alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 filing of the Quarterly Report of Corning Natural Gas Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2009 (the "Report") with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I, Michael I. German, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company and I, Firouzeh Sarhangi, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the Company for such period.

Dated: February 3, 2010
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17D0053. WILLIAM A. ACREE v. THE STATE.

On November 14, 2014, the trial court entered an order revoking William A.

Acree’s probation for committing the new offense of kidnapping. On August 18,

2016, Acree filed this application for discretionary review of the revocation order. 

We lack jurisdiction.

An application for discretionary appeal must be filed within 30 days of the

entry of the order or judgment to be appealed. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (d). The

requirements of OCGA § 5-6-35 are jurisdictional, and this Court cannot accept an

application for appeal made beyond 30 days. See Boyle v. State of Ga., 190 Ga. App.

734, 734 (380 SE2d 57) (1989). Here, Acree filed his application 21 months after the

revocation order was entered. Accordingly, the application is untimely and is hereby

DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

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.

09/14/2016

September 14, 2016
Exhibit 32



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 The Connecticut Light and Power Company (the registrant) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), we, Cheryl W. Grisé, Chief Executive Officer of the registrant and David R. McHale, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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 result of operations of the registrant.



/s/ Cheryl W. Grisé

(Signature)

Cheryl W. Grisé

Chief Executive Officer



/s/ David R. McHale

(Signature)

David R. McHale

Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



August 8, 2005



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 required by Section 906, has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 230 (Monday, December 1, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63515-63516]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31342]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce (DOC) has submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for 
collection of information under provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 
Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: Bureau of Export Administration (BXA).
    Title: Request for Special Priorities Assistance.
    Agency Form Number: BXA-999.
    OMB Approval Number: 0694-0057.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection of 
information.

[[Page 63516]]

    Burden: 600 hours.
    Average Time Per Response: 30 minutes per response.
    Number of Respondents: 1,200 respondents.
    Needs and Uses: The U.S. must have the capability to rapidly 
mobilize its resources in the interest of national security. Therefore, 
to achieve prompt delivery of articles, products and materials to meet 
national security or emergency preparedness' requirements, the Defense 
Priorities Allocation System was developed. The information collected 
on BXA-999 from defense contractors and suppliers is needed for the 
enforcement and administration of the Defense Production Act and the 
Selective Service Act to provide Special Priorities Assistance under 
the Defense Priorities and Allocation System Regulations. It is only 
used when there is difficulty in obtaining a needed item. The 
information provided is used by the appropriate agency is helping to 
resolve the problem.
    Affected Public: Individuals, businesses or other for-profit 
institutions.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain a benefit.
    OMB Desk Officer: Victoria Baecher-Wassmer.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Linda Engelmeier, DOC Forms Clearance Officer, 
(202) 482-3272, Department of Commerce, Room 5327, 14th and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to Victoria Baecher-Wassmer, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10202, New 
Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20230.

    Dated: November 21, 1997.
Linda Engelmeier,
Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Office of Management and 
Organization.
[FR Doc. 97-31342 Filed 11-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
```
Exhibit 99.1
 HORIZON TECHNOLOGY FINANCE CORPORATION
 PRIVACY POLICY
  How We Protect Your Customer Information
  What Kind of Information We Collect
  How We Use this Information
  Who Has Access to Customer Information
  
    
    The People and Companies that Make Up Horizon.It is our policy that only authorized
Horizon employees who need to know your personal information will have access to it.
Horizon personnel who violate our privacy policy are subject to disciplinary action.
    
    Service Providers.We may disclose customer information to companies that provide
services on our behalf, such as record keeping, processing your trades, and mailing you
information. These companies are required to protect your information and use it solely
for the purpose for which they received it.
    
    Courts and Government Officials.If required by law, we may disclose customer
information in accordance with a court order or at the request of government regulators.
Only that information required by law, subpoena, or court order will be disclosed.
 1
Document

			
	Three Allen Center
333 Clay Street, Suite 4980
Houston, Texas 77002


TEL 713 510 2400
FAX 713 510 2499
civeo.com




Exhibit 10.3


									
	Date /
		September 30, 2021
	To /
		Allan Schoening
	RE /
		Dual Employment Agreement Cancellations






This letter is to document our understanding and agreement that effective as of September 30, 2021, your Dual Employment Agreements for Canada and the United States, each entered into on July 17, 2015, will be cancelled and are of no further force and effect.  The Executive Change of Control Agreement entered into by between Civeo Corporation and yourself originally dated as of July 13, 2015, as amended effective July 20, 2020, remains in full force and effect and is not affected by the cancellation of the Dual Employment Agreements.  








									
	/s/ Bradley J. Dodson		/s/ Allan Schoening
	Bradley J. Dodson
Chief Executive Officer and President
Civeo Corporation
		Allan Schoening
			
	9/30/2021		9/30/2021
	Date		Date
#### Joan M. PAULEY, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent.

No. 02-3154.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Aug. 2, 2002.

ON MOTION

LOURIE, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER*

Joan M. Pauley moves (1) for reconsideration of this court’s order dismissing her petition for review for failure to pay the filing fee, and (2) for voluntary dismissal of her petition for review due to asserted settlement of an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission case. The Department of Health and Human Services has not responded.

Pauley seeks to change the basis of the dismissal from a dismissal due to failure to pay the fee to a dismissal based on settlement. Pauley should have promptly informed the court that she wished to voluntarily dismiss her petition for review here, rather than allowing expiration of the time permitted to pay the filing fee. Nonetheless, because there is apparently no harm in permitting the case to be dismissed voluntarily, rather than due to failure to prosecute, we grant Pauley’s motions.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) Pauley’s motion for reconsideration is granted, the mandate is recalled, and the May 1, 2002 order is vacated.

(2) Pauley’s motion for voluntary dismissal is granted.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 10, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 132698-9(50) Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY Stephen J. Markman, INSURANCE COMPANY, Justices Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 132698 COA: 260203 Court of Claims: 03-000139-MT DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

PRUDENTIAL INSU RANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 132699 COA: 260204 Court of Claims: 03-000140-MT DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s June 6, 2007 order is considered, and it is DENIED, beca use it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

p0830 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 10, 2007

Clerk
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SHAUN RUSHING, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 21-01925 (UNA)

)

AMERICA, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The Court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint, keeping in mind that complaints filed by pro 

se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by 

lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even pro se litigants, however, must 

comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 

1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain a short 

and plain statement of the grounds upon which the Court’s jurisdiction depends, a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for judgment for 

the relief the pleader seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The purpose of the minimum standard of Rule 

8 is to give fair notice to the defendants of the claims being asserted such that they can prepare a 

responsive answer, prepare an adequate defense, and determine whether the doctrine of res 

judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). 

The Plaintiff alleges that he forwarded a complaint and lawsuit to then-President Donald 

Trump, but that no rebuttal was offered. Compl. at 1. He says this is a violation of due process. 

OCT. 12, 2021
2

Id. As drafted, plaintiff’s pro se complaint fails to comply with the minimal pleading standard set 

forth in Rule 8(a). There are far too few facts alleged to state a viable legal claim, and certainly 

too few facts to show an entitlement to an award of $110 trillion. Therefore, the Court will dismiss 

the complaint without prejudice and will grant the application to proceed in forma pauperis. An 

Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

DATE: October 12, 2021 ______________________

CARL J. NICHOLS

United States District Judge
256 La. 370

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Robert Finley HILL v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 50694.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 26, 1970.

In re: Robert Finley Hill applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Writ refused. The showing made in the application does not warrant either our original or supervisory jurisdiction.
Proposed International Finance Corporation (IFC)

Investment in Delonex Energy Limited (Africa Region)

September 12, 2013

United States Position

The United States appreciates that IFC categorized this project as an "A" given its substantial 

environmental risks.

The United States recognizes that IFC's involvement in this project will allow the application of 

IFC's performance standards to mitigate environmental risks. The United States also welcomes

the assurances from staff that IFC’s default environmental, health and safety guidelines will 

apply both at the corporate level and in downstream investments.

However, given that the risks inherent in hydrocarbon exploration investments are substantial,

the United States would have wanted the Environmental and Social Review Summary (ESRS) on 

the project to provide sufficient detail about Delonex’s downstream investments to allow a full 

assessment of the environmental impacts. As such detail is not available, the ESRS does not 

comply with the requirements of the U.S. legislative mandate governing our assessment of 

Category A projects. 

For this reason, the United States wishes to be recorded as abstaining on this investment.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

KAREEM ANDRE WILLIAMS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D2023-2581

[July 18, 2024]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Jeffrey Dana Gillen, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2013-CF-001250-AXXX-MB.

Matthew R. McLain of McLain Law, P.A., Longwood, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jessenia J 

Concepcion, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for 

appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, CONNER and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000106170
<NAME>WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY
<MULTIPLIER>1,000

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                      SEP-30-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                         PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                             391,075
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                           160,498
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                                100,119
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                              648,509
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      1,300,201
<COMMON>                                               26,812
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                             171,626
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                                    56,979
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                        255,577
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  16,500
<PREFERRED>                                            20,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                                  290,559
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                     79,300
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                                   0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                              0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                          60,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                               1,500
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                             9,816
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                       22,017
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                        545,092
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                       1,300,201
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                             314,291
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                                   17,748
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                            247,287
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                            270,453
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                                43,838
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                     (8,921)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                         40,335
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               19,932
<NET-INCOME>                                           20,403
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                             2,570
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                          17,833
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                                    0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                                   0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                                (18,046)
<EPS-BASIC>                                            0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0.00


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

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

 

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q ofComputer Horizons Corp. (the “Company”) for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2003 (the “Periodic Report”), I, Michael J. Shea,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that thePeriodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information containedin the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  | November 14, 2003 |   |   | /s/  Michael J. Shea |   |
|--------|------------------------|--------|--------|---------------------------|--------|
|   |                   |   |   | Michael J. Shea           |
|   |                   |   |   | Chief Financial Officer   |

 

----
EXHIBIT 31.3 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
RULE 13a-14(a) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 I, Gary W. Douglass,
Executive Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer and Member of the
Office of the Chief Executive of CPI Corp., a Delaware Corporation, certify
that: (1)
  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q
  of CPI Corp.;(2)
  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain
  any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
  necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under
  which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
  covered by this report;(3)
  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and
  other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all
  material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
  flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;(4)
  The registrants other certifying officers and I are
  responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
  procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
  registrant and have:(a)
  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
  caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
  supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,
  including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
  those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
  prepared;(b)
  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants
  disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our
  conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
  procedures, as of the end  of the
  period covered by this report based on such evaluations;(c)
  disclosed in this report any change in the
  registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during
  the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal
  quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
  reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
  over financial reporting; and(5)
  The registrants other certifying officers and I
  have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
  financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of
  registrants board of directors (or persons fulfilling the equivalent
  functions):(a)
  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses
  in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting  which are reasonably likely to adversely
  affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
  financial information; and(b)
  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
  management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
  internal control over financial reporting.  /s/ Gary W. DouglassGary W. DouglassExecutive Vice President, Finance and Chief
  Financial Officer and Member of the Office of the
  Chief Executive  Date: December 28, 2004
#### Kenneth BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dayton POPPEL, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 02-7035.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

July 26, 2002.

Before EBEL, LUCERO, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

CARLOS F. LUCERO, Circuit Judge.

Pro se petitioner Kenneth Brown, an Oklahoma state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus as time-barred.

We have reviewed the record on appeal and conclude that the district court did not fully explore whether Brown was entitled to equitable tolling of the one-year period of limitations imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). On remand, the district court should consider whether the refiling of Brown’s habeas petition pri- or to the Supreme Court’s decision in *Duncan v. Walker,*533 U.S. 167, 121 S.Ct. 2120, 150 L.Ed.2d 251 (2001), merits the application of equitable tolling to his case. *See Hall v. Scott,*No. 01-7156, 2002 U.S.App. LEXIS 11389, at *9-*10 (10th Cir. June 12, 2002). In addition, the district court should apply the “prisoner’s mailbox rule” in determining the dates Brown’s habeas petitions were filed with the court. *See id.*at *2 n. 1.

Having concluded that Brown has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, his application for a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) is GRANTED, the district court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus as time-barred is REVERSED, and this matter is REMANDED for reconsideration of whether equitable tolling is warranted. Brown’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.

*

The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The Court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.