alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32-2

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 200218 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Goldfield Corporation (the"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, Stephen R. Wherry, Vice President, Treasurer, AssistantSecretary and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that:

(1)   The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and result of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to The Goldfield Corporation and will beretained by The Goldfield Corporation and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Date: August 15, 2005

/s/ Stephen R. WherryStephen R. Wherry Vice President, Treasurer,   AssistantSecretary and   Chief Financial Officer
#### Nettie H. ENGLISH, Appellant, v. Harold E. BROWN, Executor of the Estate of Edward C. Brown, Deceased, Appellee.

No. 73-874.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 16, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# Cover Page 

# Change Log

# Overview

DRAFT/PRE-DECISIONAL	

# Instructions

# Core FS BIE Response

https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/cars/reference-and-guidance.htmlhttps://fiscal.treasury.gov/files/cir/XML5.0.1ExtractFilesSpecificationv201.pdfhttps://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/data/https://fiscal.treasury.gov/files/g-invoice/gtc-orders-performance-pull(current).pdfhttps://fiscal.treasury.gov/g-invoice/resources.html

# image1.png

# image2.png

# image3.png

# image4.png
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. John R. SMITH v. Frank BLACKBURN, Warden Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 61995.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 5, 1978.

In re: John R. Smith applying for remedial writs. Parish of East Baton Rouge.

Writ denied.
#### Ernest TOWNSEND, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-211.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 13, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT 99.1


                            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 The Gillette Company (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James M. Kilts,
Chief Executive 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
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; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the Company.


                               /s/ James M. Kilts
                               ----------------------------------
                               James M. Kilts
                               Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive
                               Officer


Date:  May 6, 2003



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to The Gillette Company and will be retained by The Gillette Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
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**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxely Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of GIANT GROUP, LTD. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that theCompany’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 (“Form 10-K”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and the information contained inthe Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of the Company. 

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten 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.
#### Julius SCHULTZ, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 7652.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

March 4, 1937.

Harry S. Bennett, of Detroit, Mich., for appellant.

John C. Lehr, U. S. Atty., of Detroit, Mich., for the United States.

Before MOORMAN, HICKS, and SIMONS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

It appearing to the court that the appeal in this cause has been abandoned, it is ordered that the appeal be, and the same is hereby, docketed and dismissed, the costs to be charged against the government as constructive earnings.
#### Ivan Leon MOLINARIO v. Alwynn CRONVICH, Sheriff of Jefferson Parish, et al.

No. 53925.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 20, 1973.

In re: Ivan Leon Molinario applying for writ of habeas corpus and review of denial of writ of habeas corpus by the district court.

Writ denied. The evidence at the evi-dentiary hearing shows the plea of guilty was voluntarily and intelligently made as a result of a plea bargain.

BARHAM, J.,

is of the opinion the writ should be granted. The plea of guilty is defective under Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969).
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 91

Electing Representatives Petri, Boehlert, and Saxton to the Committee on

Post Office and Civil Service.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 18, 1993

Mr. MICHEL submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

Electing Representatives Petri, Boehlert, and Saxton to the

Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

1 Resolved, That the following named Members be, and

2 they are hereby, elected to the Committee on Post Office

3 and Civil Service: Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin; Sherwood

4 L. Boehlert, New York; and Jim Saxton, New Jersey.

Æ
# C_2023261EN.01002202.xml

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/22

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Olt — Romania) — OZ v Lyoness Europe AG

(Case C-455/21, (1) Lyoness Europe)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Article 2(b) - Definition of ‘consumer’ - Contract for membership of a loyalty scheme enabling certain financial benefits to be obtained when purchasing goods and services from third-party traders)

(2023/C 261/31)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Olt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: OZ

Defendant: Lyoness Europe AG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts

must be interpreted as meaning that a natural person who becomes a member of a scheme implemented by a commercial company and allowing, inter alia, certain financial benefits in connection with the purchase, by that natural person or by other persons participating in that scheme further to his or her referral, of goods and services from that company’s business partners, where that natural person is acting for purposes which are outside his or her trade, business or profession, falls within the scope of the concept of ‘consumer’, within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 452, 8.11.2021.

---
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, February 05, 2020. 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. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, February 05, 2020 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A20A0982. COOPER SPRINGS DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LP v. CITY OF SNELLVILLE.
Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
NUMBER 13

- 16

- 00 281

- CR



### COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

DAVID TRIPLETT , A ppellant ,

v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, A ppellee

.

On a ppeal from the 214 th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.



### ORDER

Before Justices Garza, Perkes, and Longoria

Order Per Curiam

Currently pending before the Court is appellant's motion for pro se access to the

appellate record and motion for extension of time to file a pro se brief. Appellant's

counsel has filed an Anders brief herein and appellant has been unable to examine the

record so that he can file a pro se brief.2

Accord ingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the trial court ensure that appellant has

the opportunity to fully examine the appellate record on or before J anuary 4, 2017 , and it

is FURTHER ORDERED that the trial court notify this Court as to the date upon which

the a ppellate record was made available to appellant. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d

313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file a pro se brief is GRANTED.

Appellant shall have thirty (30) days from the day the appellate recor d was first made

available to him to file his pro se brief with this Court. The State shall have twenty days

thereafter to file its response, if any.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).

D elivered and filed the 9th day of December , 20 16

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           6,600
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  334,700
<ALLOWANCES>                                    20,900
<INVENTORY>                                     20,700
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               351,600
<PP&E>                                       4,560,600
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,856,500
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,248,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          419,600
<BONDS>                                        796,700
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        400
<COMMON>                                       525,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     168,600
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,248,500
<SALES>                                        397,400
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               397,400
<CGS>                                          128,200
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  267,300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                112,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    43,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             68,200
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    68,200
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

                              THE GILLETTE COMPANY
                                 Certification
           Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
    (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United
                                  States Code)


Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United States Code, the undersigned, Charles W. Cramb,  Chief Financial Officer
of The Gillette Company, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby
certify, to his knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 (the
"Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act and information contained in the Form 10-Q
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.





Date:   October 28, 2004                   /s/ Charles W. Cramb
                                           ___________________________________
                                           Charles W. Cramb
                                           Senior Vice President and
                                           Chief Financial Officer






A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to The Gillette Company (the "Company") and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
# C_2021320EN.01002901.xml

| 9.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/29

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 25 May 2021 — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v F.

(Case C-324/21)

(2021/C 320/29)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Respondent: F.

Question referred

Must Article 29 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (OJ 2013 L 180[, p. 31]) be interpreted as meaning that a current transfer time limit, as referred to in Article 29(1) and (2), restarts at the point at which the foreign national, having obstructed the transfer by a Member State by absconding, lodges a fresh application for international protection in another (in this case, a third) Member State?

---
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 11, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32072-32073]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14824]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[S-97-2018]


Foreign-Trade Zone 81--Portsmouth, New Hampshire; Application for 
Subzone, Albany Safran Composites LLC, Rochester, New Hampshire

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) 
Board by the Pease Development Authority, Division of Ports and 
Harbors, grantee of FTZ 81, requesting subzone status for the 
facilities of Albany Safran Composites LLC, located in Rochester, New 
Hampshire. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of 
the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the 
regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally 
docketed on July 5, 2018.
    The proposed subzone would consist of the following sites: Site 1 
(50 acres) 85 Innovation Drive, Rochester; and, Site 2 (27 acres) 216 
Airport Drive, Rochester. The proposed subzone would be subject to the 
existing activation limit of FTZ 81. A notification of proposed 
production activity has been submitted and is being processed under CFR 
400.37 (Doc. B-27-2018).
    In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Kathleen Boyce of 
the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make 
recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions 
shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the 
address below. The closing period for their receipt is August 20, 2018. 
Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the 
foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period 
to September 4, 2018.
    A copy of the application will be available for public inspection 
at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, 
Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce,

[[Page 32073]]

1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the 
``Reading Room'' section of the FTZ Board's website, which is 
accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.
    For further information, contact Kathleen Boyce at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#652e04110d0900000b4b270a1c06002511170401004b020a13"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fdb69c899591989893d3bf92849e98bd898f9c9998d39a928b">[email protected]</span></a> or (202) 482-1346.

    Dated: July 5, 2018.
Elizabeth Whiteman,
Acting Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-14824 Filed 7-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Attachment D ICR for Tier 2 Data Collection for Certain Chemicals Under the EDSP (EPA IC

Test

2011 Test 

Cost ($)a

2014 Adjusted

Test Cost ($)b

Paperwork 

Cost ($)c

Management 

Cost ($)d

Technical 

Cost ($)e

Clerical 

Cost ($)f

Management 

(Hours)g

Te

(H

Japanese Quail Two-Generation Toxicity Test 336,200 355,500 124,425 24,885 80,876 18,664 201 

Larval Amphibian Growth and Development Test 258,920 273,784 95,824 19,165 62,286 14,374 154 

Reproduction and Fertility Effects 378,479 400,206 140,072 28,014 91,047 21,011 226 

Medaka Extended One-Generation Reproduction Test 319,320 337,651 118,178 23,636 76,816 17,727 190 

Total 1,292,919 $ $ 1,367,141 $ 478,499 $ 311,025$ 95,700 71,776$ 771 

35%

20%

65%

15%

$ 124.11

$ 

j Total burden hours is used in Table 6 of this ICR for estimating the burden & costs related to data generation paperwork activities.

Note: Except for the labor rates, numbers have been rounded to the nearest whole digit.As of October 23, 2014 

Calculations for Paperwork Burden and Costs for Data Generation Activities

i Based on total estimated clerical costs (f) divided by the loaded labor rate for clerical staff.h Based on total estimated technical costs (e) divided by the loaded labor rate for technical staff.g Based on total estimated managerial costs (d) divided by the loaded labor rate for managers.f Calculated as 15% of (c), which is 35% of the total estimated test costs.e Calculated as 65% of (c), which is 35% of the total estimated test costs.d Calculated as 20% of (c), which is 35% of the total estimated test costs.c Based on 35% of the total estimated test costs.

Estimated Costs in Dollars Est

a Estimated costs are based on average costs provided by OPP and OPPT.b The estimated costs for these assays were adjusted using an inflation factor to convert 2011$ to 2014$ (approximately 5.74067% increase). Specifically, the estimated cost 

 entered into the online inflation calculator provided by US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor and Statistics at: http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm.
#### Robert MELTSNER, Appellant, v. The AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF HARTFORD, CONN., C. Clements Insurance Agency, Inc., and Emile F. Poertner, Appellees.

No. 69-160.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Dec. 16, 1969.

*850Marvin Weinstein, Miami Beach, and Herbert A. Kuvin, Key Biscayne, for appellant.

Blackwell, Walker & Gray, and James E. Tribble, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and BARK-DULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Robert Meltsner appeals from an adverse final judgment rendered after the trial court directed a verdict against him at the conclusion of all the evidence.

Appellant argues several different points for reversal but we find it necessary to discuss only two of these points.

We find that there was sufficient evidence presented which would preclude the trial court from directing a verdict on the issue of negligence under Count Two of the amended complaint. National State Bk. of Nwk. v. Robert Richter Hotel, Fla.App. 1966, 186 So.2d 321; Chowning v. Pierce, Fla.App. 1965, 174 So.2d 42; and Chilton v. Dockstader, Fla.App.1961, 126 So.2d 281. We must, therefore, reverse on this point.

Appellant claims that error was committed when the trial court admitted into evidence an insurance policy which had not been countersigned by a local agent in accordance with § 624.0224(1), Fla.Stat., F.S.A.

While this is an accurate statement of the law in Florida, it overlooks the fact that such signature may be waived. See Royal Exchange Assurance of London v. Almon, 202 Ala. 374, 80 So. 456 (1918); Rogers v. American Nat. Ins. Co., 145 Ga. 570, 89 S. E. 700 (1916); State ex rel. Chorn v. Hudson, Mo.App. 1920, 222 S.W. 1049; 29 Am. Jur. Insurance § 214 and 17 Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice § 9442. We find that under the facts herein there was a waiver of the requirement that the insurance policy be countersigned by a local producing agent and hold that no error was committed by permitting the written insurance policy into evidence.

We have examined appellant’s other points for reversal and find them to be without merit.

The order admitting the written insurance policy into evidence is affirmed. The final judgment rendered on the directed verdict is reversed as to the negligence issue presented under Count Two of the amended complaint and remanded for determination by a jury of the issue of negligence, if any.

It is so ordered.
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 27

To amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit bills and

joint resolutions from containing more than one subject.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. ZIMMER (for himself, Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey, Mr. CASTLE, and Mr.

ROHRABACHER) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on Rules

RESOLUTION

To amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to

prohibit bills and joint resolutions from containing more

than one subject.

1 Resolved, That rule XXI of the Rules of the House

2 of Representatives is amended by adding at the end the

3 following new clause—

4 ‘‘9. (a) No bill, joint resolution, or amendment to any

5 bill or joint resolution that contains more than a single

6 subject may be received or considered in the House. A

7 question of order on the number of subjects in any such

8 bill, joint resolution or amendment thereto, may be raised

9 at any time.
2

HRES 27 IH

1 ‘‘(b) The single subject of any bill or joint resolution

2 shall be expressed in the title.

3 ‘‘(c) Paragraphs (a) and (b) do not apply to a bill,

4 joint resolution, or amendment thereto that complies, con5 solidates, revises, or rearranges the statutory law.’’.

Æ