alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Pearson plc (the Company) for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2014
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robin Freestone, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18
U.S.C. Section 1350), 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: March 26, 2015



/s/ Robin FreestoneRobin FreestoneChief Financial Officer
# •

•

• SPA 19 RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 164 Kraft Mill Steam Stripper CondensateExclusion 63 FR 18504-18751 April 15, 1998 (RCRA Cluster 

## vm, non-HSWA provisions)

STAn;; ANALOGIS: FEDERALREQUIREMENTS FEDERAL RCRACITATION ANALOGOUS STATECITATION WAC 173-303- EQUIV- LESS MORE BROADER STRJN- STRJN- AI.£NT GENT GENT IN SCOPE PART 261 - IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE SUBPART A - GENERAL 

### t EXCLUSIONS add new paragraph; condensates derived from overhead gases from kraft mill steam strippers used to comply with 40 CFR 26 1.4(a)(l5) 071(3)(mm) X 63.446(e); exemption applies only to combustion at mill generating condensates

April 15, 1998 - Page 1 of 1 CL 164.19 - Revised: 6118198 Printed: 12119/01
Verizon Florida Inc.



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 on Form 10-Q of Verizon Florida Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the
Company certifies 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) 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 results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
periods presented in the Report.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |  |  | 
|---------------------- |  |  |  | 
|                       |  |  | 
|Dated: August 12, 2003 |  |  |  | 
|                       |  |  |  | 



|                       |  |  |  | 
|---------------------- |  |  |  | 
|                       |  |  | 
|Dated: August 12, 2003 |  |  |  | 
|                       |  |  |  | 



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
Verizon Florida Inc. and will be retained by Verizon Florida Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 210 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                  House Calendar No. 60

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 210

                          [Report No. 103-160]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

  Waiving certain points of order against the bill (H.R. 2492) making 
appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia and other 
activities chargeable in whole or in part against the revenues of said 
  District for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994, and for the 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 28, 1993

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

                                                  House Calendar No. 60
103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 210

                          [Report No. 103-160]

  Waiving certain points of order against the bill (H.R. 2492) making 
appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia and other 
activities chargeable in whole or in part against the revenues of said 
  District for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994, and for the 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 28, 1993

    Mr. Bonior, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Waiving certain points of order against the bill (H.R. 2492) making 
appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia and other 
activities chargeable in whole or in part against the revenues of said 
  District for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994, and for the 
                            other purposes.

    Resolved, That all points of order against consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 2492) making appropriations for the government of the 
District of Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in 
part against the revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1994, and for other purposes, for failure to comply with 
the provisions of clause 7 of rule XXI are waived. During consideration 
of the bill, all points of order against provisions in the bill for 
failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived.
```
#### BENJAMIN P. TOWNSEND *vs.*JOHN T. TOWNSEND. SAME *vs.*JOHN T. TOWNSEND.

Though this court, in the' exercise of equitable powers, and to prevent the abuse of its process, will to a certain extent inquire into the consideration of a judgment; it will not in general let parties into an investigation here which belongs more appropriately to chancery.

New Castle,

May term, 1848.

Townsend *vs.*Townsend; judgment dated September 9, 1844; real debt $1,054 37; and judgment October 31, 1845; real debt $975 00.

On motion of *Mr. Gray*and affidavit filed, rule to show cause why the above judgment should not be opened and the defendant let into a trial.

The affidavit stated that the judgments were founded on bonds and warrants, for which there was no consideration beyond $600; that they were executed ignorantly by the defendant, on the pursuasion of the plaintiff, and in confidence that they would not be used to his injury; that the plaintiff refuses to come to a settlement, though defendant has delivered him grain since the execution of the bonds enough to pay what is due on them; and that in the execution of the bonds he was imposed on by the plaintiff.

On the hearing the court discharged the rule, because no reason was shown at present for this interference in behalf of a party who had voluntarily given the bonds of which he now complains; but which there was no present effort to enforce by execution process.

The court has an- equitable power of inquiring into the consideration or amount due on a judgment, under certain circumstances; but not under all circumstances. That is the business and jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery. This affidavit and motion amount to a bill in equity, and it is founded on the usual grounds of equity jurisdiction, fraud and want of consideration.

It may be, that the court will interfere to prevent the unjust use of its powers in execution of a judgment fraudulently obtained, or upon which there is nothing due, by reason of payments or acts subsequent to the judgment.

But here is no such ground. The judgments exist on the dockets of the court; they are there by the act of the defendant, under his seal, which he is not permitted to deny in a court of law. There is no attempt at present to enforce these judgments by the process of this court; there is no allegation of payment; and the applica*21tian to this court is merely to set aside these judgments, on the ground of fraud and imposition in the original making of the bonds, which is the subject of equity jurisdiction elsewhere.

*Mr.*Gray, for the motion.

*Mr. Rogers,*contra.
EXHIBIT 32.01



                CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350
          OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE



In connection with the Quarterly Report of General Employment
Enterprises, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
March 31, 2007 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report"), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as
an officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to his 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)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
            all material respects, the financial condition and results of
            the operations of the Company.



Date:  May 4, 2007                  By:  /s/ Herbert F. Imhoff, Jr.
                                    Herbert F. Imhoff, Jr.
                                    Chairman of the Board, Chief
                                    Executive Officer and President
                                    (Chief executive officer)


Date:  May 4, 2007                  By:  /s/ Kent M. Yauch
                                    Kent M. Yauch
                                    Vice President, Chief Financial
                                    Officer and Treasurer
                                    (Chief financial officer)
# Official Journal C 267/2011

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2011.267.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 267 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 549 September 2011 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2011.267.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 267

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 549 September 2011

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Auditors |
| 2011/C 267/01 | Report by the external auditor on the Court of Auditors’ accounts for the financial year 2010 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Auditors

2011/C 267/01

Report by the external auditor on the Court of Auditors’ accounts for the financial year 2010

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ANTHONY CURTIS DOSWELL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-93-483-HAR, CA-97-3161-AW)

Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: November 16, 1998

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Curtis Doswell, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew George Warrens

Norman, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Doswell’s conviction became final in June 1995, and he did

not file his § 2255 motion until November 1997 -- more than one

year after the date the conviction became final and more than one

year after the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective

Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214.

2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Curtis Doswell seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994

& Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal, although on the

alternative ground that Doswell’s motion was filed outside the oneyear limitations period imposed by § 2255.* Doswell’s motion for

appointment of counsel is denied. 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
# Official Journal C 236/23 S

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 236 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4723 September 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 236

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4723 September 2004

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2004/C 236/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2004/C 236/2 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case No COMP/M.3491 — BAE SYSTEMS/ALVIS) (1) | 2 |
| 2004/C 236/3 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case No COMP/M.3480 — 3i/KEOLIS) (1) | 2 |
| 2004/C 236/4 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case No COMP/M.3541 — TPG POST/ESSENT RETAIL/CENDRIS-BSC JV) (1) | 3 |
| 2004/C 236/5 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case No COMP/M.3346 — NYK REEFERS/LAURITZEN COOL/LCL JV) (1) | 3 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2004/C 236/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2004/C 236/2

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case No COMP/M.3491 — BAE SYSTEMS/ALVIS) (1)

2

2004/C 236/3

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case No COMP/M.3480 — 3i/KEOLIS) (1)

2

2004/C 236/4

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case No COMP/M.3541 — TPG POST/ESSENT RETAIL/CENDRIS-BSC JV) (1)

3

2004/C 236/5

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case No COMP/M.3346 — NYK REEFERS/LAURITZEN COOL/LCL JV) (1)

3

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### SURREY’S LTD. OF CARRIAGE HOUSE Inc., d/b/a Paul Michaels, Appellant, v. Robert BLUM et al., Appellees.

No. 71-1211.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 2, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal quashed.
**Exhibit 31.1**
I, William E. Crow, the Chief Executive    Officer and President of Friedman Industries, Incorporated, a Texas    corporation, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof Friedman Industries, Incorporated;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report;

     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

     4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

          a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;

          b) [intentionally omitted per SEC release 33-8238]

          c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

          d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant'sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

     5. The registrant's other certifying officers(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant's board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

          a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

          b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Dated: November 14, 2006 /s/  WILLIAM E. CROW Chief Executive Officer and President
FEATHERRIVERAIRQUALITYMANAGEMENTDISTRICTINRE:RESOLUTIONADOPTINGRULE3.19,RESOLUTIONNO.1998-__6_VEHICLEANDMOBILEEQUIPMENTCOATINGOPERATIONSWHEREAS,variousprovisionsofdivision16oftheHealth&SafetyCodeauthorizetheFeatherRiverAirQualityManagementDistrictBoardtoadopt,amend,orrepealrulesandregulations;andWHEREAS,theBoardseekstheimplementationofconsistentairqualityplanningthroughthereductionofemissionsofvolatileorganiccompoundsbytheapplicationofcontrolstovehicleandmobilecoatingoperationsasidentifiedinRule3.19;andWHEREAS,theBoardhasheldapublichearingsolicitingcomments,concernsandrecommendationsonproposedrule3.19.NOW,THEREFORE,THEFOLLOWINGFINDINGSHAVEBEENMADE:1.IthasbeendemonstratedtothesatisfactionoftheFeatherRiverAirQualityManagementDistrictBoardthataneedexiststoadoptRule3.19.2.HealthandSafetyCodesection40702authorizestheadoptionofrulesandregulationsnecessarytoexecutethepowersanddutiesoftheDistrict.3.ThereisnoindicationatthistimethatRule3.19isnotwritteninsuchamannerthatthepersonsaffectedbyitcaneasilyunderstandit.4.TheregulationhasbeenreviewedbytheAirResourcesBoardwhichhasdeterminedtheregulationisconsistentwithexistingstatutes,courtdecisions,andstateandfederalregulations.AnyduplicationwithexistingstateorfederalregulationsisnecessaryorpropertoexecutethepowersanddutiesoftheFeatherRiverAirQualityManagementDistrict.5.AdoptionofRule3.19willfulfilloneofthecommitmentsmadeinthe1997DistrictAttainmentPlanforreductionofozoneprecursors.NOW,THEREFORE,BEITRESOLVEDthatRule3.19-VehicleandMobileEquipmentCoatingOperations,acopyofwhichisattachedheretoasExhibitAandincorporatedhereinbythisreference,isherebyadopted.PASSEDANDADOPTEDbytheFeatherRiverAirQualityManagementDistrictataspecialmeetingonAugust3,1998bythefollowingvote:AYES:DirectorsMunger,Schrader,Akin,HelderandCartoscelli.NOES:NoneABSENT:DirectorsAmaroABSTAIN:NoneATTEST:CLERKOFTHEDISTRICTBOARDFORMANDLEGALSUFFICIENCYG/w-'/(;v-BoardLegalAdvisor
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           5,664
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  723,958
<ALLOWANCES>                                    60,978
<INVENTORY>                                     52,196
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               756,252
<PP&E>                                      10,348,727
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,508,515
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,404,379
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,237,910
<BONDS>                                      1,575,883
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     49,984
<COMMON>                                     1,400,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     297,611
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,404,379
<SALES>                                      1,574,632
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,574,632
<CGS>                                          515,970
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,031,866
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    21
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              59,443
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                483,302
<INCOME-TAX>                                   193,335
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            289,967
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   289,967
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Paul SANDERS.

No. 61723.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 17, 1978.

In re: Paul Sanders applying for writs of certiorari.

Writ denied.