alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
      (32.2) (B)














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 United Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Brenda M.
Hudson-Nelson, 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/
Brenda M. Hudson-Nelson





Brenda M.
Hudson-Nelson


Chief
Financial Officer


March 31,
2009
September 2, 2016

Mr. Stephen Gowdy Gowdy Brothers Aerospace, LLC Consultant for THETA UAV Solutions, Inc. 8170 Old Carriage Court North Shakopee, MN 55379

Re: FAA-2016-3367

Dear Mr. Gowdy:

This letter is to provide notification that we have reviewed your petition for exemption, and
have determined that we will con tinue to process your petition.

As referenced in the June 22, 2016, letter posted to your docket at www.regulations.gov , we are reviewing pending Section 333 petitions to determine if the recently-issued regulation, Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 107 ( www.faa.gov/uas ) will satisfy your request. We have determined that your request requires further regulatory relief (T ier 3), and we will continue working on your petition for exemption.

We have found that your petition, if granted, would set a precedent. Therefore, we will publish a summary of your petition in the Federa l Register for public comments, if we have not done so already.

We will advise you of the agency’s final deci sion on your petition as s oon as possible. If you have any questions regarding your petition, please contact me at 333exemptions@faa.gov

.

Sincerely,
/s/
Brenda Robeson Program Analyst
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 189 (Tuesday, September 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 51091]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25809]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER97-4097-000]


Bangor Hydro Electric Company; Notice of Filing

September 24, 1997.
    Take notice that on September 3, 1997, Bangor Hydro Electric 
Company tendered for filing an amendment in the above-referenced 
docket.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions 
or protests should be filed on or before October 7, 1997. Protests will 
be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action 
to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-25809 Filed 9-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### DIMUN INVESTMENT, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. CITIZENS FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION OF HIALEAH, a United States corporation, Appellee.

No. 70-279.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 22, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Oet. 9, 1970.

Greene & Layne, and Robert W. Stern, Miami, for appellant.

Truett & Watkins, and Harold Heller, Miami, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, BARK-DULL and SWANN, TT.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is by the plaintiff below from an order granting defendant’s motion to dismiss, and dismissing the cause with prejudice. Directions to the lower court clerk with reference to preparation of the record were not filed by the appellant as provided for by Rule 3.6(d) (1) F.A.R., 32 F.S.A., with the result that the pleadings essential to a consideration of this appeal have not been brought before this court.

In Morceau v. Meader, Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 242, 243, the court said: “Where, as here, an appellant’s points require a consideration of the record which was before the trial judge and where there is a failure to bring such record before the appellate court, the contentions of the appellant cannot be decided by an appellate court.”

“ * * * It is the responsibility and the duty of the appellant to provide the appellate court with a record sufficient to review the matter assigned as error. Johnson v. Town of Eatonville, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 664; Gleim v. Gleim, Fla.App.1965, 176 So.2d 610; Belfield v. Lochner, Fla.App.1964, 162 So.2d 668. * * *” Conlee Construction Co. v. Cay Construction Co., Fla.App.1969, 221 So.2d 792, 797.

For the reason stated, the order appealed from is affirmed.
Opinion filed August 2, 2012

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-12-00168-CV

__________

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MARGARET 

ZELMA FRALEY, DECEASED

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Midland County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. P14854

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On June 22, 2012, Dan Fraley filed a pro se notice of appeal from various “previous 

orders” of the trial court “in all hearings of the past including May 31, 2012 hearing.” Upon 

reviewing the documents on file in this case and contacting the county clerk’s office, this court 

wrote appellant on June 29, 2012, and informed him that the notice of appeal appeared to be 

untimely because the judgment was signed on November 9, 2011, 226 days prior to the filing of 

the notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. We also noted in the letter that, according to the 

county clerk, the trial court had not entered any order stemming from a May 31, 2012 hearing. 

We requested that appellant respond and show grounds to continue the appeal, and we informed 

appellant that this appeal was subject to dismissal unless he responded on or before July 16, 

2012. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3. Thereafter, we granted a ten-day extension on the due date for 

appellant’s response.

Appellant has responded, asserting complaints involving the entry of the November 9, 

2011 order and the May 31, 2012 hearing. With his response, appellant sent a copy of the 
2

November 9, 2011 order approving the account for final settlement of the estate and a copy of 

the reporter’s record from the May 31, 2012 hearing, from which there has been no written order 

or judgment. Appellant states that his “appeal” is based on the “hearing” of May 31.

To the extent that appellant is appealing the November 2011 order, his notice of appeal is 

untimely. See Rule 26.1. Absent a timely notice of appeal, this court is without jurisdiction to 

consider an appeal. Wilkins v. Methodist Health Care Sys., 160 S.W.3d 559, 563 (Tex. 2005); 

Garza v. Hibernia Nat’l Bank, 227 S.W.3d 233 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.); 

see also Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997).

Although appellant’s notice of appeal would have been timely from an order or judgment 

entered at the time of the May 31, 2012 hearing, the May 31 hearing did not result in any order 

or judgment. Unless specifically authorized by statute, appeals may be taken only from final 

judgments. Tex. A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840–41 (Tex. 2007); 

Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001). Because the trial court did not enter an 

order or judgment related to the May 31 hearing, we have no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal

related to that hearing. Consequently, we dismiss this appeal pursuant to Rule 42.3(a).

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

August 2, 2012

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Kalenak, J.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 21

                             Matrix Bancorp, Inc.

                        Subsidiaries of the Registrant


1.   Matrix Financial Services Corporation - Incorporated in Arizona

2.   United Financial, Inc. - Incorporated in Colorado

3.   Matrix Capital Bank - Organized pursuant to a Federal savings and loan
     charter

4.   United Special Services, Inc. - Incorporated in Colorado

5.   United Capital Markets, Inc. - Incorporated in Colorado

6.   The Vintage Group Inc. - Incorporated in Texas

7.   Vintage Delaware Holdings, Inc. - Incorporated in Delaware

8.   Sterling Trust Company - Incorporated in Texas

9.   First Matrix Investment Services Corp. - Incorporated in Texas

10.  Matrix Funding Corp. - Incorporated in Colorado

11.  Matrix Advisory Services Corporation - Incorporated in Colorado

12.  Matrix Settlement & Clearance Services, L.L.C. (50%) - Organized in New
     York

13.  Equi-Mor Holdings, Inc. - Incorporated in Nevada

14.  ABS School Management Services, L.L.C. - Organized in Arizona

15.  Matrix Aviation Corporation - Incorporated in Colorado

16.  MCNP-1 Corp. - Incorporated in New Mexico

17.  Leader Acquisition Corp. - Incorporated in Delaware

18.  Matrix Insurance Service Corporation - Incorporated in Arizona

19.  Matrix Bancorp Capital Trust I - Organized under Delaware law
#### John Earl HALL v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 50400.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Aug. 16, 1978.

E. Howard Tucker, Jackson, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Karen Gil-foy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Before ROBERTSON, P. J., and SUGG and COFER, JJ.

AFFIRMED.

PATTERSON, C. J., SMITH, P. J., and WALKER, LEE and BOWLING, JJ., concur.

BROOM, J., took no part.
| **INTEGRITY MUTUAL FUNDS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES** | Exhibit 32.2 |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------------|

 

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

 

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Integrity Mutual Funds, Inc. (the “Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Heather Ackerman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to the best of my knowledge: 

(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 Company.

 

 
| Date:  March 28, 2005 | By /s/ Heather Ackerman    |
|----------------------------|----------------------------|
|                       | -------------------------- |
|                       | Heather Ackerman           |
|                       | Chief Financial Officer    |
|                       | And Controller             |
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 182 (Friday, September 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49251-49252]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24985]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[OR-030-07-1220-00; GP7-0295]


Meeting of Advisory Board for the National Historic Oregon Trail 
Interpretive Center

AGENCY: National Historic Oregon Trail Interpretive Center, Vale 
District, Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

[[Page 49252]]

SUMMARY: Notice is given that a meeting of the Advisory Board for the 
National Historic Oregon Trail Interpretive Center will be held on 
Thursday, October 2, 1997, from 8 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the Best Western 
Sunridge Inn, 1 Sunridge Lane, Baker City, Oregon 97814.
    At an appropriate time, the Board will recess for approximately one 
hour for lunch. Public comments will be received from 2:00 p.m. to 2:30 
p.m., October 2, 1997. Topics to be discussed are administrative 
activities of the Board, organizational processes, funding for the 
National Historic Oregon Trail Interpretive Center and the building of 
partnerships, and the progress of construction projects.

DATES: The meeting will begin at 8:00 a.m. and run to 5:00 p.m. October 
2, 1997.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place at the Best Western Sunridge 
Inn, 1 Sundridge Lane, Baker City, Oregon.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David B. Hunsaker, Bureau of Land 
Management, National Historic Oregon Trail, Interpretive Center, PO Box 
987, Baker City OR 97814, (Telephone 541-523-1845).
Edwin J. Singleton,
District Manager.
[FR Doc. 97-24985 Filed 9-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-33-M
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 96-611 

________________________________________________________________________ 

SPACE COOPERATION 

International Space Station 

 Protocol Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and the RUSSIAN FEDERATION 

Signed at Moscow June 11, 1996 

 with 

Appendices 

 and 

Addenda to the Protocol 

Signed at Moscow September 9, 2004 

Signed at Cape Canaveral July 1, 2006 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 RUSSIAN FEDERATION 

 Space Cooperation: International 

 Space Station 

 Protocol signed at Moscow June 11, 1996; 

 Entered into force June 11, 1996. 

 With appendices. 

 And addenda to protocol. 

 Signed at Moscow September 9, 2004; 

 Entered into force January 26, 2005. 

 Signed at Cape Canaveral July 1, 2006; 

 Entered into force July 1, 2006. 









Note: At the present time, the Treaty Office does not have the Russian text of this Protocol. If the Russian text becomes available, it will be added to this publication.













Note: At the present time, the Treaty Office does not have the Russian text of this Addendum. If the Russian text becomes available, it will be added to this publication.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsThe use of moments of momentum to account for crystal habitsA three-step theory of crystal growth is proposed which involves first an association of molecules or ions in solution to form an impinging growth unit, then second the orientation of this unit prior to its impact on the surface of a crystal, and finally the attachment of this unit to the crystal face. From this theory the habit of a crystal is dependent upon the moments of momentum of the impinging growth unit. The results of sample calculations are presented or sodium chloride, succinic acid, sucrose, and chromium boride. The faces predicted by this proposed theory are compared with those predicted by other, energy-based calculations and with those experimentally observed. The proposed theory suggests alternative strategies for crystallization and habit modification which may be of technological importance. Listings of the two computer programs that were used are provided.Document ID19850022919Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsBarber, P. G.*(Longwood Coll. Farmville, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateJuly 1, 1985Subject CategoryChemistry And Materials (General)Report/Patent NumberNASA-CR-3907NAS 1.26:3907Accession Number85N31232Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAG1-498PROJECT: RTOP 694-80-70-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19850022919.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

REVEREND BRIAN THOMAS : No. 4:05-cv-1630

:

Plaintiff, :

: Judge Jones

v. :

:

JUDGE ROBERT CONWAY, :

in his official and individual capacities. :

:

Defendant. :

ORDER

November 21, 2005

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

On August 30, 2005, Petitioner Reverend Brian Thomas (“Petitioner”) filed

a letter with the Clerk (doc. 5) which appeared to indicate that he desired to have

the above captioned matter dismissed without prejudice. Due to the imprecise

nature of the letter, we entered an Order on September 1, 2005 (doc. 6) allowing

Petitioner ten (10) days to file objections to a dismissal of the action without

prejudice. By November 8, 2005, Petitioner had filed no objections with this

Court, and we entered an Order closing the case. (Rec. Doc. 14).

On November 16, 2005, Petitioner filed a Motion to Recall and Motion to

Vacate Void Order [of November 8, 2005]. Petitioner claims that his letter of

Case 4:05-cv-01630-JEJ Document 16 Filed 11/21/05 Page 1 of 3
2

August 30, 2005 (doc. 5) was not a request to dismiss the instant action, but rather

withdrew his writ of habeas corpus. However, Petitioner failed to correct this

Court’s misconstrual of his letter (doc. 5) when prompted by this Court’s Order of

September 1, 2005. (Rec. Doc. 6).

Upon reconsideration by this Court of the letter (doc. 5), we construe it not

to be a request to dismiss the instant action but find that the letter refers to a

separate habeas corpus petition. Therefore, we shall vacate our Order (doc. 14) of

November 8, 2005 and reinstate the instant action. We shall also reinstate the

Motion to Dismiss (doc. 11) filed by the Honorable Robert J. Conway. Petitioner

shall have fifteen (15) days from the date of this Order to file a brief in opposition

to the Honorable Robert J. Conway’s Motion to Dismiss. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. This action is REINSTATED.

2. Defendant, the Honorable Robert J. Conway’s, Motion to Dismiss

(doc. 11) is REINSTATED.

Case 4:05-cv-01630-JEJ Document 16 Filed 11/21/05 Page 2 of 3
3

3. Petitioner shall have fifteen (15) days from the entry of this Order to

file a brief in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (doc. 11).

s/ John E. Jones III

John E. Jones III

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-01630-JEJ Document 16 Filed 11/21/05 Page 3 of 3
#### In the Matter of Election of Directors of Rogers Imports, Inc.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

September 22, 1952.

*Moses & Singer*for Shirley Silverman, petitioner.

*Irving Coopersmith*for Rogers Imports, Inc., and others, respondents.

Schwartz, J.

This application is brought by the minority stockholder of a corporation pursuant to section 25 of the General Corporation Law to set aside an election of directors of the corporation. Petitioner is the owner of 40% of the outstanding stock of the corporation. The corporation was organized in 1932. In 1945, a certificate was filed, amending the original certificate so as to increase the number of shares and, at the same time, a provision was inserted to provide for cumulative voting at all elections of directors of the corporation.

*762A provision of the by-laws of the corporation purportedly provides for the removal of a director, with or without cause, by majority vote of the stockholders.

On July 28, 1952, a meeting of the stockholders and directors of the corporation was called. At this meeting, one director was removed without cause by majority vote of the stockholders arid another director elected in his place.

The petitioner now makes this application, on the ground, that said meeting violated her rights under the cumulative voting provision of the certificate. Her argument may be summed up as follows: the cumulative voting provision was intended to protect the minority stockholder in her right to representation on the board of directors. When this provision was inserted in the charter, it in effect invalidated the by-law insofar as it provided for removal of a director *without cause*(italics ours). If this were not so, of what use would be the cumulative voting provision when, immediately after an election the majority stockholder could then remove the director without cause? To hold that the by-law is still in full force and effect would render the subsequent cumulative voting provision meaningless.

With this contention, the court agrees. Bight States have expressly provided by statute against this very contingency. When the stockholders amended the charter of this corporation to provide for cumulative voting, admittedly they were not as far-sighted as the legislators of those other States but the qualification is so reasonable that it ought, in my opinion, to be made.

Of course, a vacancy caused by death, incapacity or removal for cause is quite a different matter. Cumulative voting, in such instance, cannot guarantee representation to minority stockholders in the election of a single director to fill a vacancy so caused and this decision should not be construed as holding otherwise.

The court holds that the amendment of the certificate in 1945 to provide for cumulative voting invalidated the by-law provision insofar as it provided for the removal of a director without cause and, accordingly, the election of July 28, 1952, is hereby invalidated and set aside.