, Inc. v. 3D Printing, Inc., 2008 ND 189, ¶ 12, 756 N.W.2d 789 (existence of express or implied contract is question for trier of fact).  We summarily affirm the judgment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Dale V. Sandstrom

Daniel J. Crothers

Mary Muehlen Maring

Carol Ronning Kapsner
Exhibit 32.1

                          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
                            AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the
undersigned, as President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Operating Officer
of VSE Corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify that to the best of
the undersigned's knowledge:


	1) the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2009 (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 Company's Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.


Dated: October 30, 2009                  /s/ M. A. Gauthier
                                         __________________________________
                                         M. A. Gauthier
                                         Chief Executive Officer, President
                                         and Chief Operating Officer
Exhibit 32

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

            Pursuant  to  section  906  of  the   Sarbanes-Oxley   Act  of  2002
      (subsection  (a) and (b) of section  1350,  chapter 63 of title 18, United
      States  Code),   each  of  the  undersigned   officers  of  Canal  Capital
      Corporation and Subsidiaries, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does
      hereby certify that:

      The Quarterly  Report of Form 10-Q for the nine months ended July 31, 2008
      (the "Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the  requirements  of
      section  13(a)  or  15(d)  of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of  1934  and
      information  contained in the Form 10-Q fairly  presents,  in all material
      respects,  the  financial  condition  and  results  of  operations  of the
      Company.


Date: September 12, 2008          /S/ Michael E. Schultz
                                  -----------------------
                                  Chief Executive Officer


Date: September 12, 2008          /S/ Reginald Schauder
                                  -----------------------
                                  Chief Financial Officer


                                       49
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 88 (Tuesday, May 8, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 26195]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8724]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Air Traffic Procedures Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public that a 
meeting of the Federal Aviation Air Traffic Procedures Advisory 
Committee (ATPAC) will be held to review present air traffic control 
procedures and practices for standardization, clarification, and 
upgrading of terminology and procedures.

DATES: The meeting will be held Tuesday, July 24, 2007 from 9 a.m. to 
4:30 p.m.; Wednesday, July 25, 2007, from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; and 
Thursday, July 26, 2007, from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the FAA, Bessie Coleman 
Conference Room, 2nd floor, 800 Independence Avenue, Washington, DC 
20591.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Nancy B. Kalinowski, Executive 
Director, ATPAC, System Operations Airspace and Aeronautical 
Information Management, Room 400E, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267-9205.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App. 2), notice is 
hereby given of a meeting of the ATPAC to be held Tuesday, July 24, 
2007 from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; Wednesday, July 25, 2007, from 9 a.m. to 
4:30 p.m.; and Thursday, July 26, 2007, from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
    The agenda for this meeting will cover a continuation of the 
ATPAC's review of present air traffic control procedures and practices 
for standardization, clarification, and upgrading of terminology and 
procedures. It will also include:
    1. Approval of Minutes;
    2. Submission and Discussion of Areas of Concern;
    3. Discussion of Potential Safety Items;
    4. Report from Executive Director;
    5. Items of Interest; and
    6. Discussion and agreement of location and dates for subsequent 
meetings.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
available. With the approval of the Chairperson, members of the public 
may present an oral statements at the meeting. Persons desiring to 
attend and persons desiring to present oral statement should notify Ms. 
Nancy B. Kalinowski no later than July 13, 2007. The next quarterly 
meeting of the FAA ATPAC is scheduled for October 29-31, 2007, in 
Washington, DC. Any member of the public may present a written 
statement to the ATPAC at any time at the address given above.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 30, 2007.
Nancy B. Kalinowski,
Executive Director, Air Traffic Procedures Advisory Committee.
 [FR Doc. E7-8724 Filed 5-7-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

DIEGO ROVITO

, Appellant,

v.

JAN TINKLEY ROVITO

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 1204

[ December 30 , 2021 ]

Appeal of a nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth

Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Peter Holden , Judge; L.T. Case No.

FMCE 13

- 011646 (36)

.

Jesmany Jomarron and Robin F. Hazel of Farrell Patel Jomarron Law

PLLC, Miami, for appellant.

Robert J. Merlin of Robert J. Merlin, P.A., Coral Gables, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

G ERBER

, F ORST and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
(Reap. Dec. 9796)

#### T. D. Downing Company *v.*United States

Entry No. 30301.

(Decided October 6, 1960)

*Henry L. Ziegel*for the plaintiff.

*George Ooelvrwn Doub,*Assistant Attorney General *(Mollie Strum,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

Counsel for the parties have submitted the above-enumerated appeal for reappraisement upon stipulation, on the basis of which I find constructed value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise covered by the appeal, namely “one (1) single action cutter (two cups + ejector plates, one under plate several undelayers and dockers, etc.),” and that such value is $1,225, net, packed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
Before the Second Division,

December 7, 1949

No. 53785.

protests 534042-G, etc. (New York).

#### B. Altman & Co., Ltd., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.
September 1, 1943

No. 48728.

Suit 4419.

#### United *States*v. *Schenley Import Corp.*

C. A. D. 251.
No. 39088.

#### Protest 711523-G of T. Saji Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of incense similar to that the subject of Abstract 28313. The claim for free entry as joss stick or joss light under paragraph 1600 was therefore sustained.