alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
32.2




FROZEN
FOOD EXPRESS INDUSTRIES, INC.


CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


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




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Frozen Food Express Industries, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Thomas G. Yetter, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that (a) the Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and (b) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




Dated:
      August 1, 2008
            
            /s/
      Thomas G. YetterThomas
      G. Yetter
              Senior
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
              (Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)
btoOitdii i IHW
.

PiUltMb y CtiBfuitbninunlnHDn

^ IK
. aSDI(<)(3)«)iiiiltoii i wggplnlo r Mailin g Addnt t P.0.toiM2 W (igmvJlkFL3IU4-]IS 7 tippin g Addrt H 110S W IWwRHYAn
. GgiiiHiil[^HS601-Sn i E4ttorla l lhkt(3U}37««5 3 F<ti(3SI)37MU 7 [irni l < btfM@ o 0 igot

M « i > V«tapSI)37£-44« 2 l'6O0-»7-434 l F<tt(]SZ)37MS U (tn f «ldiMlltinglg}ol]igg)gi.«g > OoHtMAdnrlhln g (3S7)373-FtND(34U ] luilnH i VtinOS!)37i-4M i FcKpS2)37i-1S U Wil l ^hJ1p/^*w.[%di.'rr(| > vaOV^?£ ^ ^ th e inJepeiiden l florida .


### W e inform . Yo u decide . ••h-M.MiV :

• \ \

\\
. 1^-
. Augus t 17 , 201 0 Aloh aLe y Associat e Directo r Smal l Communit

y Ai r Servic e Developmen t

Program(SCASDP ) aloha.levffiidotgo v Re : Smal l Community Ai r Servic e Developmen t

Gran t Dea r Ms . Ley , Th e Independen t

Flortd aAlligato r

fiill y support s th e Gainesville-Alachu aCounty Regional Airport Authority' s reques t

fo r aSmal l Community Ai r Servic e Developmen t

gran t t o hel p support th e ne w America n Eagl e Airline s servic e betwee n Gainesvill e an dMiami an dth e existin g local ai r

carriers . Delt aAi r

Line s an dU S Airways . W e recogniz e th e importanc e o f ai r servic e t o economi c developmen t an dth e quality o f

lif e fo r resident s an dvisitor s i n our region . Bein g th e studen t newspape r

that serve s th e University o f

Florid aw e recogniz e ho w vital thi s servic e wil l b e t o th e students , facult y an dstaff

. W e wan t t o hel p ensur e th e succes s o f th e ne w American Airline s servic e betwee n Gainesvill e an dth e Miam i hub . Th e lac k o f ai r servic e t o Sout

h Florid aan dadequat e connectin g servic e t o international destination s ha s force dman y t o commut e t o an dfro m othe r airport s o r

mak e th e exhaustin g 5 + hou r tri p t o Miam i b y automobile . Additionally , American' s extensiv e domesti c an dinternational rout e structur e fro mMiami wil l provid e ne w trave l option s an dagreate r leve l o f fi^uency. Du e t o th e critica l importanc e o f quality ai r

servic e fo r

ou r region , w e ar e committe dt o supportm g American' s ne w servic e an dcontinue dimprovemen t i n ai r service . Therefore , w e wil l b e offerin g a n adde dvalu e o f prin t an donlin e advertisin g t o th e schedule dadvertisin g campaig n t o hel p American Airline s establis h it s ne w rout e betwee n GNV an dMIA . Wit h a distributio n o f

35,00 0 dail y an dareadershi p o f ove r 50,00 0 readers , w e believ e ou r donatio n fo r advertisin g wil l hel p n^ e th e ne w servic e successful . I urg e yo u t o procee dwit

h approvin g th e Airport

Authority' s reques t

for agran t t o assis t wit h marketin g effort s fo r

th e nex t tw o years . I f

yo u hav e any question s pleas e fee l free t o contac t me a t tcarevfaialligator.or e o r

352.376.4446 , Sincerely , Patrici aCare y Genera l Manage r
**EXHIBIT 31.3****CERTIFICATION**I, Frank F. Khulusi, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of PC Mall, Inc.; and 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport.     Date: April 30, 2007 /s/ Frank F. Khulusi Frank F. Khulusi    Chief Executive Officer
#### Jo C. DEAL et al., Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 76-1592.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted March 15, 1977.

Decided April 4, 1977.

E. C. Gilbreath, Fort Smith, Ark., James W. Gallman, W. W. Bassett, Jr., Fayetteville, Ark., R. H. “Bud” Mills, Stanley W. Ludwig, James M. Roy, Jr., Springdale, Ark., on brief, for appellants.

Michael J. Pangia, Trial Atty., Aviation Unit, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Robert E. Johnson, U. S. Atty., Fort Smith, Ark., on brief, for appellee.

Before VAN OOSTERHOUT, Senior Circuit Judge, BRIGHT and ROSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Dr. Deal and five passengers, travelling in a private plane piloted by Dr. Deal from Fayetteville to Harrison, Arkansas, were all killed in a tragic accident while attempting to land at the Harrison airport. Their executors brought this action against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b), asserting the accident was proximately caused by the negligence of federal air traffic controllers.

The district court (Judge Paul X Williams) dismissed all complaints on the basis that the Federal officials were guilty of no negligence which proximately caused the accident. The basis for such determination is clearly set out in a well-reasoned opinion of the trial court reported at 413 F.Supp. 630 (W.D.Ark.).

Our examination of the record satisfies us that Judge Williams’ detailed findings are supported by substantial evidence and that his decision was not induced by any erroneous view of the applicable law. We affirm on the basis of Judge Williams’ reported opinion.
From: thomas.patzner@schneider-electric.com [mailto:thomas.patzner@schneider-electric.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 10:10 AM 

To: Richard Parker 

Cc: adelaski@standardsASAP.org; artrosenfeld@gmail.com; BermanEconomics@gmail.com; Edwards, Brenda; Brian 

Coffey; bsmith@federalpacific.com; Caitlin Johnson; carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com; chad.kennedy@us.schneiderelectric.com; Cohen, Daniel; dave.millure@metglas.com; DYoung@energy-solution.com; eduardorobles@eaton.com; 

Marchetti, Emily (CONTR); Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com; gbf1@pge.com; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov; Freeman, Jeremiah 

(CONTR); jerry.schoen@aksteel.com; Jim.creevy@nema.org; Raba, Jim; jmauer@standardsasap.org; 

john.caskey@nema.org; Cymbalsky, John; kcoughlin@lbl.gov; Matthew Nardotti; Savitz, Maxine (EMAB); Michael 

Rivest; mwaltner@nrdc.org; Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com; rgreeson@federalpacific.com; rroy@nrdc.org; 

ScottB@LVMetals.com; snadel@aceee.org; tballo@earthjustice.org; tpetrosino@carolina.rr.com; 

vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com; Zhimei Luo; maxinesavitz@aol.com 

Subject: LVDT Work Group Comments 

Schneider Electric would like to make the following suggestions to help with the tight time line we are under. From our 

evaluation there seems to be some band width issues. That being the case we have the following suggestion. 

(1) We remove DL6 from the discussions, our reasons are below (a) estimated only 5-6% of the shipments of Low Voltage MVA 

 

(b) The initial LCC and PBR 
(c) 85% is below 50kVA (15, 25, 37.5, 50kVA) These products are the most likely to be substituted with "NOT INCLUDED: Non-ventilated or Sealed" 

 DL6 comparing 2005 Energy Act and Resin Encapsulated 

 

 

Schneider Electric is estimating that these products will shift to lower efficient if they are mandated to higher levels, 

having the opposite impact. 

(d) Manufacturing of Single Phase units are different than Three Phase, Manufacturing Impact and time line will be 

lessen if we only have to look at one process to change instead of two. Allowing manufactures to focus on the 95% of the Volume and not put any resources to the 5%. 

(e) I believe the data that has been shared by manufactures have focused on DL7 and DL8, manufactures also having 

resource issues with completing the DL6 analysis.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-25-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-10-1997
<CASH>                                          50,359
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     94,448
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               159,981
<PP&E>                                         384,935
<DEPRECIATION>                                 177,330
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 394,188
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           91,154
<BONDS>                                        191,463
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        31,752
<OTHER-SE>                                      71,688
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   394,188
<SALES>                                        302,697
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               302,537
<CGS>                                          211,850
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  211,850
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,447
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,325
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,325
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,325
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .14
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

                  Frozen Food Express Industries, Inc.
                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


    I, Stoney M. Stubbs, Jr., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that the Quarterly Report Frozen Food Express Industries, Inc. on
Form 10-Q for the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2003 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Frozen Food Express Industries,
Inc. A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Frozen Food Express Industries, Inc. and will
be retained by Frozen Food Express Industries, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



August 13, 2003                             /s/ Stoney M. Stubbs, Jr.
                                            --------------------------
                                            Stoney M. Stubbs, Jr.
                                            Chief Executive Officer
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 22-60153

Summary Calendar

Island Operating Company, Incorporated; Louisiana 

Workers’ Compensation Corporation, 

Petitioners—Appellants,

versus

Donna Sanchez, Widow of Allen D. Sanchez; Director, Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, 

Respondents—Appellees.

Appeal from the United States Department of Labor

Benefits Review Board

BRB No. 21-0092

Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Claimant Donna Sanchez sought benefits pursuant to the Longshore 

and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. § 901 et 

seq., as extended by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. § 1331 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 14, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-60153 Document: 00516471138 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/14/2022
No. 22-60153

2

et seq. She alleged that her husband Allen’s death was causally related to his 

work for the Island Operating Company, Incorporated (“Island”).

The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) held that Allen’s heart attack 

and death arose out of and in the course of his employment with Island. 

Accordingly, the ALJ awarded Sanchez benefits under Section 9 of the Act, 

33 U.S.C. § 909, based on Allen’s average weekly wage, id. § 910(c). Island 

appealed to the Benefits Review Board (“the Board”), challenging the 

finding that Allen’s work activities contributed to his death and, 

alternatively, the calculation of Allen’s average weekly wage. The Board 

affirmed the ALJ’s decision and order awarding benefits. Island then 

appealed to this court.

We review decisions of the Board under a highly deferential standard, 

assessing “whether it has adhered to its proper scope of review—

i.e., whether the ALJ’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence 

and are consistent with the law.” Gulf Best Elec., Inc. v. Methe, 396 F.3d 601, 

603 (5th Cir. 2004). After review of the briefs and record, we conclude that 

the Board thoroughly considered the case brought by Sanchez, fairly 

considered Island’s defenses to her claims, and committed no reversible 

error in its decision. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Board’s decision 

essentially for the reasons stated in its thorough, well-reasoned opinion.

Case: 22-60153 Document: 00516471138 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/14/2022
IIA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 914

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 20 (legislative day, OCTOBER 13), 1993

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources

AN ACT

To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate

certain segments of the Red River in Kentucky as components of the national wild and scenic rivers system, 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. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Red River Designation

5 Act of 1993’’.

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

7 Congress finds that—
2

•HR 914 RFS

1 (1) the natural, scenic, and recreational quali2 ties of the Red River in Kentucky are unique and ir3 replaceable resources; and

4 (2) the majority of the Red River corridor is

5 within the Red River National Geologic area, which

6 contains sedimentary rock formations unique to

7 Kentucky and the United States, and should there8 fore be preserved for public enjoyment.

9 SEC. 3. DESIGNATION OF RIVER.

10 Section 3(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16

11 U.S.C. 1274(a)) is amended by adding at the end the fol12 lowing new paragraph:

13 ‘‘( )(A) RED RIVER, KENTUCKY.—The 19.4-mile seg14 ment of the Red River extending from the Highway 746

15 Bridge to the School House Branch, to be administered

16 by the Secretary of Agriculture in the following classes:

17 ‘‘(i) The 9.1-mile segment known as the ‘Upper

18 Gorge’ from the Highway 746 Bridge to Swift Camp

19 Creek, as a wild river. This segment is identified as

20 having the same boundary as the Kentucky Wild

21 River.

22 ‘‘(ii) The 10.3-mile segment known as the

23 ‘Lower Gorge’ from Swift Camp Creek to the School

24 House Branch, as a recreational river.
3

•HR 914 RFS

1 ‘‘(B) There are authorized to be appropriated such

2 sums as are necessary to carry out this paragraph.’’.

3 SEC. 4. LIMITATION.

4 Nothing in this Act, or in the amendment to the Wild

5 and Scenic Rivers Act made by this Act, shall be construed

6 as authorizing any acquisition of any scenic easement that

7 without the consent of such landowner would affect any

8 regular use of relevant lands that was exercised prior to

9 the acquisition of such easement.

Passed the House of Representatives October 18,

1993.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6412

THOMAS RAND, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. ANTHONY J. PADULA, Warden of Lee Correctional Institution, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (3:08-cv-00907-HFF)

Submitted: August 26, 2009 Decided: September 2, 2009

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Rand, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Thomas Rand seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El

v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rand has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Rand’s motion for appointment of counsel and for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
---

March 31, 2010

VIA EDGAR

United States Securities and Exchange Commission

|Re: | Great Basin Gold Ltd. (the "Company")
|--- | -------------------------------------
|    | Annual Report on Form 40-F           
|    | Consent of Expert                    

This letter is provided in connection with the Company's Form
40-F annual report for the year ended December 31, 2009, and any amendments
thereto, (the Annual Report) to be filed by the Company with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC). The Annual Report
incorporates by reference the Annual Information Form of the Company for the
year ended December 31, 2009.

I hereby consent to the use of my name in connection with
reference to my involvement in the preparation of the following technical
reports (the "Technical Reports"):

- Revised Technical Report Update on the September 2009 Mineral Resource
  Estimate for the Burnstone Gold Project dated November 9, 2009;
- Revised Technical Report on the June 2009 Update of the Mineral Resource
  Estimate for Hollister Gold Mine dated October 30, 2009.

and to references to the Technical Reports, or portions
thereof, in the Annual Report and to the inclusion and incorporation by
reference of the information derived from the Technical Reports in the Annual
Report.

I also consent to the use of my name in connection with
reference to my involvement in the preparation of the Technical Reports and to
references to the Technical Reports, or portions thereof, and to the inclusion
and incorporation by reference of the information derived from the Technical
Reports in the Companys Form F-10 Registration Statements, as amended, filed
with the SEC under File No. 333-157767 and File No. 333-163021.

Yours truly,

|*/s/ P.N. Bentley*          | 
|--------------------------- | 
|Phil Bentley, Pr. Sci. Nat. | 

---
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. John F. BOISSIERE v. Ross MAGGIO, Warden, La. State Penitentiary, Hon. Frank Foil, 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge.

No. 60967.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 14, 1977.

In re: John F. Boissiere applying for writ of mandamus.

Writ refused. The trial judge having ruled on the petition, there is no merit in this application.
<PAGE>   1

                                  EXHIBIT 24.2

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY
                                ARTHUR S. PEARSON


        KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned, Arthur S. Pearson
constitutes and appoints Steven H. Moger or William D. St. John his true and
lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, for him and his name, place and stead, in any
and all capacities, to sign the Form 10-KSB of Nutraceutix, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1999, and any amendments or
supplements thereto, and to file this Power of Attorney and the Form 10-KSB with
all exhibits thereto, and to the documents in connection therewith, with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and the NASDAQ National Market System,
granting unto said attorney-in-fact and agent full power and authority to do and
perform each requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as
fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby
ratifying and confirming all that said attorney-in-fact and agent, may do or
cause to be done by virtue hereof.

        Dated this 24th day of March, 2000.

Signature:



/s/ Arthur S. Pearson
-----------------------------------
Arthur S. Pearson
***Exhibit 8.1******List of material subsidiaries***   **Legal Entity** **Country of Incorporation**    ***100% owned subsidiaries of ASML Holding N.V.:***  ASML Netherlands B.V. Netherlands (Veldhoven)ASML Finance B.V. Netherlands (Veldhoven)ASML MaskTools B.V. Netherlands (Veldhoven)ASML Germany GmbH Germany (Dresden)ASML France S.a.r.l. France (Montbonnot)ASML (UK) Ltd. UK (Paisley (Scotland))ASML Israel (2001) Ltd. Israel (Ramat-Gan)ASML Ireland Ltd. Ireland (Dublin)ASML Italy S.r.l. Italy (Avezzano)ASML Hong Kong Ltd. Hong Kong SARASML Singapore Pte. Ltd. SingaporeASML Korea Co. Ltd. Korea (Kyunggi-Do)ASML Japan Co. Ltd. Japan (Kawasaki-shi, Kanagawa-Ken)ASML Shanghai International Trading Co. Ltd. China/ Shanghai Free Trade ZoneASML (Tianjin) Co. Ltd. China (Tianjin)ASML Taiwan Ltd. Republic of China (Hsinchu)ASML Equipment Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. Malaysia (Penang)ASML US, Inc. US (Delaware)   ***100% owned subsidiaries of ASML US, Inc.:***  ASML Capital US, Inc. US (Delaware)ASML MaskTools Inc. US (Delaware)ASML Ventures 1, Inc. US (Delaware)   ***100% owned subsidiaries of ASML Hong Kong Ltd.:***  ASML Macau Commercial Offshore Ltd. Macau