alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  The undersigned 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 their knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013, of OICco Acquisition I, Inc. (the Company) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in such periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in such report.  Very truly yours,   /s/ Miguel Dotres Miguel Dotres CEO (Principal Executive Officer)  April 17, 2014   /s/ Miguel Dotres Miguel Dotres CEO (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)  April 17, 2014    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to OICco Acquisition IV, Inc. and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 229 (Friday, November 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 63384]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31398]


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

OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION


December 9, 1997 Board of Directors Meeting; Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: Tuesday, December 9, 1997, 1:00 p.m. (Open Portion); 
1:30 p.m. (Closed Portion).

PLACE: Offices of the Corporation, Twelfth Floor Board Room, 1100 New 
York Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

STATUS: Meeting Open to the Public from 1:00 pm to 1:30 pm; Closed 
portion will commence at 1:30 pm (approx.).

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1. President's Report
2. Testimonial
3. Approval of September 16, 1997 Minutes (Open Portion)
4. Meeting schedule through September, 1998

FURTHER MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: (Closed to the Public 1:30 PM)

1. Finance Project in Jamaica
2. Insurance Project India
3. Approval of September 16, 1997 Minutes (Closed Portion)
4. Pending Major Projects
5. Report on OPIC's Small Business Initiative

CONTACT PERSON FOR INFORMATION: Information on the meeting may be 
obtained from Connie M. Downs at (202) 336-8438.Q04
    Dated: November 24, 1997.
Connie M. Downs,
OPIC Corporate Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-31398 Filed 11-25-97; 12:28 p.m.]
BILLING CODE 3210-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 232 (Wednesday, December 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63924-63925]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31645]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER97-4442-000]


Central Power and Light Company, West Texas Utilities Company, 
Public Service Company of Oklahoma and Southwestern Electric Power 
Company; Notice of Filing

November 26, 1997.
    Take notice that on November 14, 1997, Central Power and Light 
Company (CPL), West Texas Utilities Company (WTU), Public Service 
Company of Oklahoma (PSO) and Southwestern Electric Power Company 
(SWEPCO) (collectively, ``CSW Operating Companies'') submitted for 
filing an amendment to their September 2, 1997 filing in the above 
referenced proceeding. The amendment contains unexecuted network 
integration transmission service agreement between WTU and PSO/SWEPCO.
    The CSW Operating Companies state that a copy of this filing has 
been served

[[Page 63925]]

on the Public Utility Commission of Texas, the Arkansas Public Service 
Commission, the Louisiana Public Service Commission, the Oklahoma 
Corporation Commission and all parties to Docket No. ER97-4442-000.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before December 9, 1997. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-31645 Filed 12-2-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-10455

Conference Calendar

 

ALFRONZO BROWN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

RICHARD MAYS, Judge,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:96-CV-346-D

- - - - - - - - - -

June 27, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alfronzo Brown, Texas prisoner #627935, appeals the

dismissal of his civil rights suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(d). Brown argues that the defendant is not entitled to

absolute judicial immunity. We have reviewed the record and

Brown’s brief and find no reversible error in the reasoning

adopted by the district court. Brown v. Mays, No. 3:96-CV-346-D

(N.D. Tex. Nov. 29, 1995). Further, we find that Brown’s appeal
No. 96-10455

- 2 -

is frivolous, and accordingly, we DISMISS it pursuant to 5th Cir.

R. 42.2.

We caution Brown that any additional frivolous appeals filed

by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid

sanctions, Brown is further cautioned to review any pending

appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are

frivolous because they have been previously decided by this

court. 

APPEAL DISMISSED. SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 232 (Wednesday, December 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 63925]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31634]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. OA97-459-000]


Commonwealth Edison Company and Commonwealth Edison Company of 
Indiana, Inc.; Notice of Filing

November 26, 1997.
    Take notice that on November 21, 1997, Commonwealth Edison Company 
and Commonwealth Edison Company of Indiana, Inc. (collectively ComEd), 
tendered for filing revisions to its standards of conduct.
    ComEd states that copies of its filing have been mailed to each 
person designated on the official service listed in this proceeding and 
the Illinois Commerce Commission.
    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 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before December 5, 1997. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-31634 Filed 12-2-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
September 14, 2015

Dear Mr. Delia:

This letter is to inform y ou that the following informati on is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA-2015-2347). This informati on is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture a nd Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove clos ed-set filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information desc ribed above by 9/28/15. If we do not receive the information, we will close the doc ket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-4712.

Sincerely,

/s/
Brenda Robeson Program Analyst
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, 

v.

JAMES LAWRENCE DEWIG, Petitioner. 

No. 1 CA-CR 17-0578 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Mohave County

No. S8015CR12481 

The Honorable Steven F. Conn, Judge (Retired)

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Mohave County Attorney’s Office, Kingman

By Matthew J. Smith

Counsel for Respondent

James Lawrence Dewig, Tucson

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jon W. Thompson, Judge Peter B. Swann, and Judge James 

P. Beene delivered the decision of the Court.

FILED 2-20-2018
STATE v. DEWIG

Decision of the Court

2 

P E R C U R I A M: 

¶1 Petitioner James Lawrence Dewig seeks review of the 

superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed 

pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is the 

petitioner’s fourth successive petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this Court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. 

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 576-77, ¶ 19 (2012). It is the petitioner’s 

burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion in denying the 

petition. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011). 

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find that petitioner has not shown an abuse of discretion. 

¶4 Accordingly, we grant review and deny relief.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 13, 2022. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, June 13, 2022 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A22I0199. SECURITY PLAZA INVESTIGATIONS, LLC v. FRANCISCO N. VASQUEZ.
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 18A72390
#### R. L. LETT, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA BARBERS SANITARY COMMISSION, Respondent.

No. 70-909.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 21, 1971.

Rehearing Denied May 19, 1971.

E. C. Deeno Kitchen of Ervin, Pennington, Varn & Jacobs, Tallahassee, for petitioner.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Michael Schwartz and S. Strome Maxwell, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tallahassee, and P. A. Pacyna, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for respondent.

LILES, Judge.

Petitioner is a master barber. He and his wife own a barber salon in Tallahassee, Florida. He has two master barbers employed together with two apprentice barbers. On July 27, 1970, petitioner left his shop with two master barbers and two apprentice barbers, with the master barbers to be in charge. During the afternoon, one of the master barbers left to get something to eat and left only one master barber and the two apprentices.

During the time one of the master barbers was out of petitioner’s barber shop, respondent, Florida Barbers Sanitary Commission, came in and charged the owner-petitioner with violation of Section 476.03, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. This section reads as follows:

> “No registered apprentice may independently practice barbering, but he may as an apprentice do any or all of the acts constituting the practice of barbering under the immediate personal supervision of a registered barber or registered barber teacher; provided, that only one apprentice shall be employed for each master barber and that there be no more than three apprentice barbers in any one licensed barber shop.”

A hearing was held in Tampa, Florida, and petitioner was found guilty of said violation. This petition for writ of certiorari followed.

*336The only question presented to us is the construction of Florida Statutes 476.-03, F.S.A., wherein it is provided that “only one apprentice shall be employed for each master barber.” This language, in our opinion, clearly says that only one apprentice shall be employed and does not say that one master barber must be present in the shop at all times for each apprentice. We do not believe that the intent of the statute was to prevent the above-mentioned occurrence from happening; rather, it was to prevent the *employment*of more than one apprentice for each master barber. To construe the statute otherwise would be an absurdity.

For this reason certiorari is granted in this cause and the ruling of the Florida Barbers Sanitary Commission is hereby quashed.

PIERCE, C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.
Exhibit 99.7

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEER**

 

 

We hereby consent to the use and reference to our name and report evaluating a portion of Cenovus Energy Inc. oil and gas reserves data, including estimates of proved reserves and probable reserves and related future net revenue as at December 31, 2012, estimated using forecast prices and costs, and the information derived from our reports, as described or incorporated by reference in Cenovus Energy Inc.’s annual report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2012 and Cenovus Energy Inc.’s registration statements on Form S-8 (File No. 333-163397), Form F-3 (File No. 333-166419), and Form F-10 (File No. 333-181728), filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended or the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, as applicable.

 
| GLJ   PETROLEUM CONSULTANTS LTD. |
|----------------------------------|
|                             |
| /s/   Keith M. Braaten           |   |
| Keith   M. Braaten, P. Eng.      |
| President &   CEO       |
|                             |
| Calgary,   Alberta               |
| February 20,   2013         |

 

 

15

----
#### SAWYER v. DAWSON.

No. 38199.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 1969.

Certiorari dismissed without opinion. 215 So.2d 764.
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 221 (Monday, November 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61339-61340]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30083]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Eye Institute; Notice of Meeting of Board of Scientific 
Counselors

    Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given of the 
meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Eye Institute, 
December 8 and 9, 1997 in Building 10, Room 10B16, National Institutes 
of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
    This meeting will be open to the public on December 8 from 9 a.m. 
until approximately 10 a.m. for general remarks by the Director, 
Intramural Research Program, National Eye Institute (NEI), on matters 
concerning the intramural program of the NEI. Attendance by the public 
will be limited to space available.
    In accordance with provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), 
Title 5, U.S.C. and section 10(d) of Public Law 92-463, the meting will 
be closed to the public on December 8 from approximately 10 a.m. until 
recess and

[[Page 61340]]

on December 9 from 8:30 a.m. until adjournment for the review, 
discussion, and evaluation of individual projects conducted by the 
Laboratory of Sensory Motor Research. These evaluations and discussions 
could reveal personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the projects, including consideration of personnel qualifications 
and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the 
disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of 
personal privacy.
    Ms. Colleen Genovese, Counselor Assistant, NEI, Building 10, Room 
10N202 Bethesda, Maryland 20892, (301) 496-3123, will provide a summary 
of the meeting, roster of committee members, and substantive program 
information upon request. Individuals who plan to attend and need 
special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other 
reasonable accommodations, should contact Ms. Genovese in advance of 
the meeting.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.867, Vision 
Research; National Institutes of Health)

    Dated: November 7, 1997.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 97-30083 Filed 11-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
```
**EXHIBIT 13.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.S. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the accompanying annual report on Form 20-F of Gibson Energy** **ULC for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the “Report”), I, A.** **Stewart** **Hanlon, Chief Executive Officer of Gibson Energy** **ULC, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.     such 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 such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Gibson Energy ULC.

 

 
| Date:   April 29, 2011 | /s/   A. Stewart Hanlon                 |
|-----------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                        | A. Stewart Hanlon             |
|                        | President   and Chief Executive Officer |
|                        | (Principal   Executive Officer)         |

 

1

----
#### Charles Albert MULLINS, Appellant, v. Frank MARKS, Appellee.

No. 77-1075.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 10, 1978.

Harold M. Braxton, Miami, for appellant.

Daniel Mones, Miami, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, HUBBART and KE-HOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, defendant below, takes this interlocutory appeal from an “order denying motion to quash process and service of process.” We reverse.

Appellant, a North Carolina resident, was served with process while waiting in the anteroom of a Broward Circuit Court *943Judge’s chambers to testify. The suit being litigated at the time of service was a post-dissolution of marriage matter between appellant and his former wife. The complaint served on appellant in the courthouse was filed by appellant’s ex-wife’s attorney and was based upon defamation of character.

In that there was no identity of parties and issues between the suit being litigated and the defamation action, appellant was entitled to immunity from service of process while attending court; for a reasonable time both before and after the court proceedings; and while returning to his North Carolina residence. *Lienard v. DeWitt,*153 So.2d 302 (Fla.1963); *State ex rel Ivey v. Circuit Court of Eleventh Judicial Circuit,*51 So.2d 792 (Fla.1951); *Rorick v. Chancey,*130 Fla. 442, 178 So. 112 (1937); *Bruner v. Robins,*191 So.2d 567 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966).

Reversed.
#### John W. ATWELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. L-323.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 15, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

130 KA 11-02011 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, WHALEN, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOSE ALVARADO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

CARA A. WALDMAN, FAIRPORT, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

CINDY F. INTSCHERT, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WATERTOWN (KRISTYNA S. MILLS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Jefferson County Court (Kim H. Martusewicz, J.), rendered August 8, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]), defendant contends that County Court erred in admitting certain recorded conversations in evidence at trial before he pleaded guilty. By pleading guilty, defendant forfeited his right to seek our review of that contention. “ ‘A guilty plea generally results in a forfeiture of the right to appellate review of any nonjurisdictional defects in the proceedings’ ” ( People v Leary , 70 AD3d 1394, 1395, lv denied 14 NY3d 889, quoting People v Fernandez , 67 NY2d 686, 688). “This is so because a defendant’s ‘conviction rests directly on the sufficiency of his plea, not on the legal or constitutional sufficiency of any proceedings which might have led to his conviction after trial’ . . . A guilty plea will thus . . . effect a forfeiture of the right to revive certain claims made prior to the plea” ( People v Hansen , 95 NY2d 227, 230). Here, defendant challenges the admissibility of the recordings, both at the audibility hearing and at the trial. Issues arising from an audibility hearing are forfeited by a plea of guilty ( see People v Jiminez , 277 AD2d 956, 956-957, lv denied 96 NY2d 784), as are challenges to evidentiary rulings made during trial ( see People v Davis , 99 AD3d 1228, 1229).-2- 130 KA 11-02011

Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: February 1, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Exhibit
32.2





SECTION
906 CERTIFICATION OF


PRINCIPAL
FINANCIAL OFFICER OF TYCORE VENTURES INC.





In
connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of Tycore Ventures
Inc. for the year ended July 31, 2010, the undersigned, Diane Drapper, Chief
Financial Officer of Tycore Ventures Inc., does hereby certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:





(1) such
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended July 31, 2010 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended July
31, 2010 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Tycore Ventures Inc.





Date:  October
      27, 2010/s/ Diane DrapperDiane
      DrapperChief
      Financial Officer and Secretary