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

a. Date stamp the letter.

Note: It is important that these payments are promptly identified as forfeiture payments have a deadline for receipt. If

a check is not received by the deadline we may initiate additional enforcement actions.

b. Copy the check onto th original letter either on the back or front, if possible.c. Make 1 copy of the letter with the copy of the check on it.d. Make 1 copy of the check.e. Take the original letter (with the copy of the check on it) to Fred and ask him if this is a lead

or asbestos forfeiture. Write this info on the Memo line of the check.

d. Endorse the back of the check with the Bank Stamp.

Note: If a forfeiture check is made out to “DHFS” rather than to the school fund, we can still accept the check and

endorse it. Write “State Treasurer — School Fund” on the check above where ‘DHFS” has been designated as the

payee then endorse and process as below.

2. For today’s deposit:

a. Print 3 copies of the appropriate completed Deposit Form (DMT-392).

b. Place 1 copy of the deposit form (DMT-392), 1 copy of the letter with the copy of the check

on it and any other envelope contents in the Enforcernent 1Forfeiture Deposits red binder

(located above the printer).

c. Take the check and 1 copy of the check and 2 copies of the deposit form (DMT-392) to the

Cashier’s Office on the 7th Floor.

Note Hig hlight Lead-Sohoof Fund Forfeiture” or Asbestos-SchooI Fund Forfeiture”on the Deposit to-n bern e

submitting to the Cashiers Office.

or,

h. If not depositing the same day, place a Post-it note on the check indicating it is a forfeiture

payment and place the check and any associated materials in the holding drawer of the file

cabinet until the day it will be deposited, then process for depositaccording to the

procedures in steps a. - c. above.

K:\BEOH\ALS_DocsProcedures\Current ALS Procedures\Processffig Payments to School Fund 11-07
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 CompuDyne Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 accompanying this  certification
and filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"),  I, Martin Roenigk, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,
to the best of my knowledge,  pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, that:

     1.    The Report fully complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


Date:  August 4, 2006

                                            /s/ Martin Roenigk
                                            -----------------------
                                            Martin Roenigk
                                            Chief Executive Officer


                                       38
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Kevin Bales, Chief Financial Officer of Focus Ventures Ltd. (the Company) do hereby 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.

This Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the period ended November 30, 2015, as filed with the 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; 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:    April 15, 2016





/s/ Kevin Bales

Kevin Bales,

Chief Financial Officer
#### MID-OSCEOLA UTILITIES, INC., Appellant, v. CITICORP BUSINESS CREDIT, INC., Appellee.

No. 77-950.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 25, 1978.

*784Corlett, Merritt, Killian & Sikes and Gerald E. Rosser, Miami, for appellant.

Smathers & Thompson and Hugh J. Turner, Jr., Miami, for appellee.

Before HUBBART and KEHOE, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The summary judgment appealed from is affirmed, on the ground that the trial court correctly held the appellee’s security interest was superior to that of the appellant. See: *Nasco Equipment Co. v. Mason,*291 N.C. 145, 229 S.E.2d 278, 284-285 (1976).
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 217 (Monday, November 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 60494]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29552]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-22-000]


Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America; Notice of Proposed 
Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

November 4, 1997.
    Take notice that on October 30, 1997, Natural Gas Pipeline Company 
of America (Natural) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume NO. 1, proposed tariff sheets to be 
effective December 1, 1997.
    Natural states that the purpose of this filing is to implement 
changes in rates under Natural's gas supply realignment (GSR) cost 
recovery mechanism consistent with the Commission's order issued 
September 26, 1997 in Docket No. RP97-469-000 and the October 27, 1997, 
compliance filing in Docket No. RP97-469-002.
    Natural requested any waivers which may be required to permit the 
tendered tariff sheets to become effective December 1, 1997.
    Natural states that copies of the filing have been mailed to 
Natural's customers and interested state regulatory agencies.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 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 in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-29552 Filed 11-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
**Exhibit 13.1**

 

**Officer Certifications Pursuant to Section 906**

**of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)**

 

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Pampa Energía S.A., a sociedad anónima organized under the laws of Argentina (the “Company”), does hereby certify to such officer’s knowledge that:

 

The Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2015 (the “Form 20-F”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Date: July 26, 2016

 

|   | /s/ Ricardo Alejandro Torres                                  |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Name: Ricardo Alejandro Torres                                |
|   | Title: Co-Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

Date: July 26, 2016

|   | /s/ Gustavo Mariani               |
|--------|-----------------------------------|
|   | Name: Gustavo Mariani             |
|   | Title: Co-Chief Executive Officer |

 

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.
Southwest Ohio Regional Council of Carpenters Pension Plan 

Checklist Item #10 

Does the application include a demonstration that the proposed suspension is reasonably estimated to 

achieve the level necessary to avoid insolvency for the extended period, including illustrations regarding 

the plan's solvency ratio and available resources? Section 4.01(1). 

The demonstration that the proposed suspension is reasonably estimated to achieve the level necessary to 

avoid insolvency for the extended period, including illustrations regarding the Plan's solvency ratio and 

available resources is set forth in Exhibit IV of the Supplemental Actuarial Information document 

attached as Document 7.1. 

Document #10 - 1 - 

SWORCCPP-000070
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 26, 2021

No. 0 4

- 20

- 00228

- CR

Jorge RODRIGUEZ , Jr., Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 406th Judicial District Court

, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CRB000030D4 Honorable Oscar J. Hale, Jr. , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was originally due by December 30, 2020, but was not filed. On January 8, 2021, we ordered appellant to file his brief or a motion for extension of time by January 25, 2021. In that order, we cautioned appellant that if we did not receive a brief or an extension of time by that date, we would abate the appeal to the trial court for an abandonment hearing. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(b)(2). When the brief was not filed, the Clerk of the Court contacted appellant on February 12, 2021 reminding appellant of the late brief, and appellant

informed the Clerk that he would fi le the brief by February 16, 2021. On February 19, 2021, appellant emailed the court and stated he had been unable to file the brief due to Winter Storm Uri, and he would file the brief by February 22, 2021. On February 26, 2021 appellant filed a

motion requesting a seven day extension of time to file the brief.

After consideration, we GRANT appellant’s request for an extension and ORDER appellant to file the brief by March 5, 2021. If appellant fails to file the brief by that date, then

we will order the appeal abated and remanded to the trial court for a hearing to determine whether appellant has abandoned the appeal. See id.

_________________________________ Beth Watkins , JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 26th day of February, 2021

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz
, Clerk of Court
#### Paul NUNEZ, Appellant, v. John H. NUNEZ, et al, Appellees.

No. 69-220.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Sept. 16, 1969.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains  unaudited summary financial  information  extracted
from the Regisrant's  consolidated  financial statements for the 12 months ended
December  31,  1997  and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by  reference  to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000906609
<NAME>                        The Morgan Group, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.000
<CASH>                                         380
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  13,545
<ALLOWANCES>                                   183
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               17,622
<PP&E>                                         6,507
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,286
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 33,135
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          16,009
<BONDS>                                        0
<COMMON>                                       41
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                     12,683
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   33,135
<SALES>                                        146,154
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               146,154
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  145,139
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               336
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             719
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                296
<INCOME-TAX>                                   100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            196
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   196
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .07
        

</TABLE>
Administrative Offices Civil and Family Division Criminal Division Jury Office

(512) 854-9457 (512) 854-9457 (512) 854-9420 (512) 854-9669

fax: 854-4744 fax: 854-9549 fax: 854-4566 fax: 854-4457

Velva L. Price

Travis County District Clerk

Travis County Courthouse Complex

P.O. Box 679003

Austin, Texas 78767-9003

November 23, 2015

Mr. Jeffrey D. Kyle

Third Court of Appeals

P.O. Box 12547

Austin, Texas 78711-2547

RE: APPELAS COURT CAUSE 03-15-00649-CV AND 03-15-00650-CV

 DISTRICT COURT CAUSE D-1-GN-15-001711

Dear Mr. Kyle,

A clerk’s record in cause number, D-1-GN-15-001711 and Court of Appeals number 

03-15-00649-CV AND 03-15-00650-CV, styled, JERMAINE HOPKINS V MARC OTT ET AL, is

due in your office November 23, 2015. This office has not received payment or a designation of 

clerk’s record as of today, November 23, 2015. 

Thank you for your consideration.

If you have any questions, please contact me at (512) 854-5835.

Sincerely,

Trish Winkler

Deputy Court Clerk II

(512) 854-4309
EXHIBIT 32.2

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


         In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Colonial
Commercial Corp. (the "Company") for the three months ended March 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, James W. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to section 18 U.S.C. 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; and

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

By: /S/ JAMES W. STEWART
------------------------
Name:  JAMES W. STEWART
       Chief Financial Officer


June 1, 2004












                                      -16-
<PAGE>
DISMISS and Opinion Filed May 11, 2023

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 22

- 01054

- CV

IN RE ESTATE OF THOM AS TAIT KELLAM, DECE ASED

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. PR

- 19

- 02632

- 2

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Partida

- Kipness, Reichek, and Miskel

Opinion by Justice Miskel Before the Court is appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal because the
parties have set tled their differences. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1).

221054f.p05 /Emily Miskel/ EMILY MISKEL JUSTICE– 2

– 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

IN RE ESTATE OF THOMAS TAIT KELLAM, DECEASED

No. 05

- 22

- 01054

- CV On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 2, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. PR

- 19

- 02632

- 2. Opinion delivered by Justice Miskel. Justices Partida

- Kipness and Reichek participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

. Subject to any agreement between the parties, it is ORDERED that appellee Glynis Redwine recover her costs of this appeal from appellant Pennymac Loan Services, LLC.

Judgment entered this 11 th day of May , 2023

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                          24,847
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   78,479
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,070
<INVENTORY>                                     59,697
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               182,103
<PP&E>                                         210,665
<DEPRECIATION>                                 108,301
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 366,536
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          119,654
<BONDS>                                        120,949
<COMMON>                                        14,088
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     21,914
<OTHER-SE>                                      49,046
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   366,536
<SALES>                                        246,608
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               246,608
<CGS>                                          184,771
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  184,771
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   500
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,210
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,757
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,065
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,692
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,692
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .49
        

</TABLE>
#### THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Ronald Y. SCHRAM, Respondent.

No. 53017.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 16, 1978.

Nicholas R. Friedman, Fort Lauderdale, and James P. Hollaway, Asst. Staff Counsel, Tallahassee, for complainant.

Ronald Y. Schram, in pro. per.

Harry L. Shorstein, Jacksonville, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

On May 13,1977, Ronald Y. Schram, with the advice of his counsel, Harry Shorstein, Esquire, entered into a conditional guilty plea for consent judgment.

By his plea, Mr. Schram admitted being adjudicated guilty of possession of paraphernalia, a Florida misdemeanor, and admitted guilt to possession of a Florida felony quantity of marijuana, for which he was prosecuted, but for which adjudication was withheld in Case No. 76-884, 17th Judicial Circuit Court, Broward County, Florida.

On July 14, 1977, the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar accepted the plea, but directed certain minor changes in language to clarify that Respondent not be able to apply for reinstatement for one year and indefinitely thereafter until proof of rehabilitation was shown.

The present plea was modified to comply with the directions of the Board, with the consent of Mr. Schram and his counsel.

*789The conditional guilty plea for consent judgment is approved and the following discipline is imposed:

The Respondent, Ronald Y. Schram, is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year effective nunc pro tunc July 31, 1977, and indefinitely thereafter until he shall demonstrate proof of rehabilitation.

Probation upon reinstatement, to be concurrent with and terminate automatically upon determination of probation in Case No. 76-884. The terms of the suspension and/or probation shall be upon the following conditions:

1. The accused attorney shall not commit any crimes or violate the Integration Rule or Code of Professional Responsibility.

2. The accused attorney shall not violate the terms of his probation in Case No. 76-884.

Costs in the amount of $100 are taxed against Ronald Y. Schram, to be paid within 30 days from the date of this order.

OVERTON, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, ENGLAND and KARL, JJ., concur.
#### BREVARD ROOF TRUSSES, INC., a Florida corporation, Petitioner, v. Joseph M. TOM, a minor, by his father and next friend, Ronald Tom, and Ronald Tom, individually, Respondents.

No. 40582.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 8, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 244 So.2d 744.

CARLTON, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur; DEKLE, J., dissents.
#### James Willard SAVAGE, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 38418.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 29, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 12, 1969.

Henry Clay Mitchell, Jr., Pensacola, for petitioner.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The Petition for Writ of Certiorari reflected probable jurisdiction in this Court. We issued the Writ and have heard arguments of the parties. Upon further consideration of the arguments, briefs and records arising out of this cause, we have determined that the Writ was improvidently issued.

However, before discharging the Writ, we think it proper to note that the specific factual situation involved herein demonstrates no violation of Fla.Stat. § 801.231, F.S.A.

The Writ is hereby discharged and the Petition for Writ of Certiorari dismissed.

It is so ordered.

DREW, THORNAL, CARLTON and BOYD, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, C. J., dissents.
106 S i l v i c u l t u r e Best Management Practices

Exception #1:

If the required SMZ 

area exceeds 10% of 

the tract area, the SMZ 

may be reduced (down 

to 10%) by narrowing 

the SMZ width.

Exception #2:

In areas of existing 

pine management, 

the Primary SMZ is 

not required to be 

more than 35' wide 

(50' for OFW, ONRW 

and Class 1 waters)

Reduced Primary 

SMZ

Original Primary 

SMZ

Existing Pine 

Management 

Area