alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The VILLAGE OF NORTH PALM BEACH, a Florida Municipal Corporation, Appellant, v. The SCHOOL BOARD OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, a corporation, and Walter E. Wadsworth d/b/a Wadsworth and Sabrice Construction, Appellees.

No. 76-1078.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 12, 1977.

Herbert L. Gildan, Nason, Gildan & Yeager, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Phillip C. Asher, Jackson & Jackson, Palm Beach, for appellees.

CROSS, Judge.

Appellant-plaintiff, The Village of North Palm Beach, a Florida municipal corporation, seeks review by interlocutory appeal of an order denying a temporary injunction entered in favor of appellees-defendants, The School Board of Palm Beach County, et al., in an action to enjoin construction of a library building. We reverse.

This action was initiated by The Village of North Palm Beach seeking to temporarily and permanently enjoin The School Board from constructing a library building on an existing school site, the construction of which allegedly would violate the setback requirements of the village zoning ordinance. After a hearing, the trial court declined to enter a temporary injunction prohibiting the erection of the library building. This appeal then followed.

In cases of governmental disputes as to whether zoning requirements of one governmental body applies to another governmental body when seeking to use land contrary to applicable zoning regulations, the balancing-of-public-interests test (sometimes referred to as the balancing-of-competing-public-interests test), in the absence *684of statutory authority, allows for the greatest flexibility and fairness in determining the issue. Therefore, we adopt the balancing-of-public-interests test for resolving zoning conflicts between different governmental bodies, and reject the rigid governmental function versus proprietary function test. *Orange County v. City of Apopka,*299 So.2d 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974).

Since we do so, the order of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views herein expressed.

Reversed and remanded.

MAGER, J., concurs.

DOWNEY, J., concurs specially.

DOWNEY, Judge,

specially concurring.

A governmental agency is immune from municipal zoning only if a statute immunizes the agency from such zoning. *City of Temple Terrace v. Hillsborough Ass’n, etc.,*322 So.2d 571 (Fla.2d DCA 1975), affirmed *Hillsborough Ass’n, etc. v. City of Temple Terrace,*332 So.2d 610 (Fla.1976); *Rutgers State University v. Piluso,*60 N.J. 142, 286 A.2d 697 (1972).

In the present case no statute immunizes the appellee School Board, a governmental agency, from the application of municipal zoning ordinances. Under such circumstances, as the majority opinion points out, the trial court should apply a balancing of the interests test in deciding whether the appellant Village’s zoning ordinances apply to the appellee Board. See cases cited above.

For the foregoing reasons I concur in the decision to reverse the order under review and remand the cause for further proceedings.
#### Ben CHANEY, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 44334.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 15, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 280 So.2d 730.

CARLTON, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Additional Information - No Comments Received Form
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification of CEO and CFO 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 on Form 10-K/A of NTL Incorporated (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Simon P. Duffy, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Jacques Kerrest, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:



|/s/SIMON P. DUFFY |  |                                                
|----------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------
|Name:             |  | Simon P. Duffy                                 
|Title:            |  | Chief Executive Officer, President and Director
|Date:             |  | September 8, 2005                              



|/s/JACQUES KERREST |  |                        
|------------------ |  | -----------------------
|Name:              |  | Jacques Kerrest        
|Title:             |  | Chief Financial Officer
|Date:              |  | September 8, 2005      



A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.

This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

---



QuickLinks
Bridge Replacement Planning/Study

$0.3M $0.3M

FLAP Obligations/Expenditures by fiscal year

FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 TOTAL

$263,333 $265,311 $257,232 $145,595 $40,480 $98,531 $1,070,482

FLAP Loan/Credits by fiscal year

FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 TOTAL

$0 $0 $0 ($200,000) ($300,000) $200,000 ($300,000)

Programming Decisions Committee Members

Name Phone   E-mail Title

Marian Yasuda 808-768-5481 marian.yasuda@honolulu.gov Planning Division, Federal Compliance ...

Fred Pascua fred.pascua@hawaii.gov HWY-A Branch Head

Chris Longley 720-963-3733 christopher.longley@dot.gov Access Program Manager

Call for Projects information

Start Date End Date

No. applications

received

Total Access funds

requested

6/19/2013 7/19/2013 1 $263,333

5/19/2014 6/18/2014 2 $525,311

12/5/2016 2/21/2017 2 $1,071,817

Local Match

20.00%

Congressional District

HI-02

HI-01

$0M

$0M

Total project's costs by FLMA Accessed

FWS / DOD 95%

DOD / NPS 3%

Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP)

Hawaii

Projects Programmed

3

FLAP Funds Programmed

$0.5M

Federal Lands Highway Division

CFLHD

FLAP Allocations by fiscal year

FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 TOTAL

$263,333 $265,311 $259,992 $287,131 $287,077 $301,033 $1,663,877

$2M
*This information is an overview of the FLAP projects information. It is subject to change at any time. For additional details or clarifications, please contact the Federal Lands Highway Division offices or visit the State FLAP 

webpage. 

Project ID Project Name- Description Improvement type Delivery Agency Delivery 

Year

HI STP SR83(1) HOOLAPA STREAM BRIDGE Bridge Replacement Central Federal Lands Highway Division, FHWA 2017

HI FLAP CR 562(1) KILAUEA PT BIKE/PED ACCESS ALT STUDY Planning/Study Central Federal Lands Highway Division, FHWA 2016

HI FLAP 99(1) PEARL HARBOR BIKE/PED ALT STUDY Planning/Study Central Federal Lands Highway Division, FHWA 2016
© 2018 HERE, © 2019 Microsoft Corporation

Project ID

HI FLAP 99(1)

HI FLAP CR 562(1)

HI STP SR83(1)
EXHIBIT 32.1



CEO CERTIFICATION



PURSUANT TO 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
Advantage Oil & Gas Ltd. (“Advantage”) on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2012 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Andy J. Mah, President and Chief Executive Officer of
Advantage, 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 Advantage.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: March 26, 2013 | /s/ Andy J. Mah                      
|-------------------- | -------------------------------------
|                     | Andy J. Mah                          
|                     | President and Chief Executive Officer
No. 07-13-00154-CR

Jon Lennon Hall From the 213th District Court

 Appellant of Tarrant County

v. May 8, 2014

The State of Texas Opinion by Justice Hancock

 Appellee

§

§

§

§

§

§

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated May 8, 2014, it is ordered, adjudged

and decreed that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis, no costs beyond those which

may have been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o

FILE COPY
Exhibit 32.01

                            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 FX Energy, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David N. Pierce, 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 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/ David N. Pierce
-----------------------
David N. Pierce
Chief Executive Officer
March 10, 2004

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.
Regulatory Evaluation 

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -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 and then out of the changed cell. 

Estimated Costs: 

Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

(e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance) 

Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor+ u.s. for U.S. Fleet Do not include oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products 

Same as existing 

action 

' 

II 

' 

' . 

I 

The known number of products in compliance: 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fl eet: $ 0 

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $ 

On-Condition Costs: • 

Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) 

replacement) testing, and closeup) 

Special considerations 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 considered a "significant regulatory action"? ~ 

YES* D NO~ 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? ~ 

YES*0 NO~ 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer. · 

YESD 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*0 NO~ 

*Explanation:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 214 (Wednesday, November 5, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 59870]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29248]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Report No. 2236]


Petitions for Reconsideration and Clarification of Action in 
Rulemaking Proceedings

October 30, 1997.
    Petitions for reconsideration and clarification have been filed in 
the Commission's rulemaking proceedings listed in this Public Notice 
and published pursuant to 47 CFR Section 1.429(e). The full text of 
these documents are available for viewing and copying in Room 239, 1919 
M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. or may be purchase from the 
Commission's copy contractor, ITS, Inc. (202) 857-3800. Oppositions to 
these petitions must be filed by November 20, 1997. See Sec. 1.4(b)(1) 
of the Commission's rule (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition 
must be filed within 10 days after the time for filing oppositions has 
expired.
    Subject: Rulemaking to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, and 25 of the 
Commission's Rules to Redesignate the 27.5-29.5 GHz Frequency Band, to 
Reallocate the 29.5-30.0 GHz Frequency Band, To Establish Rules and 
Policies for Local Multipoint Distribution Service and for Fixed 
Satellite Services (CC Docket No. 92-297).
    Number of Petitions Filed: 1.
    Subject: Dismissal of all Pending Pioneer's Request (CC Docket No. 
92-297, RM-7872, PP-22 ET Docket No. 94-124, RM-8784 GEN Docket No. 90-
314, PP-68 GEN Docket No. 90-357, PP-25 IB Docket No. 97-95, RM-8811 
RM-7784, PP-23 RM-7912, PP-34 et. al.).
    Review of the Pioneer's Preference Rules (ET Docket No. 93-266) 
Docket Terminated
    Number of Petitions Filed: 1.
    Subject: Closed Captioning and Video Description of Video 
Programming Implementation of Section 305 of the Telecommunications Act 
of 1996 Video Programming Accessibility (MM Docket No. 95-176).
    Number of Petitions Filed: 8.
    Subject: Amendment of Section 73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM 
Broadcast Station (Bainbridge, Georgia) (MM Docket No. 96-253, RM-
8962).
    Number of Petitions Filed: 1.

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-29248 Filed 11-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
Source ID Pollutant Emissions (tons/year)

Fraction 

emitted as 

particulate 

matter (%)

D10001A1Antimony compounds 0.0000275

D10001A1 Arsenic compounds 0.000005000000000

D10001A1 Cadmium compounds 0.000004000000000

D10001A1 Cobalt compounds 0.000004000000000

D10001A1 Nickel compounds 0.000012000000000

D10001A2 Antimony compounds 0.000055000000000

D10001A2 Arsenic compounds 0.000010000000000

D10001A2 Cadmium compounds 0.000008000000000

D10001A2 Cobalt compounds 0.000008000000000

D10001A2 Nickel compounds 0.000024000000000

D10001B1 Antimony compounds 0.000137500000000

D10001B1 Arsenic compounds 0.000025000000000

D10001B1 Cadmium compounds 0.000020000000000

D10001B1 Cobalt compounds 0.000020000000000

D10001B1 Nickel compounds 0.000060000000000

D10001B2 Antimony compounds 0.000027500000000

D10001B2 Arsenic compounds 0.000005000000000

D10001B2 Cadmium compounds 0.000004000000000

D10001B2 Cobalt compounds 0.000004000000000

D10001B2 Nickel compounds 0.000012000000000

D20001B Cadmium compounds 0.001075247671680

D20003 Antimony compounds 0.000485494827840

D20003 Arsenic compounds 0.000088271786880

D20003 Cadmium compounds 0.000070617429504

D20003 Cobalt compounds 0.000070617429504

D20003 Nickel compounds 0.000211852288512

D20006 Cadmium compounds 0.034599000000000

D20006 Nickel compounds 0.000282000000000

D30001 Antimony compounds 0.204950000000000

D30001 Arsenic compounds 0.478220000000000

D30001 Cadmium compounds 1.844550000000000

D30001 Chromium (III) compounds 0.136630000000000

D30001 Cobalt compounds 0.068320000000000

D30001 Nickel compounds 0.204950000000000

D40004 Antimony compounds 0.000192500000000

D40004 Arsenic compounds 0.000547500000000

D40004 Cadmium compounds 0.000047500000000

D40004 Chromium (III) compounds 0.000400000000000

D40004 Cobalt compounds 0.000047500000000

D40004 Nickel compounds 0.000210000000000

D40006 Antimony compounds 0.000230000000000

D40006 Cadmium compounds 0.000045000000000

D40006 Nickel compounds 0.001275000000000

D50007 Antimony compounds 0.006327500000000

D50007 Cadmium compounds 0.001055000000000
D50007 Cobalt compounds 0.000352500000000

D50007 Nickel compounds 0.000352500000000

D50008 Antimony compounds 0.004157500000000

D50008 Antimony compounds 0.017310000000000

D50008 Arsenic compounds 0.000271850000000

D50008 Cadmium compounds 0.004810000000000

D50008 Cadmium compounds 0.009702500000000

D50008 Cobalt compounds 0.001385000000000

D50008 Cobalt compounds 0.001605000000000

D50008 Nickel compounds 0.003212500000000

D50008 Nickel compounds 0.004157500000000

D50011 Antimony compounds 0.000162500000000

D50011 Cadmium compounds 0.000325000000000

D50011 Chromium compounds 0.000162500000000
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

March 22, 2010

Wellington PPIF Management, LLC

c/o Wellington Management Company, LLP

75 State Street

Boston, MA 02109

UST Reallocation

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Reference is made to (i) the Amended and Restated Limited Partnership Agreement of 

Wellington Management Legacy Securities PPIF Master Fund, LP, (the “Partnership”) dated as of 

October 1, 2009 (as the same may be amended, modified or supplemented from time to time, the 

“Partnership Agreement”) and (ii) the Loan Agreement, dated as of the date set forth on Schedule A 

thereto, by and among the Partnership, as Borrower, The Bank of New York Mellon, as Administrative 

Agent and Collateral Agent, and The United States Department of the Treasury, as Lender (as the same 

may be amended, modified or supplemented from time to time, the “Loan Agreement”). Capitalized 

terms used but not defined herein have the meanings set forth in the Partnership Agreement or the Loan 

Agreement, as applicable.

The aggregate capital commitments of UST to the UST/TCW Senior Mortgage Securities Fund, 

L.P. (the “TCW Fund”) was $1,111,111,111.00, of which $44,500,000.00 has been re-invested in other 

PPIFs. Accordingly, $1,066,611,111.00 remains available for reallocation, which equates to 

$133,326,388.87 per each of the other eight PPIFs. 

Pursuant to Section 3.1(g) of the Partnership Agreement, UST hereby consents and the General 

Partner agrees to a UST Reallocation in the amount of $133,326,388.87 to the Partnership. The revised 

maximum Capital Commitment of UST (the “Maximum UST Capital Commitment”) and Maximum UST 

Debt Amount (upon application of the definition of the “Maximum UST Debt Amount” in the Loan 

Agreement) are set forth on Exhibit I hereto. Such allocation shall be deemed effective upon the date 

hereof. 
For the avoidance of doubt, notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth herein or in the 

Partnership Agreement, the Capital Commitment of UST shall at all times equal the aggregate Capital 

Commitments of the Limited Partners other than UST. 

* * * *


EXHIBIT I

UST REALLOCATION

Prior Capital 

Commitment of UST UST Reallocation

Maximum UST 

Capital Commitment *

Maximum UST Debt 

Amount **

$1,111,111,111.00 133,326,388.87 $1,244,437,499.87 $2,488,874,999.74

* Provided that the amount set forth under “Maximum UST Capital Commitment” does not include an 

amount equal to $17,600,000.00, which pursuant to the letter from Wellington PPIF Management, LLC to 

UST dated March 2, 2010 regarding the acceptance of certain capital previously committed to the TCW 

Fund shall not count against the “Maximum UST Capital Commitment”.

** Provided that the amount set forth under “Maximum UST Debt Amount” does not include an amount 

equal to $17,600,000.00, which pursuant to the letter from Wellington PPIF Management, LLC to UST 

dated March 2, 2010 regarding the acceptance of certain capital previously committed to the TCW Fund 

shall not count against the “Maximum UST Debt Amount”.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 212 (Monday, November 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59369-59370]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28982]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[AZ-910-0777-61-241A]


State of Arizona Resource Advisory Council Meeting

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Arizona Resource Advisory Council Meeting, notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Arizona Resource 
Advisory Council. The meeting will be held December 2, 1997, beginning 
at 9:00 a.m. in the Montana Room at the Bureau of Land Management 
National Training Center, 9828 N. 31st Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona. The 
agenda items to be covered at the one-day meeting include: Review of 
previous meeting minutes; BLM State Director's Update on legislation, 
regulations and statewide planning efforts; Grazing Issues and Update 
on FWS Biological Opinion;

[[Page 59370]]

Update on Impacts of the Lawsuit on State Grazing Leases on BLM 
Permits; Report on S&G Technical Review and Rangeland Resource Teams; 
Reports by the S&G, Recreation and Public Relations Working Groups; 
Reports from RAC members; RAC Discussion on future meeting dates and 
locations. A public comment period will take place at 11:30 a.m. for 
any interested publics who wish to address the Council.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Stevens Bureau of Land 
Management, Arizona State Office, 222 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, 
Arizona 85004-2203, (602) 417-9215.
Michael A. Ferguson,
Deputy State Director, Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 97-28982 Filed 10-31-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-32-P
**Exhibit 32.2**

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

I, Gary Hirstein, as Chief Financial Officer of International Fuel Technology, Inc. (the “Company”) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (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.

Dated:  August 1, 2005

|   | By:    | /s/ GARY HIRSTEIN         |
|--------|--------|---------------------------|
|   |   |                           |
|   |   | Gary   Hirstein           |
|   |   | Chief   Financial Officer |