alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.2



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 Hooker Furniture Corporation (the
Company) Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending May 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, E. Larry Ryder, Chief Financial Officer 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 (Section 906), 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: |  | July 7, 2003 |  | 
|      |  |              |  | 



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 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.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 196 (Thursday, October 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 52775]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26812]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Federal Bureau of Investigation


Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Advisory Policy 
Board

    The Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Advisory Policy 
Board will meet on December 10-11, 1997, from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m., at 
the Sunburst Resort Hotel, 4925 Scottsdale Road, Scottsdale, Arizona, 
telephone 602-945-7666, to formulate recommendations to the Director, 
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on the security, policy, and 
operation of the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), NCIC 2000, 
the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS), and 
the Uniform Crime Reporting and National Incident Based Reporting 
System programs.
    The topics to be discussed will include the progress of the NCIC 
2000 and IAFIS projects, and other topics related to the operation of 
the FBI's criminal justice information systems.
    The meeting will be open to the public on a first-come, first-
seated basis. Any member of the public may file a written statement 
concerning the FBI CJIS Division programs or related matters with the 
Board. Anyone wishing to address this session of the meeting should 
notify the Designated Federal Employee, at least 24 hours prior to the 
start of the session. The notification may be by mail, telegram, cable, 
facsimile, or a hand-delivered note. It should contain the requestor's 
name, corporate designation, consumer affiliation, or Government 
designation, along with a short statement describing the topic to be 
addressed, and the time needed for the presentation. A nonmember 
requestor will ordinarily be allowed not more than 15 minutes to 
present a topic, unless specifically approved by the Chairman of the 
Board.
    Inquiries may be addressed to the Designated Federal Employee, Mr. 
Demery R. Bishop, Section Chief, Programs Development Section, CJIS 
Division, FBI, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia 
26306, telephone 304-625-2740, facsimile 304-625-5090.

    Dated: October 3, 1997.
Demery R. Bishop,
Section Chief, Programs Development Section, Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, Designated Federal Employee.
[FR Doc. 97-26812 Filed 10-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-02-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                           4,874
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  109,403
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               114,277
<PP&E>                                         588,830
<DEPRECIATION>                                (14,206)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 688,901
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          273,962
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       414,939
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   688,901
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                80,344
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               493,601
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,292
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (419,549)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (419,549)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.13)


</TABLE>
#### Thomas W. JEFFERSON, etc., et al., Appellants, v. Thomas Herbert SMITH et al., Appellees.

No. 76-458.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 27, 1976.

Welsh & Carroll, Miami, Swope & Stobs, Miami Shores, Podhurst, Orseck & Parks, Miami, for appellants.

Adams, George, Wood, Lee, Schulte & Thompson, Miami, for appellees.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of *Hanley v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company,*Fla.1976, 334 So.2d 11.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2914 

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to exempt certain employees 

engaged in outdoor recreational outfitting or guiding services from maximum hours requirements. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 26 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 22), 2023 

Mr. DAINES (for himself and Ms. SINEMA) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to exempt 

certain employees engaged in outdoor recreational outfitting or guiding services from maximum hours requirements. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 2914 IS

1 SECTION 1. EXEMPTION WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN EM2 PLOYEES ENGAGED IN OUTDOOR REC3 REATIONAL OUTFITTING OR GUIDING SERV4 ICES. 

5 Section 13(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 

6 1938 (29 U.S.C. 213(b)) is amended by inserting after 

7 paragraph (3) the following: 

8 ‘‘(4) any employee principally engaged in out9 door recreational outfitting or guiding services and 

10 employed by an employer principally engaged in the 

11 business of providing such outfitting or guiding serv12 ices that— 

13 ‘‘(A) does not operate for more than seven 

14 months in any calendar year; or 

15 ‘‘(B) had average receipts for any six 

16 months of the preceding calendar year that 

were not more than 331 17 ⁄3 per centum of its av18 erage receipts for the other six months of such 

19 year; or’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 04948

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

04948\04948_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 04948\04948_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04948\04948_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04948\04948_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

04948\Certification Statement Plant ID 04948.pdf Plant certification statement

x 04948\Supplemental Documents\04948_A5_Q3_WaterBalanceDiagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04948\04948_Checklist_102210_version34.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

04948\04948_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

04948\Supplemental Documents\04948_ICR CoverLetter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 5240]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2724]


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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis 
Panel (SEP) meeting:

    Name of SEP: Collaborations for Advanced Strategies in 
Opportunistic Infections.
    Date: March 7, 1997.
    Time: 8:30 a.m.
    Place: Bethesda Ramada Hotel & Conference Center, Parlor, 8400 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 654-1000.
    Contact Person: Dr. Vassil Georgiev, Scientific Review Adm., 
6003 Executive Boulevard, Solar Bldg., Room 4C04, Bethesda, MD 
20892, (301) 496-8206.
    Purpose/Agenda: To evaluate grant applications.
    The meeting will be closed in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. 
Applications and/or proposals and the discussions could reveal 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the applications and/or proposals, the disclosure of which 
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs Nos. 93.855, 
Immunology, Allergic and Immunologic Diseases Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health.

    Dated: January 29, 1997.
Paula N. Hayes,
Acting Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 97-2724 Filed 2-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

ISAIAH TERMAINE BELCHER, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 21-30203 

D.C. No. 3:18-cr-00145-RRB-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Alaska

Ralph R. Beistline, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 12, 2022**

Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Isaiah Termaine Belcher appeals pro se from the district court’s orders

denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)

and motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We 

review the denial of a motion for compassionate release and the denial of a motion 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUL 21 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-30203 

for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 

1278, 1281 (9th Cir. 2021); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty, Or. v. ACandS, 

Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.

Belcher contends that the district court did not appreciate its discretion to 

consider extraordinary and compelling reasons beyond the criteria provided by

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. The record does not support Belcher’s claim. The district 

court considered Belcher’s medical conditions without reference to § 1B1.13 and, 

given the medical records documenting his assessments and treatment, did not 

abuse its discretion in concluding that his health issues were being adequately 

addressed. See United States v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) 

(district court abuses its discretion only if its decision is illogical, implausible, or 

without support in the record). 

Belcher also contends that the district court did not properly weigh the 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. The court acted within its broad discretion, however, in 

concluding that Belcher’s rehabilitative efforts, though commendable, did not 

warrant compassionate release in light of the nature of his offense and Belcher’s 

significant criminal history. See Keller, 2 F.4th 1284. 

AFFIRMED.
**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 Audible Inc (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q
      for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, William H. Mitchell, Chief Financial
      Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 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 of the Company at the end of the
                reporting period covered by the Report and the results of operations
                of
                the Company for the period covered by the
                Report.





By:
            /s/
                William H. MitchellName:
            William H. MitchellTitle:
            Chief
                Financial Officer
              (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)Date:
            November
                8, 2007





The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of this Report or
      as a
      separate disclosure document. A signed original of this written statement
      required by Section 906 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.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 10.2

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS

As independent petroleum Consultants, we hereby consent to the use of our name
in the Annual Report and Form 20-F of Petsec Energy Ltd, parent of Petsec Energy
Inc, for the period ended December 31, 2001. We further consent to the inclusion
of our estimate of reserves and present value of future net reserves for in such
Annual Report.

RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.

Houston, Texas
June 18, 2002
#### ATLANTIC DISCOUNT CORPORATION, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Guy PATSY, Sr., and Ernest T. Wettrich, Jr., Appellees.

No. 70-652.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 22, 1971.

Rehearing Denied May 11, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**AD Economic Evaluation**



### Docket No. FAA
- 2011
- 0448 Directorate ID: 2007
- SW
- 51
- AD Helicopter Model: Eurocopter France Model EC 120B Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 

### 114 h elicopters in the US Registry. Reason : 

### This AD is prompted by an incident in which the pilot encountered a sudden restriction of the cyclic control movement during flight. Costs : Parts per Helicopter $ 50 Labor per Helicopter ( 3 x $ 8 5 /work
- hour) $ 255 Other (Explain) Total Cost per Helicopter $ 305 Total US Fleet Cost $ 34,770 Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Re gulatory Flexibility Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer: Gary Roach
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 5252]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2732]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA-W-33,109]


Montana Power Company, Butte, Montana; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation 
was initiated on January 21, 1997, in response to a worker petition 
which was filed on January 21, 1997 on behalf of workers at Montana 
Power Company, Butte, Montana.
    The petitioning group of workers is subject to an ongoing 
investigation for which a determination has not yet been issued (TA-W-
33,085). Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve 
no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 24th day of January, 1997.
Russell T. Kile,
Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 97-2732 Filed 2-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 02-60016

Summary Calendar

MOSES ELECTRIC SERVICE, INC., and its agent

EXPRESS PERSONNEL SERVICES,

Petitioner-Cross-Respondent,

VERSUS

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

Respondent-Cross-Petitioner.

Petition for Review & Cross-Petition for Enforcement 

 of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board

(26-CA-17904) 

July 15, 2002

Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This case is before the Court on the petition of Moses

Electric Service, Inc. (“the Company”) to review, and the crossapplication of the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) to

enforce the decision and order of the Board issued on July 16,
2

2001, in which the Board determined that the Company violated

§ 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,

29 U.S.C. § 151, et seq. (“the Act”), by refusing to hire twelve

applicants because of their Union affiliation and by discharging

employee, Stephen Alexander, because of his Union activities. This

Court will not disturb the Board’s unfair labor practice findings

if substantial evidence supports the Board’s inferences and

conclusions, “even if the Court would justifiably have made a

different choice had the matter been before it de novo.” Universal

Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 488 (1951), accord, NLRB v.

Thermon Heat Tracing Services, Inc., 143 F.3d 181, 185 (5th Cir.

1998). Because the Board’s findings with respect to the employer’s

motive in discrimination cases involves “drawing inferences from

the evidence” based on “the expertise of the Board,” this Court’s

review of such findings “is even more deferential.” Laro

Maintenance Corp. v. NLRB, 56 F.3d 224, 229 (D.C. Cir. 1995),

accord, Valmont Indus., Inc. v. NLRB, 244 F.3d 454, 463 (5th Cir.

2001). Finally, this Court has consistently held that it will not

displace the administrative law judge’s credibility determinations

or inferences, as adopted by the Board, except in the rare

circumstances when those credibility determinations are

unreasonable or are based on an inadequate or nonexistent reason.

NLRB v. McCullough Environmental Services, Inc., 5 F.3d 923 (5th

Cir. 1993). 
3

Under these standards of review, we have carefully reviewed

the petition for review, the Board’s order, the briefs, the reply

brief, and relevant portions of the record itself. We conclude

that the Board’s findings of discrimination are supported by

substantial evidence and that the administrative law judge’s

credibility determinations are not unreasonable. Accordingly, we

dismiss the Company’s petition for review, and grant the crossapplication by the Board for enforcement of its order of July 16,

2001. The Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns

are hereby ordered to comply therewith.
#### Gerald L. SEELEY, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Industrial Relations Commission, and F. A. A., Respondents.

No. 71-192.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 14, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari dismissed.
#### Clarence P. McGHEE v. CONVEYOR MACHINERY CORPORATION, a corporation.

Civ. 1448.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 21, 1978.

Rehearing Denied July 19, 1978.

*373Clarence P. McGhee, pro se.

James T. Upchurch, III, Montgomery, for appellee.

WRIGHT, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal brought pro se from judgment denying an ARCP Rule 60(b) motion.

We affirm.

Plaintiff originally brought suit claiming workmen’s compensation. He was represented throughout that action by competent counsel. The court heard the evidence. It entered judgment finding plaintiff had suffered neither accident nor injury while engaged in the scope of his employment with defendant. No post-trial motion was filed. Nearly four months after judgment, plaintiff filed a Rule 60(b) motion alleging that there were witnesses and evidence which could have sustained his complaint. The motion was filed by counsel who limited their representation of plaintiff to the preparation and filing of the motion. Plaintiff proceeded pro se. He subpoenaed witnesses and documents for the hearing of the motion. He obtained a continuance for further preparation. The witnesses were served but only one appeared. The court permitted showings for those who failed to appear and permitted introduction of several documents as evidence.

After consideration, the court denied relief, stating that the evidence and showings presented at the hearing would not have been sufficient for recovery even had they been presented at the trial.

The purpose of a Rule 60(b) motion is not to retry the original case, but is to present good cause why plaintiff should be relieved from the judgment. 11 Wright & Miller, Federal Prac. & Proc. § 2851. None of the grounds set out in Rule 60(b) were established by plaintiff at the hearing on the motion. The granting or denial of a 60(b) motion is within the judicial discretion of the trial court. We find no abuse of that discretion. We rather find that the trial court went to great length to permit plaintiff to appear and prosecute the motion pro se.

Further discussion of the case cannot possibly serve any precedential purpose.

We affirm.

AFFIRMED.

BRADLEY and HOLMES, JJ., concur.