alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
.'-'':

,',

(""''Dm~~",~ /i¡

,f \" ~I ¿:;j ~L N t-¡ì\ q ri ~

~ f. ~f, :~ ~ "=-tJ ;~ n ~~ U~"=:4 " V ~ r,:; 'l,¿-, ¡¡ ~;,L ~-,=-

,.$" ,~,

: ~ " 1,',-,:,

l':::/;'~ / 1/(;

/'''- ",

\ _ __ ,____N \" 6-'/0.8f

~'~~~2~S5i~~'~-"--"~'

;-;

UNTED STATES OF AMRICA

BEFORE THE FEDERA TRAE COMMSSION

j./

, )

In the Matter of )

) Docket No. 9327

Polypore International, Inc. )

a corporation. ) PUBLIC

)

SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF COUNSEL PURSUANT TO 16 C.F.R. S 3.22(0

EnerSys respectfully submits this Supplementa Statement of Counsel pursuat to

16 C.F.R. § 3.22(f) in support of its motion to extend time to produce documents filed Januar

20,2009.

Counsel for the moving par, Neil C. Schur, Esquire, has conferred with

Complait Counsel. Complait Counsel has no objection to allowing EnerSys an additional ten

days to produce the documents responsive to Respondent's subpoena duces tecum, provided that

the tral date is not moved and all intermediate deadlines (e.g., exhbit list, notice of intent to

disclose confdential inormation) are modified with regard to EnerSys documents and

deposition testimony. Complaint Counsel has reviewed ths statement and has authorized the

undersigned to represent to the Cour that Complait Counsel does not intend to file a response

to EnerSys' pending motion.

Counsel for the moving par, Neil C. Schur, Esquire, has attempted to confer

fuer with counel for Respondent, Eric Welsh, Esquire, but has been unable to reach Mr.

Welsh. Mr. Schur left voicemail messages for Mr. Welsh on Janua 20 and 22,2009.

1

sLl 897965vll00844,00930
Dated: Januar 22,2009 Z1(/l)( 4/!lLÆNeil C. Schur, Esquire

STEVENS & LEE, P.C.

1818 Market Street, 29th Floor

Philadelphia, P A 19103

(215) 751-1944

(610) 371-7956 (facsimle)

ncsc~stevenslee.com

Counsel for EnerSys

2

SLl 897965vll00844,00930
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on Januar 22, 2009, I fied via overnght courer and electronic mail

delivery an original and two copies of the foregoing Supplementa Statement of Counsel

pursuatto 16 C.F.R. § 3.22(f) with:

Donald S. Clark, Secreta

Offce of the Secreta

Federal Trade Commssion

600 Pennsylvana Avenue, NW, Rm. H-135

Washigton, DC 20580

secretar~ftc.gov

I hereby certify that on Januar 22,2009, I delivered via overnght courer and electronic

mail delivery two copies of the foregoing Supplemental Statement of Counsel pursuant to 16

C.F.R. § 3.22(f) to:

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell

Admstrative Law Judge

Federal Trade Commssion

600 Pennsylvana Avenue, NW

Washigton, DC 20580

oalj~ftc.gov

I hereby certify that on Januar 22,2009, I served via overnght courer and electronic

mail delivery a copy of the foregoing Supplemental Statement of Counsel pursuant to 16 C.F.R.

§ 3 .22( f) on:

Eric D. Welsh, Esquire

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein, LLP

Thee Wachovia Center

401 S. Tryon Street, Suite 3000

Charlotte, NC 28202

ericwelsh~parkerpoe.com

Date: Januar 22,2009

Steven A. Dah, Esquire

Federal_Trade Commssion

Bureau of Competition

Mergers II Division

601 New Jersey Avenue, NW

Washigton, D.C. 20001

sdah~ftc.gov

~ÆAt~¿g'(~

Nei C. chur

SLl 897965vll00844_00930
<PAGE>


                                  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 Covista Communications, Inc. on Form
10-Q for the period ending July 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, A. John Leach, Jr.,
President and CEO of Covista Communications, Inc. certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that;

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

     2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material aspects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          Covista Communications, Inc.



Date:  September 10, 2004             By:  /s/ A. John Leach, Jr.
                                           ------------------------------
                                           A. John Leach, Jr.
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         508,953
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           9,557
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                58,291
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                71,348
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  1,737,776
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         653,277
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           655,162
<LOANS>                                      7,151,725
<ALLOWANCE>                                    115,297
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,561,982
<DEPOSITS>                                   7,701,405
<SHORT-TERM>                                 1,485,278
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            275,973
<LONG-TERM>                                    210,056
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       145,948
<OTHER-SE>                                     743,322
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              10,561,982
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                430,797
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              118,097
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 6,084
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               554,960
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             214,930
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             272,581
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          282,379
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               1,407
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                298,509
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                172,710
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     172,710
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   106,604
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.02
<LOANS-NON>                                     18,771
<LOANS-PAST>                                    11,679
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 66,795
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               123,265
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   21,132
<RECOVERIES>                                    12,705
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              115,297
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            72,235
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         43,062
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT D

Case 2:21-cv-00640-RJS Document 2-4 Filed 10/28/21 PageID.29 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:21-cv-00640-RJS Document 2-4 Filed 10/28/21 PageID.30 Page 2 of 2
#### SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., Self-Insured, Petitioner, v. Rosa M. BOMAR and Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.

No. 38509.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 21, 1969.

E. O. Palermo and Richard G. Davis, of Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings & Evans, Tampa, for petitioner.

Peyton T. Jordan, Tampa, Patrick H. Mears and J. Franklin Garner, Tallahassee, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

By petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date March 14, 1969.

We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose and it is therefore dispensed with pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10, subd. e, 32 F.S.A.

Our consideration of the petition, the record and briefs leads us to conclude that there has been no deviation from the essential requirements of law.

The petition is, therefore, denied.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
Page 26 EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF
FINANCIAL 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 Quarterly Report of First Real Estate Investment Trust of New Jersey
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 31, 2005 (the Report), I,
Donald W. Barney, President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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, 15 U.S.C. ss. 78m(a) or 78o(d), 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: September 9, 2005
        /s/ Donald W. Barney

Donald W. Barney
President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer  Back To Index
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The undersigned, James Wemett,, Acting Chief Financial Officer, of NaturalNano, Inc. (the “Company”) certifies, under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of our knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and  results  of operations of the Company.





Dated:  April 15, 2011





/s/ James WemettJames WemettActing Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial 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.
261 La. 76

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Andrew DIGGS.

No. 51906.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 8, 1972.

*19Robert E. Fleming, Jr., Barry F. Viosca, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen., Harry H. Howard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jim Garrison, Dist. Atty., Louise Korns, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Andrew Diggs, appeals from a conviction of receiving stolen things, La.R.S. 14:69, for which he was sentenced to serve four years at hard labor in the State Penitentiary. He reserved three bills.

The first two bills were taken to the testimony on rebuttal of state’s witness, Patrolman Jenkins, to the effect that Jenkins knew the defendant personally, having met him five or six times before the day of arrest. It is contended that this is improper rebuttal. La.R.S. 15:282 (1966).

Under the particular facts of this case, we cannot say the trial court erred in permitting this testimony as rebuttal.

As part of the state’s case in chief, the police officer had testified that he had found the defendant in possession of a vehicle shortly afterwards identified as stolen and had asked to see the vehicle’s registration papers. The defendant had said he would go get his wallet in the building in front of which the vehicle was parked, had gone in the building, and had then disappeared. This was sufficient identification evidence. The officers arrested him later that day at his home, twenty-five blocks away.

The defense was alibi. The defendant’s mother and sister testified that he had been home with them all day, some twenty-five blocks away. The thrust of the defense was, thus, that the police officer was mistaken in his identification.

The trial court admitted the officer’s testimony on rebuttal, limiting it to a single question whether the patrolman had ever seen the defendant before the officer found him with the stolen vehicle. That is, the trial court held that the purpose of this testimony, under the particular facts of this case, was to disprove the defense and contradict the defense witnesses, rather than to prove the state’s case. While rebuttal testimony should be closely guarded, we cannot say under the circumstances that the trial court erred.

*20The third bill of exceptions, taken to the overruling of a motion for a new trial, based upon an allegation that the verdict is contrary to law and evidence, presents nothing for review. State v. Grey, 257 La. 1070, 245 So.2d 178 (1971).

For these reasons, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.
MACKINAC FINANCIAL CORPORATIONExhibit 31.2CERTIFICATIONI, Ernie R. Krueger, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Mackinac FinancialCorporation, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Mackinac Financial Corporation (the“registrant”); 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: August 10, 2007 /s/ Ernie R. Krueger   ERNIE R. KRUEGER   EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT ANDCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2011-NM-056-AD

Costs:

Labor per airplane (91 work hours x $85/hour) $ up to 33,660

Parts per airplane $ + up to 426

Cost per airplane $ up to 34,086

Number of U.S.-registered airplanes 

x

 0

Total fleet cost $0

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

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

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7662 

To modify certain requirements of LIHEAP for purposes of the use of 

certain funds appropriated in fiscal year 2020, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 16, 2020 

Ms. STEVENS (for herself, Ms. BONAMICI, Mr. YOUNG, Mrs. DINGELL, and 

Mr. VEASEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee 

on Education and Labor, for a period to be subsequently determined by 

the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To modify certain requirements of LIHEAP for purposes 

of the use of certain funds appropriated in fiscal year 

2020, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. USE OF LIHEAP SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIA4 TIONS. 

5 (a) USE OF FUNDS.—Notwithstanding section 2605 

6 of the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981, 

7 with respect to amounts appropriated during the covered 

8 period to carry out the Low-Income Home Energy AssistVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:55 Aug 05, 2020 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H7662.IH H7662

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7662 IH

1 ance Act of 1981, each State, the Commonwealth of Puer2 to Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands of 

3 the United States, the Commonwealth of the Northern 

4 Mariana Islands, and each Indian Tribe, as applicable, 

5 that receives an allotment of funds from such amounts— 

6 (1) shall, in using such funds, for purposes of 

7 income eligibility, accept proof of job loss or severe 

8 income loss dated after February 29, 2020, such as 

9 a layoff or furlough notice or verification of applica10 tion for unemployment benefits, as sufficient to dem11 onstrate lack of income for an individual or house12 hold; and 

13 (2) may use not more than 12.5 percent of such 

14 funds for administrative costs. 

15 (b) COVERED PERIOD DEFINED.—In this section, the 

16 term ‘‘covered period’’ means the period that begins on 

17 the date of enactment of this Act and ends on September 

18 30, 2020. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7898 

To amend title XXX of the Public Health Services Act to provide for a 

technical correction to provide the Inspector General of the Department 

of Health and Human Service certain authorities with respect to investigations of information blocking, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 31, 2020 

Mr. BURGESS (for himself and Mr. WELCH) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend title XXX of the Public Health Services Act 

to provide for a technical correction to provide the Inspector General of the Department of Health and 

Human Service certain authorities with respect to investigations of information blocking, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. TECHNICAL CORRECTION. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3022(b) of the Public 

5 Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300jj–52(b)) is amended 

6 by adding at the end the following new paragraph: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7898 IH

1 ‘‘(4) APPLICATION OF AUTHORITIES UNDER IN2 SPECTOR GENERAL ACT OF 1978.—In carrying out 

3 this subsection, the Inspector General shall have the 

4 same authorities as provided under section 6 of the 

5 Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.).’’. 

6 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

7 subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in the enact8 ment of the 21st Century Cures Act (Public Law 114– 

9 255). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
----

**EXHIBIT      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO **

**18      U.S.C. §1350, **

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO **

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

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

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

| Date:                January 12, 2007 |   | By:    | /s/                Vincent L. Kasch    |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                                  |   |   | Vincent                L. Kasch        |   |
|                                  |   |   | Chief                Financial Officer |   |

----
#### Louise E. MOORE, Appellant, v. William H. MOORE and Dolores Moore, his wife, Appellees.

No. 70-1072.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 7, 1971.

Rehearing Denied July 28, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.