alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1208 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 116 ) ll-E- 2 Docket Number: 

# A-89-1 0

Printed 5/9/200810:08:23 AM

Sheet 116 of 127P. 2



# A-89-1 0

II-E- 2 LA WOFFICE S PHILI PJ . HARTE U

SUIT E 40 4 230 1 M STREET , N . W . WASHINGTON , D.C . 2003 7 <202 > 887..03 3 l|| j t^g g j J » ISO 1 ''• 

## Jun e30 , 1989 |52^^!2__2£1—

- MEMORANDU M Re : Fugitiv e Emission s y_|^?opin g Meetin g o nJul y1 7 Fr : Phili p J . Hart e Thi s i s t o confir mth e meetin g w e hav e previousl ydiscussed . I t wil l b e hel dfro m9:3 0 t o 12:0 0 o nMonday , Jul y 1 7 i nConferenc e Room 8 o f th e Washingto nInformationCente r whic hopen s directl y ont o th e shoppin g mal l par t o f Watersid e Mall . A s myearlie r memorandu mindicated , severa l partie s hav e expresse ddifferen t idea s abou t jus t wha t th e negotiation s shoul d encompas s an dhow . Thus , i t seeme dimportan t t o develo p a commo n understandin g o f th e propose dscop e o f th e negotiate drulemakin g befor e movin g forward , an dth e bes t wa yt o d o tha t seeme d t o b e t o gathe r a smal l grou p o f representative s o f th e variou s interest s togethe r fo r a scopin g session . I naddition , w e nee dt o discus s a tentativ e schedul e fo r th e meetings , a roug hagend a o f th e issue s t o b e take nup , th e task s tha t nee dt o b e don e t o accomplis hth e undertaking , an dan yothe r topic s o f importanc e t o th e parties . I emphasiz e tha t th e meetin g i s onl yfo r planning , s o tha t th e issue s take nu p i nth e meetin g ca nb e revisite ddurin g th e negotia

tion s themselves. . Sinc e n o on e woul db e prejudice dbyno t attend
ing , I woul dhop e w e coul dkee p i t small , wit honl ya coupl e o f representative s o f eac hinteres t grou p s o th e discussion s ca nb e informa l an dunstructured .
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

In connection with the Annual Report of MPAC Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned officers of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

We have reviewed the Report;

based on our knowledge, the 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 the Report; and

based on our knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in the 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 the Report.

Dated this 29th day of July, 2003

/s/ Adam Smith                               Adam Smith
Chief Executive Officer

/s/ Michael Laidlaw                        Michael Laidlaw
Principal Accounting Officer
Exhibit 99(d)


(i) Class A-1 Certificates received distributions of principal in the aggregate
amount of $760,995.08 in 1997. No other Class received any distributions of
principal in 1997.

(ii) All Classes received distributions of interest in 1997.

(iii) Aggregate collections on the mortgage loans for 1997 $6,439,450.75

(iv) Advances of principal and interest of $274,363.33 were made by the Master
Servicer in 1997.

(vii) Two Mortgage Loans having an aggregate principal balance of $6,025,348
were 30 days or more deliquent in 1997.

(ix)  Same as (ii) above.

(x) Same as (ii) above.

(xiv) The Trust Fund suffered no losses or additional expenses in 1997.

(xvii)

       Master Servicer Compensation for                  $115,599.72
       1997 (including fees paid to
       primary servicers)

       Special Servicer Compensation for                          $0
       1997
**Exhibit
      32.3**


**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**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 Bio Matrix Scientific Group, Inc. (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended December 31, 2006 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
      certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





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.








Dated:
      November 20, 2007


By:
            /s/
                David KoosDavid
                KoosChief
                Executive Officer





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, or other document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise
      adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version
      of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Frezer,
      Inc. and will be retained by Frezer, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 2011

- XXXX Directorate Identifier: 2011

-NE

- 13

- AD If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into an d then out of the changed cell

. **Estimated Costs:** 

Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- h ours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

cost ( @ $8 5 /h our) Part s Cost Total Costs ( labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U

. S

. Fleet 

### Inspection 0.5 $ 42.50 $0 $ 42.50 

### 60,000 $2,550,000.0 0 

### Remove, Repair and Replace 2.0 $ 170.00 $0 $ 170.00 

### 261 $44,370.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $2,594,370 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $ 

### Special consideration **s for Economic Analysis** (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be consider ed a “significant regulatory action”? YES * NO

* Explanation:

### DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? YES * NO

* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for either a Yes or No answer. YES NO Explanation: **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES * NO


### * Explanation 

### :
[Cite as State ex rel. Untied v. Ellwood, 131 Ohio St.3d 37, 2011-Ohio-6343.]

T HE S TATE EX REL . U NTIED , A PPELLANT , v. E LLWOOD , J UDGE , ET AL ., A PPELLEES . [Cite as State ex rel. Untied v. Ellwood, 131 Ohio St.3d 37, 2011-Ohio-6343.] Criminal law—Hearing on alleged viola tion of community control held after expiration of term of community c ontrol—Writ of prohibition denied—Clerks of court—Date-stamping of filed documents sufficient; timestamping not required. (No. 2011-1188—Submitted December 7, 2011—Decided December 14, 2011.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Guernsey County, No. 11 CA 07,
2011-Ohio-2836.

__________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the complaint of appellant, David M. Untied, for extraordinary relief in prohibition
and mandamus. {¶ 2} Untied is not entitled to a writ of prohibition to prevent appellee Judge David A. Ellwood of the Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas from proceeding with a hearing on an alleged violation of community control. Judge Ellwood stayed the hearing pending the ruling by the chief justice of this court on Untied’s affidavit of disqualification against him. See, e.g., State ex rel. Denton v. Bedinghaus , 98 Ohio St.3d 298, 2003-Ohio-861, 784 N.E.2d 99, ¶ 26 (prohibition claim moot to the extent th at appellants sought to prevent a policy that had already been discontinued). And Judge Ellwood “was authorized to conduct proceedings on the alleged comm unity-control violations even though they were conducted after the expiration of the term of community control, provided that the notice of violations was properly given and the revocationS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 proceedings were commenced before the expiration.” State ex rel. Hemsley v.
Burnham Unruh , 128 Ohio St.3d 307, 2011-Ohio-226, 943 N.E.2d 1014, ¶ 13. The charge against Untied for violating community control was filed on February 16, 2011, i.e., before his community control expired. {¶ 3} Moreover, Untied is not entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel appellee Guernsey County Common Pleas Clerk of Court Teresa Dankovic to date-stamp and time-stamp all documents filed with the court. The applicable entries were all stamped with the date of filing. This is all that the pertinent provisions require. R.C. 2303.10 (“The cler k of the court of common pleas shall indorse upon every paper filed with him th e date of the filing thereof * * *”); Sup.R. 44(E) (“ ‘File’ means to deposit a do cument with a clerk of court, upon the
occurrence of which the clerk time or date stamps and dockets the document” [emphasis added]). {¶ 4} Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals correctly held that Untied was not entitled to the requested extraordinary relief in prohibition and mandamus, and we affi rm that judgment. Judgment affirmed.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and P FEIFER , L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , C UPP , and M C G EE B ROWN , JJ., concur.

__________________ David M. Untied, pro se. Daniel G. Padden, Guernsey County Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees.

______________________
#### Paul J. BLALOCK v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 50085.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Dec. 7, 1977.

Wells & Blalock, Tim D. Blalock, Natchez, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Pete J. Cajoleas, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Amite County; Lenox L. Forman, Judge.

Before INZER, P. J., and WALKER and BROOM, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
#### Herbert S. FREEHLING, Trustee in Bankruptcy for the defendant, St. Ann’s School of Boca Raton, Inc., Appellant, v. Albert L. SCHMIDT, Richard B. Durkin and Patricia M. Durkin, his wife, Warren J. Durkin and Sally C. Durkin, his wife, Lauderdale Abstract and Title Co., a corporation of the State of Florida, the Episcopal School Foundation, a Florida corporation not for profit, and Miami National Bank, a national banking association, Appellees.

No. 69-562.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 18, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 208 (Tuesday, October 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55792-55793]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28460]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. MG96-13-005]


K N Interstate Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Filing

October 22, 1997.
    Take notice that on October 14, 1997, K N Interstate Gas 
Transmission Company (KNI) submitted revised standards of conduct in 
response to the Commission's August 6, 1997, order.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 80 FERC para. 61,212 (1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    KNI states that copies of this filing have been mailed to all 
parties on the official service list compiled by the Secretary in this 
proceeding. 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 or 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 or 385.214). All such motions to 
intervene or protest should be filed on or before November 6, 1997. 
Protests

[[Page 55793]]

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. 97-28460 Filed 10-27-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### ATLANTIC PLAZA PARTNERSHIP, etc., et al., Appellants, v. DAYTONA SANDS, INC., etc., et al., Appellees.

No. GG-314.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 18, 1978.

Rehearing Denied May 15, 1978.

*762Charles Tindell, of Elliott, Tindell & Geh-ris, Daytona Beach, for appellants.

Jason G. Reynolds, of Coble, McKinnon, Reynolds, Rothert, Bohner & Godbee, Day-tona Beach, for appellees.

MILLS, Acting Chief Judge.

Appellant Elliott filed a malicious prosecution counterclaim against appellees. The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of appellees on the ground that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to appellees’ defense of advice of counsel, therefore, appellees were entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Elliott appeals contending the facts were conflicting and showed that a number of appellees never consulted with their attorney. We affirm.

Initially, appellees filed a suit for declaratory judgment and for injunctive relief against Atlantic Plaza Partnership. This suit was concluded by the entry of a summary judgment in favor of Atlantic. Elliott was not a party to this suit.

The record reflects that a number of the appellees did not consult with the attorney but it also reflects that these appellees did not authorize the attorney to file the suit.

The theory or reason of a trial court in making an order is not controlling. If there is any reason or theory to support the order, the ruling will be affirmed. *Deemer v. Hallett Pontiac, Inc.,*288 So.2d 526 (Fla.3d DCA 1974).

As to some of the appellees, the reason given by the court for its ruling was correct. As to the remaining appellees, the court correctly entered summary judgment for them because they never authorized the filing of the initial suit. As to all of the appellees, the court was correct in its ruling, because Elliott was not a party to the initial suit which terminated in favor of Atlantic.

The summary judgment appealed is affirmed.

ERVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 99.2
 
 
 Certification of Principal Financial Officer
 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003)
 
 I, Andrew P. Kaplan, Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President, Finance and Administration (principal financial officer) of Audible, Inc. (the Registrant), certify that to the best of my knowledge, based upon review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 of the Registrant (the Report):
 
 (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) [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/ Andrew P. KaplanName:
Andrew P. KaplanDate:
May 13, 2003
#### STONE BUICK, INC., a Florida corporation, and Union Oil Company of California, a California corporation, Appellants, v. Martha BEUTNAGEL, a widow, and Werner Alfred Beutnagel et al., Appellees.

No. 70-931.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 22, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
#### ROYAL-GLOBE INSURANCE COMPANIES, Petitioner, v. INDIAN RIVER GAS COMPANY, a Florida corporation, et al., Respondents.

No. 44320.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 7, 1974.

Certiorari dismissed.
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 ESS Technology, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James
B. Boyd, 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, that to 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.


March 15, 2004

                                                          /s/ JAMES B. BOYD
                                                         -----------------------
                                                              JAMES B. BOYD
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
#### James K. MANVILLE, Appellant, v. Albert S. MORRISS, Appellee.

No. 71-1091.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 28, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Martin County; D. C. Smith, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 24 (Wednesday, February 5, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 5396]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2845]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5684-7]


Science Advisory Board; Notification of Public Advisory Committee 
Meetings

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, 
notice is hereby given that a meeting of the Valuation Subcommittee of 
the US EPA Science Advisory Board's (SAB) Integrated Risk Project, 
previously announced in the Federal Register on January 10, 1997 
(Volume 62, No. 7, pages 1453-1454), has been cancelled. This meeting, 
originally scheduled for February 19 through 21, 1997, will be 
rescheduled at a later date which will be announced in the Federal 
Register.
    Further information can be obtained by contacting Ms. Diana Pozun, 
Staff Secretary, Committee Operations Staff, Science Advisory Board 
(1400), US EPA, 401 M Street SW., Washington DC 20460, telephone (202) 
260-8414, fax (202) 260-7118, or Internet at: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9acaf5e0eff4b4def3fbf4fbda">[email protected]</a> 
EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV, or Mr. Thomas Miller, Designated Federal Official for 
the Valuation Subcommittee IRP, at the above address, via telephone 
(202) 260-5886, fax (202) 260-7118, or via the Internet at: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="58353134343d2a762c3735181d081915191114761d0819761f170e76">[email protected]</a>

    Dated: January 28, 1997.
Donald G. Barnes,
Staff Director, Science Advisory Board.
[FR Doc. 97-2845 Filed 2-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT 32.1



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 Quepasa Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, John C. Abbott, Chief Executive 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 my knowledge:



1.

The quarterly 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 quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ John C. AbbottJohn C. Abbott
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)


Dated: August 14, 2009





In connection with the quarterly report of Quepasa Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Michael D. Matte, 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 my knowledge:



1.

The quarterly 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 quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ Michael D. MatteMichael D. Matte
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)


Dated: August 14, 2009
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 MedCom USA, INC., (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bill Williams, Chief
Executive 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, 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; and

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

                                MEDCOM USA, INC.
                              By /s/ W.P. Williams
                                 -----------------
                            Chairman, President, CEO
                   (Sole executive officer of the registrant)
                               September 28, 2004


<PAGE>