alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO **

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350, **

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO **

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| (1)   | The                Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 29, 2006                (the                “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of                section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)   | The                information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of                the                Company. |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/              Paul Rasmussen |   | /s/              Gary W. Douglass                                                       |
|---------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Paul Rasmussen                  |   | Gary W. Douglass                                                                        |
| Chief Executive Officer         |   | Executive Vice President, Finance              and              Chief Financial Officer |
No. 00-7527.

#### Queensborough *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Lynda May BRAUN, Appellant, v. Frank E. BRAUN, Appellee.

No. 69-192.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

June 25, 1969.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Margaret WEEDMAN, Appellant, v. SUNLAND ROLLER RINK, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellee.

No. 76-1500.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 30, 1977.

*753Ezzo & Garel and Bruce A. Saylor, Miami, for appellant.

Preddy, Haddad, Kutner, Hardy & Josephs and Michael J. Parenti, III, Miami, for appellee.

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

PEARSON, Judge.

The plaintiff Margaret Weedman appeals a final judgment for the defendant Sunland Roller Rink, Inc., which was entered pursuant to a jury verdict in her action for injuries received at the roller rink. A prior appeal in this case is reported at 323 So.2d 688. The factual background set out therein need not be repeated here.

The trial judge acting pursuant to the mandate and the holding of this court in *Dorta v. Blackburn,*302 So.2d.450 (Fla.3d DCA 1974), instructed the jury that if they found that the plaintiff assumed the risk of Sunland’s negligent conduct, she was completely barred from recovery. The giving of the instruction was objected to by the' plaintiff. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant Sunland. Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial was denied and this appeal followed.

It is clear that the trial court acted pursuant to our view of the law as enunciated in *Dorta*v. *Blackburn,*supra. Nevertheless, it is the duty of an appellate court to apply to an appeal the law as to substantive rights at the time of the appeal. See *Personnel Board of City of Miami Beach v. Majewski,*227 So.2d 498 (Fla.3d DCA 1969); and *Fitzgerald v. Addison,*287 So.2d 151 (Fla.2d DCA 1973). The Supreme Court of Florida has settled the law on this subject adversely to this court’s view in *Blackburn v. Dorta,*348 So.2d 287 (Fla.1977). In that opinion, the Supreme Court held:

> “. . . that the affirmative defense of implied assumption of risk is merged into the defense of contributory negligence and the principles of comparative negligence enunciated in *Hoffman v. Jones,*[280 So.2d 431 (Fla.1973),] . . shall apply in all cases where such defense is asserted.”

Therefore, the instruction upon assumption of risk given by the trial court was reversible error. Therefore, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.
#### BARTLETT CONSTRUCTION, INC., Appellant, v. COASTAL PLAINS, INC. and Florida Mining and Materials Corp., Appellees.

No. 76-1961.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 27, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 23, 1978.

*893Richard C. Carter, Miami, for appellant.

Bradford, Williams, McKay, Kimbrell, Hamann & Jennings and Reginald L. Williams, Donald M. Coon, Miami, for appel-lees.

Before HENDRY, C. J., and HUBBART and KEHOE, JJ.

HENDRY, Chief Judge.

Appellant, plaintiff below, appeals from a summary final judgment rendered in favor of appellees, defendants below.

Appellant firstly contends that the trial court erred in rendering summary judgment at pre-trial conference in that the twenty (20) day notice requirement found in both Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.200(b) and 1.510(c), pertaining to pre-trial conferences and summary judgments, respectively, had not been observed by the court. Secondly, appellant contends that there existed certain genuine issues of material fact precluding the rendition of summary judgment.

As for appellant’s first point, a review of the record discloses that the trial court, by order dated September 8, 1976, scheduled the pre-trial conference for September 17, 1976. The record is, however, devoid of any objection voiced by appellant concerning the premature scheduling of the conference. In that (1) the notice requirement of Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510(c) is not jurisdictional, (2) appellant failed to object to the abbreviated time span and (3) implicit in every pre-trial conference is the possibility that summary judgment might be rendered, appellant’s contention must be rejected. *Roberts v. Braynon,*90 So.2d 623 (Fla.1956); *Blatch v. Wesley,*238 So.2d 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970), cert. den., 240 So.2d 645 (Fla.1970); *Raphael v. Koretzky,*102 So.2d 746 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958).

Appellant’s second contention must be likewise rejected in that, by virtue of the record placed before this court, there are no genuine issues of material fact left unresolved by the proceedings below and it conclusively appears that appellees are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510(c).

Accordingly, after carefully reviewing the record, all points raised in the briefs and arguments of counsel, it is our opinion that the final judgment appealed from must be affirmed.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)



In connection with the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Horizon Technology Finance Corporation (the “Company”) for the annual period ended December 31,
2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Daniel R. Trolio, as
Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge that:



(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.



|/s/ Daniel R. Trolio |                        
|-------------------- | -----------------------
|Name:                | Daniel R. Trolio       
|Title:               | Chief Financial Officer



Date: March 6, 2018
**Exhibit 32.4**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 UNITED STATES CODE**

 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Thermon Holding Corp. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011 (the “Report”), I, Jay Peterson, 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)           Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company and its subsidiaries.

 

 

Date:  June 20, 2011

 

 
|   | /s/ Jay Peterson |
|--------|------------------|
|   | Name:            | Jay   Peterson |
|   | Title:           | Chief   Financial Officer and Senior   Vice President, Finance |

 

----
Penalties Imposed Pursuant to Section 721(h) and Unilateral Reviews Initiated 

Pursuant to Section 721(b)(1)(D)(iii) of the Defense Production Act of 1950, As Amended 

2018 

Action Penalty Amount Description 

Civil monetary penalty $1,000,000 Penalty imposed for repeated breaches of a 2016 CFIUS mitigation agreement, 

including failure to establish requisite security policies and failure to provide 

adequate reports to CFIUS.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CARLOS S. BENITEZ,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: Nos. 112

- 116 WAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 5th day of October, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Documentation Waiver – Brazoria County Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP)

The documentation required for the ERAP application is not feasible for me to obtain or provide due to

the following extenuating circumstances related to: (i) the pandemic, (ii) a disability, or (iii) a lack of

technological access. I have checked the box of the applicable category of documentation which I am 

not able to provide and I have completed the related information and descriptions in the fields below 

in lieu of documentation:

  Total Household Income:  

Please list all sources of income that you are not able to document (if no income for household member,

please list name and write “none”):

Household

Member Name

Employer  

Name

Employer  

Phone Number

Employer  

Email

Current Weekly

Gross Pay

Description of why documentation is not available:

Signed Lease:

Landlord Name

Landlord Email

Landlord Phone #

Monthly Rent

Start Date of Lease

Description of why documentation is not available:  

Please also upload proof of regular payments to landlord or property manager within the last two years

and official mail sent to your address to verify residency.   
  Eligibility for Unemployment

Please describe when unemployment began and why documentation is not available.  Please provide

the name and contact information for your previous employer.

Reduction in Household Income

Please describe the reduction in income including name of household member, employer name and

contact information, and why documentation is not available.  Please include date(s) that income

reduction occurred.  

Household

Member Name

Employer  

Name

Employer  

Phone Number

Employer  

Email

Current Weekly

Gross Pay

Description of what the reduction of pay was, when it occurred, and why documentation is  not

available:

I attest that the statements above are correct and complete.   

Applicant Signature Applicant Name  Date
Memo

Financing Marketable All Other Change in End-Of-Quarter SOMA

Need Borrowing Sources Total Cash Balance Cash Balance Redemptions

Quarter Announcement Date (1) (2) (3) (4) = (2) + (3) (5) = (4) - (1) (6) (7)

Oct - Dec

2016 Actual 201 255 (8) 246 46 399 0

Jan - Mar

2017 Actual 335 40 (12) 28 (307) 92 0

Apr - Jun

2017 Actual (75) 35 (22) 14 89 181 0

Jul - Sep

2017 Actual 192 189 (19) 170 (22) 159 0

Oct - Dec

2017 Actual 204 282 (8) 274 70 229 (12)

Jan - Mar

2018 Actual 374 488 (54) 435 61 290 (30)

Apr - Jun

2018 Actual (43) 72 (72) 0 43 333 (48)

Jul - Sep

2018 Actual 212 353 (89) 264 52 385 (66)

Oct - Dec

2018 Actual 291 426 (117) 309 17 402 (91)

Jan - Mar

2019 Actual 375 374 (67) 306 (68) 334 (46)

Apr - Jun

2019 Actual 13 40 (97) (57) (70) 264 (67)

Jul - Sep

2019 Actual 281 440 (40) 400 119 382 (30)

Oct - Dec

2019 Actual 313 330 7 337 24 404 0

Jan - Mar

2020 Actual 365 477 (1) 476 111 515 0

Apr - Jun

2020 Actual 1,526 2,753 (20) 2,733 1207 1722 0

Jul - Sep

2020 Actual 401 454 7 461 60 1782 0

Oct - Dec

2020 Actual 648 597 (3) 595 (53) 1729 0

Jan - Mar February 1, 2021 1187 274 (16) 258 (929) 800 0

2021 Actual 1008 401 1 402 (607) 1122 0

Forecast Revisions (179) 126 17 143 322 322 0

Apr - Jun February 1, 2021 393 95 (1) 93 (300) 500 0

2021 May 3, 2021 778 463 (7) 456 (322) 800 0

Forecast Revisions 384 368 (5) 362 (22) 300 0

Jul - Sep

2021 May 3, 2021 855 821 (16) 805 (50) 750 0

Sources and Uses Reconciliation Table

Financing
Document

EXHIBIT 10.1



DESCRIPTION OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION


Effective July 1, 2021, non-employee directors of the Company receive $22,500 per fiscal quarter in compensation for service as director, and Chairs of the Audit Committee and the Compensation, Nominating and Governance Committee, each receive an additional $6,250 per fiscal quarter, and the Independent Lead Director, receives an additional $8,750 per fiscal quarter. Non-employee directors may elect to defer the receipt of director fees in accordance with the terms of the Company’s Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan. In addition, non-employee directors may from time to time be granted restricted stock units pursuant to the provisions of the Genuine Parts Company 2015 Long Term Incentive Plan. The compensation of directors may be changed from time to time by the Board of Directors without stockholder approval.
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 accompanying Annual Report of PhotoAmigo, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended July 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, (the "Report"), I, Robert Heckes, the Company’s Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer, 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; as amended; and
  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of the Company.


Dated: December 8, 2011
By:
/s/ Robert HeckesRobert Heckes

Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
 Dated: December 8, 2011
By:
/s/ Robert HeckesRobert Heckes

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer
Faulk, 

### Scott (OSn

Subject: Attachments:

Greetings All: Faulk, Scott (OSn Monday, July 14, 2014 11:S9AM 'mcifuentez@ci. visaIia.ca.us'; 'thu rstonfo rmayo r@gmail.com'; 'ashuklian@ci.visalia.ca.us'; 'snelsen@cLvisalia.ca.us'; 'wg ubler@ci.visalia.ca.us'; 'greg.co Ilins@cLvisalfa.ca.us'; 'Citycouncil@cityofmerced.org'; molmos@cLvisalia.ca.us; 'Elliott, Ron' Great Lakes,Chuck Howell (chowell@flygreatlakes.com); Great Lakes, Doug Voss (DVoss@flygreatlakes.com); Shawn Simpson; Makani Kai, Richard Schuman; SeaPort Airlines, EASMailbox (eas@seaportair.com); Seaport/Wings of Alaska, Rob McKinney (rob@seaportair.com); Tim Sieber; 'Mike Matthews'; 'Shannon Kane'; patkdashca@aol.com; shannon@dashca.com; 'Mickey Bowman'; Ron Hansen; dave.berry@mokulelehawaiLcom; Schlemmer, Kevin (OST); Devany, Dennis (OSn Update on EASat Merced and Visalia Great Lakes.pdf; Boutique.pdf; Makani Kai at Merced.pdf; Makani Kai at Visalia.pdf; SeaPort.pdf; Mokulele.pdf

Iwould like to update you on the Essential Air Service (EAS) situation atin Merced and Visalia, CA, as well as give you an opportunity to offer any comments on the record before we submit arecommendation to the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs. We issued Order 2014-5-9, on May 21, 2014, requesting proposals from airlines interested inproviding EAS for anew term. Inresponse to our request, five air carriers submitted proposals: Great Lakes Aviation, Boutique, Makani Kai Air, SeaPort, and Mokulele Airlines.
Ihave attached each air carrier's proposal for.your review and Iexpect them to be uploaded on www.regulations.gov sometime this afternoon. Irequest that you review the proposals and submit any comments you may have as soon as possible, but no later than August 15th• Please send your comments directly to me via e-mail at scott.faulk@dot.gov. Also, please forward this to all relevant parties that Ihave not included on the distribution list.
Ifyou have any questions, feel free to contact me. Regards,
Scott Faulk Transportation Industry Analyst U.S. Department ofTransportation Office ofAviation Analysis EAS &Domestic Analysis Division 1200New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 202-366-9967

1
Lima Urban Transport Project – Inspection Panel Investigation Report

June 16, 2011

U.S. Position

The United States commends the Inspection Panel for its clear and balanced report and thanks

Management for their proactive engagement and response to the Panel’s findings. 

Management’s actions since 2009 have brought project supervision, dissemination of

information, and consultations with the Requesters into compliance with World Bank policy. 

The United States expects that Management’s continued engagement via the proposed actions 

will lead to improved outcomes for the citizens of Barranco and the broader Lima community.

The United States acknowledges that bringing bus rapid transit to one of the most congested 

cities in the world is both a complex and much needed project. The Panel report and 

Management’s response acknowledge the complexity of this project and the value of the World 

Bank’s engagement. The United States also acknowledges the Panel’s findings of noncompliance with Bank policies (OP 4.01 and OP 11.03). The Panel’s findings and subsequent 

actions proposed by Management should lead to better risk management on this project and 

future projects. 

The United States offers the following specific comments:

Many of the issues raised by the Requesters relate not to the direct impacts of the project – which

were well documented and disclosed for the most part – but rather to indirect impacts, including

some that were temporary during the construction period yet directly impacted the residents’

quality of life. Identifying and managing the full extent of risks and impacts in a socially and

environmentally sustainable manner must be key components of the Bank’s environmental

assessments.

Similarly, the Requesters believed they were not adequately consulted and that the relevant

documents were not disclosed to the local communities. The United States commends

Management’s extensive efforts to improve consultation and disclosure since 2008 and urges

Management in all regions to take a more proactive role in reaching out to affected communities 

early and often. The United States welcomes the proposal by Management to improve staff 

capacity in this area.

Regarding the negative impact on Barranco’s historic architecture district, the United States 

defers to Management regarding its reliance on the National Institute of Culture to approve the 

station design as required by Peruvian law. The United States welcomes the 2011 traffic study 

which will assess the impact on Barranco’s cultural heritage.
#### John Stephen WILLARD, Sr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-1074.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 19, 1970.

John Stephen Willard, Sr., in pro. per.

Earl Faircloth, Tallahassee, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of his appeal, and the appellant having filed a statement, following receipt of which and a review of the record it appears that his points are not well taken, in that: (1) he was represented by privately retained counsel, and (2) he failed to timely raise the charge of surprise in the trial court. Reed v. State, 94 Fla. 32, 113 So. 630; Kovner v. Wainwright, Fla. 1962, 149 So.2d 550; Amaral v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 171 So.2d 549; Coyner v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 177 So.2d 715; Ford v. State, Fla. App. 1968, 210 So.2d 33. Accord. Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company v. Cain, Fla. App.1965, 175 So.2d 561. Upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-11239

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DATANYA DAMON ALEXANDER,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:17-CR-437-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Datanya Damon Alexander appeals the concurrent 180-month statutory 

minimum sentences imposed on his guilty plea convictions for possession of a 

firearm by a felon. He argues that (1) his three Texas convictions for delivery 

of a controlled substance are not serious drug offenses for purposes of the 

Armed Career Criminal Act enhancement, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), and (2) his 

indictment did not specify the prior convictions that formed the basis of his 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 9, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-11239 Document: 00515109671 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/09/2019
18-11239

2

sentencing enhancement and he did not admit the facts affecting the range of 

imprisonment, making his sentences unconstitutional. The Government has 

filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance and, alternatively, seeks 

an extension of time to file its brief.

As the Government argues and Alexander concedes, Alexander’s first 

argument is foreclosed by United States v. Cain, 877 F.3d 562, 562-63 (5th Cir. 

2017), and United States v. Vickers, 540 F.3d 356, 363-66 (5th Cir. 2008), and 

his second argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 

U.S. 224, 226-27 (1998). Because Alexander’s arguments are foreclosed, 

summary affirmance is proper. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 

1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).

Accordingly, we GRANT the Government’s motion for summary 

affirmance and AFFIRM the judgment. We DENY, as unnecessary, the 

Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a responsive 

brief.

 Case: 18-11239 Document: 00515109671 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/09/2019
#### Mrs. Marion D. TREGLE v. The PARISH OF JEFFERSON et al.

No. 53827.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 7, 1973.

In re: The Parish of Jefferson, the Jefferson Parish Council and Alwynn J. Con-vich, Sheriff of the Parish of Jefferson, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Jefferson. 279 So.2d 714.

Writ denied. No error of law.

CALOGERO, J., would grant the writ applied for.