alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                       CERTIFICATION ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Prestolite Electric Holding, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kenneth
C. Cornelius, Chief Financial Officer of the Company. Certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 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


Date: March 26, 2003                                By: /s/ Kenneth C. Cornelius
                                                        ------------------------
                                                    Kenneth C. Cornelius
                                                    Senior Vice President and
                                                    Chief Financial Officer
1.
    
    I have reviewed this Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, of Caneum, 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.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a.
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during
the period in which this report is being prepared;b.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our 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; andc.
    
    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 fourth fiscal quarter 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;
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
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 functions):
 a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.Date: August 18, 2008
 /s/ Suki MudanSuki Mudan, Chief Operating Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
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.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #10871 and #10872]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Maine ( FEMA-1693-DR), dated 05/09/2007. *Incident:*
                         Severe Storms and Inland and Coastal Flooding. *Incident Period:*
                         04/15/2007 through 04/23/2007. *Effective Date:*
                         05/09/2007. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         07/09/2007. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         02/11/2008.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to : U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. 
                        ( print page 27897)


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 05/09/2007, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: Primary Counties (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans): Cumberland, and York. Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only): Maine: Androscoggin, Oxford, and Sagadahoc. New Hampshire: Carroll, Rockingham, and Strafford. The Interest Rates are: —
Percent*For Physical Damage:*Homeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere
5.750Homeowners without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.875Businesses with Credit Available Elsewhere
8.000Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) with Credit Available Elsewhere
5.250Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000*For Economic Injury:*Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 108716 and for economic injury is 108720. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. E7-9490 Filed 5-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
No. 95-1882.

#### California *v.*Mitchell.

Ct. App. Cal., 6th App. Dist. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*granted. Certiorari denied.
##### 



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 Quarterly Report of DiCon Fiberoptics, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Jannett Wang, Vice President of Administration of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes  Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company. /s/ Jannett Wang  
 August 13, 2004 This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.
**EXHIBIT 32.01**

CERTIFICATION 

PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE

I, Walter Thomas Price III, a Managing Member of Beeland Management Company, L.L.C., the General Partner of Rogers International RawMaterials Fund, L.P. (the “Partnership”), certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of the Partnership on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership. 

Date: November 12, 2010 

By: /s/Walter Thomas Price III

Walter Thomas Price III 

Managing Member (Principal Executive Officer) 

Beeland Management Company, L.L.C. 

General Partner of Rogers International Raw Materials Fund, L.P.
Exhibit 32.02    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 Ethos Environmental, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas W. Maher, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:  (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.    /s/ Thomas W. Maher By: Thomas W. Maher Chief Financial Officer  Dated: April 15, 2009  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 54351.

#### Singh, Singh & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 156269-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

When this case was called for hearing, counsel for the respective parties agreed that the merchandise consists of silk mufflers valued at more than $5 per dozen pieces the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 46910. The claim of the plaintiff was therefore sustained.
# C_2012379EN.01003403.xml

| 8.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 379/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 379/34

---

Action brought on 1 October 2012 — ZZ v EMA

(Case F-110/12)

2012/C 379/57

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Medicines Agency

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s application seeking reclassification of his contract as a member of the auxiliary staff as a contract as a member of the temporary staff.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of 21 November 2011 of the authority empowered to conclude contracts rejecting the applicant’s application seeking reclassification of his contract as a member of the auxiliary staff as a contract as a member of the temporary staff; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 21 November 2011 of the authority empowered to conclude contracts rejecting the applicant’s application seeking reclassification of his contract as a member of the auxiliary staff as a contract as a member of the temporary staff;

| — | order the EMA to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EMA to bear the costs.

---
1

Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 1:08 PM

To: 'info@windshearmedia.com'

Cc: '333exemptions@faa.gov'

Subject: Request for Additional Information: Windshear Media, LLC (FAA-2015-1292)

June 18, 2015 

Dear Mr. Cook: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2015-1292). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your 

petition. 

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by 

Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and 

remove closed-set filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the 

requested response date listed below. 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit 

any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via e-mail to 

333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information 

described above July 2, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying 

you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

Nia Daniels 

Program Analyst 

Nia Daniels, ARM‐108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075

nia.daniels@faa.gov
No. 40464.

#### Petitions 5722-R, etc., of Western Commercial Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Sullivan, J.

It appeared that the discrepancy between the price paid and the invoice value was accounted for by the fact that the shipper’s transactions were based upon gold dollars. The court was satisfied from the record that the petitioner acted in entire good faith and without intention to defraud the revenue. The petitions were therefore granted.
No. 73-5489.

#### Polesti *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

June 18, 2020

Before 

KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Chief Judge  

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge

No. 18‐3633

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

    Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

ALFRED L. CROSS,

    Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

No. 3:17‐cr‐30047‐NJR‐1

Nancy J. Rosenstengel,  

Chief Judge.

O R D E R

On June 2, 2020, the Defendant‐Appellant petitioned for panel rehearing and

rehearing en banc.  No judge in active service has requested a vote to rehear the case en

banc, and all members of the original panel have voted to deny rehearing and to issue

an amended opinion.  The courtʹs opinion dated May 22, 2020 is amended by the

attached opinion.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for rehearing and rehearing en

banc is DENIED.
#### FOUR STAR RESORTS BAHAMAS, LTD. d/b/a Paradise Island Fun Club, a Bahamian corporation, Appellant, v. ALLEGRO RESORTS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LTD., a B.V.I. corporation, Appellee.

No. 98-3205.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 16, 1999.

Richard F. Joyce, III, Miami, for appellant.

Gunster, Yoakley, Valdes-Fauli *&*Stewart, P.A., and Dana A. Clayton, Miami, for appellee.

Before COPE, GERSTEN and FLETCHER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Four Star Resorts Bahamas, Ltd., doing business as Paradise Island Fun Club, appeals an order denying its motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens. *See*Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(A) (authorizing review of non-final orders that concern venue); *see also Thomas v. Thomas,*724 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); *Southern Railway Co. v. McCubbins,*196 So.2d 512*577(Fla. 3d DCA 1967). The underlying contract in this litigation contains a forum selection clause choosing Dade County as the forum for any suit arising out of the agreement, and waiving any venue objection, and including any objection that the suit has been brought in an inconvenient forum. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens, *see*Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.061, and Four Star has appealed.

“It is settled law in this state that the parties to an agreement may provide therein where suit may be brought to enforce it if such should become necessary .... ” *Producers Supply, Inc. v. Harz,*149 Fla. 594, 596, 6 So.2d 375, 376 (1942); *see also Hughes Supply Inc. v. Lupton,*487 So.2d 429 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Having contractually agreed to venue in Dade County, and having explicitly waived any venue or forum non conve-niens objection, Four Star will not be heard to say otherwise now.

Four Star’s challenge to personal jurisdiction based on *McRae v. J.D./M.D., Inc.,*511 So.2d 540 (Fla.1987), is not properly before us and we express no opinion on that issue.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of
American Physicians Capital, Inc. (the "Company"), for purposes of 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
the best of his knowledge:

         (1) The Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period
ended September 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2) The information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

November 14, 2003

/s/ William B. Cheeseman
------------------------
William B. Cheeseman
Chief Executive Officer

/s/ Frank H. Freund
-------------------
Frank H. Freund
Chief Financial Officer
Before the Second Division,

September 29, 1943

No. 48807.

#### Protests 937265-G, etc., of Henry Pollak, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that certain items consist of hats in chief value of ramie, similar to those involved in Abstract 47291. In accordance therewith the claim was sustained as to this item.
No. 99-10550 -1-

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-10550 Summary Calendar

TAIWO JIMI ADEOYE, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:98-CV-2445-H

-------------------- February 16, 2000 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Taiwo Jimi Adeoye, a Nigerian citizen and a detainee of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”), appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Adeoye’s § 2241 petition sought review of his deportation order and requested that he be released on bond from INS custody pending the resolution of his deportation proceedings. Adeoye’s motion for permission to file a late opposition to the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal as moot is GRANTED.No. 99-10550 -2- During the pendency of this appeal, the INS’ Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) granted Adeoye’s motion to reopen his deportation proceedings, rescinded Adeoye’s deportation order, and remanded the case to the INS’ Immigration Court for further consideration. Thus, to the extent that Adeoye’s § 2241 petition was seeking review of his deportation order, Adeoye’s appeal is moot and this court is without jurisdiction to entertain it. See United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty , 445 U.S. 388, 395-96 (1980). Adeoye’s appeal is not moot, however, to the extent that his § 2241 petition sought review of his custody status. Because Adeoye’s deportation proceedings commenced prior to the April 1, 1997, effective date of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (“IIRIRA”), this case is governed by pre-IIRIRA law. See IIRIRA § 309(c)(1); Anwar v. INS , 116 F.3d 140, 142-43 (5th Cir. 1997). Under former 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) (West 1996), a district court has habeas corpus jurisdiction to review a custody determination pending a final decision of deportability only “upon a conclusive showing . . . that the [INS] is not proceeding with such reasonable dispatch as may be warranted by the particular facts and circumstances” of the deportation case. See Agbosasa v. Caplinger , No. 92-5180, slip op. at 2-3 (5th Cir. May 5, 1993) (unpublished). Because Adeoye has not conclusively shown that the INS has acted in an unreasonably dilatory manner in handling his deportation proceedings, the district court lacked, and this court lacks,No. 99-10550 -3- jurisdiction to review Adeoye’s custody status. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) (West 1996). In light of the foregoing, the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal as moot is GRANTED IN PART, and Adeoye’s appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
# C_2012174EN.01002401.xml

| 16.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 174/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 174/24

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 23 April 2012 — Ternavsky v Council

(Case T-163/12 R)

(Applications for interim measures - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Belarus - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Disregard of the formal requirements - Inadmissibility)

2012/C 174/40

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Anatoly Ternavsky (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: C. Rapin and E. Van den Haute, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for suspension of the application of point 2 of Annex II to Council Implementing Decision 2012/171/CFSP of 23 March 2012 implementing Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2012 L 87, p. 95) and of point 2 of Annex II to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 265/2012 of 23 March 2012 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2012 L 87, p. 37)

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---