alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
32.1





AIRTRAN
HOLDINGS, INC.





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 AirTran Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Robert L. Fornaro, President and Chief Executive Officer and Arne G. Haak,
Senior Vice President of Finance, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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, as amended; and





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





October
      26, 2009
            
            By:
            
            /s/
      Robert L. FornaroRobert
      L. FornaroPresident
      and Chief Executive OfficerBy:
            
            /s/
      Arne G. HaakArne
      G. HaakSenior
      Vice President of Finance, Treasurer
              and
      Chief Financial
Officer
#### Ance KING, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. O-106.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 11, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
America’s Dairyland has led the nation in 

cheese production for more than a century.

35

Cheese consumption is at an

all-time high: Americans eat 

pounds of cheese each year.

4th

4.6

3.1

Wisconsin ranks 4th in world cheese production

(in billions of pounds)

United States

Germany

France

Wisconsin

Italy

2.6

WISCONSIN WINS

more awards for its

cheese than any other

state or country!

WISCONSIN

PRODUCES:

26% of all cheese 

made in the U.S.

45% of U.S. specialty 

cheese

600+ varieties, types &

styles of cheese

65+ Wisconsin 

originals

2nd

3rd

1st

3% over the past year

29% over the past decade

3%

29%

Production is up!

WI CA ID

26%

21%

8%

3.1

2.4

0.9

7%

0.8

6%

0.8

NY

6%

0.7 3%

0.4 2%

0.3

2%

0.2

2%

0.2

NM MN PA SD IA OH

2015 Share 2015 Production (billion pounds)

11.8

THE U.S. PRODUCED A RECORD-BREAKING

BILLION POUNDS OF CHEESE IN 2015
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








In
connection with the Annual Report of Congoleum Corporation (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Howard N. Feist
III, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
the best of 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 condition and results of operations of the
      Company.











March 31,
2008





/s/ Howard N. Feist
III


Howard N.
Feist III


Chief
Financial Officer








A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Congoleum Corporation and will be retained by Congoleum Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### Wilson F. LONG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 3379.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

April 22, 1971.

Rehearing Denied May 26, 1971.

J. Nilas Young of Young & Burson, Eunice, for plaintiff-appellant.

Frugé & Foret by Jack C. Frugé, Ville Platte, for defendant-appellee.

Before HOOD, MILLER and DO-MENGEAUX, JJ.

DOMENGEAUX, Judge.

The discussion to be found in the companion case of Gary Don Vidrine v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, La.App., 247 So.2d 660 decided on this date is applicable to and controlling of this case.

*665Accordingly, for the reasons assigned therein, the judgment of the trial court in the instant case is affirmed at appellant’s costs.

Affirmed.
#### SOUTHERN INSURANCE CO., Appellant, v. CHARLOTTE STORAGE & WAREHOUSE, INC., Appellee.

No. 70-830.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 30, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 15, 1971.

Jerome Pratt, Palmetto, for appellant.

Charles J. Cheves, Jr., of Wotitzky, Wo-titzky & Cheves, Punta Gorda, for appel-lee.

MANN, Judge.

Newly acquired vehicles are covered under a clause in the typical insurance policy like that set forth in Martin v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co., Fla.App.2d 1970, 235 So.2d 14, if all of the insured’s vehicles are insured by the same carrier, Charlotte Storage owned a vehicle not covered by the $250-deductible collision policy which covered its many vehicles in regular use. The vehicle not listed in the schedule was worth less than $250, and its complete destruction would not give rise to a collision claim. Further, it was not in service, although it would run. Charlotte acquired a new vehicle which was wrecked before inclusion on the policy, but within the 30-day period for which newly acquired vehicles are covered.

The trial judge correctly held that the existence of a vehicle titled in the insured’s name, but of nominal value and not used in its business, did not deprive the insured of coverage on the newly acquired *726vehicle on the ground that not all of its vehicles were insured by the carrier. See *Martin,*supra; Civil Service Employees Insurance Co. v. Wilson, 1963, 222 Cal.App.2d 519, 35 Cal.Rptr. 304; Canal Ins. Co. v. Brooks, W.D.La.1962, 201 F.Supp. 124.

The insurer next contends that the newly acquired vehicle clause is void ab in-itio in this case because it was not applicable and could not be applicable to a corporation. That clause refers to the “insured * * * or his spouse if a resident of the same household.” Southern Insurance Company’s lawyer argues that this clause cannot apply because a corporation cannot have a spouse. Maybe not, but when the insurer issued, on a printed form prepared by it, insurance covering Charlotte Storage and Warehouse, Inc. against the damage it later sustained, it knew perfectly well that Charlotte Storage and Warehouse, Inc. was, and always will be, an unmarried corporation. It can be and was an “insured” under the policy.

Affirmed.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and Mc-NULTY, J., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Nos. 333-44399, 33-80993, 33-80995, 33-91506 and 33-93148) on Form S-8 and the
Registration Statements (Nos. 333-03351 and 333-03766) on Form S-3 of Cox
Communications, Inc. of our report dated February 3, 1998 on the consolidated
financial statements of Sprint Spectrum Holding Company, L.P. and subsidiaries
(which expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph
referring to the emergence from the developmental stage of Sprint Spectrum
Holding Company, L.P. and subsidiaries) for each of the three years ended
December 31, 1997 appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Cox
Communications, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1997.



/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Kansas City, Missouri
March 17, 1998
# C_2011299EN.01000101.xml

| 11.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 299/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 299/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6353 — CIE/COM HEM)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 299/01

On 20 September 2011, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6353. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6353. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
#### CENTRAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Mutual Insurance Company of the State of Ohio, Appellant, v. Miguel ESPINA, Esther Espina, Germaine Toran et al., Appellees.

No. 67-570.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

March 12, 1968.

Stephens, Demos, Magill & Thornton, Miami, for appellant.

Glasel, Meyer, Leben, Fixel & Gaines and Henry L. Kaye, Hollywood, for appel-lee Germaine Toran.

Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder, Carson & Wahl, Miami, for appellee Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

Before BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ., and LOPEZ, AQUILINO, Jr., Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal seeks review of a final order dismissing an action for declaratory relief, *145pursuant to the provisions of Ch. 87, Fla. Stat., F.S.A.

The appellant sought to have certain rights adjudicated under the provisions of an insurance policy issued by it to the appellee, Alfonso T. Toran. In particular, it related to the question of whether or not its insured sustained an injury by an uninsured automobile which was defined, among other things, as one “with respect to which there is a bodily injury liability bond or insurance policy applicable at the time of the accident but the company writing the same denies coverage thereunder * * * The appellees, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, may or may not have had liability insurance which would have covered the accident involved.

The appellee, Germaine Toran, as the widow and executrix of the estate of Alfonso T. Toran, filed an uninsured motorist claim in arbitration against the appellant, which prompted the instant action in the trial court. Among other things, the suit sought to have adjudicated whether or not the liability carriers of the appellees, Miguel Espina and Esther Es-pina, had properly denied coverage.

We affirm the action of the trial judge under the opinion of the Supreme Court of Florida in Columbia Casualty Co. v. Zimmerman, Fla.1952, 62 So.2d 338, and this court’s opinion in State Farm Mutual Ins. Co. v. Couch, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 786.

It is apparent from the record that the Espinas carriers either contended that their policies were not applicable to the accident or that they denied coverage. Therefore, the plain provisions of the appellant’s policy, quoted above, met the test to activate the uninsured motorist provision of the appellant’s policy. Germaine Toran should be permitted to prosecute her arbitration. Of course,- in the event the appellant is required to pay any claim in those proceedings, it will be subrogated to the rights of the claimant,1 and this proceeding should not be construed as preventing any further action on its subrogation rights against the appellees, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company.

Therefore, the order here under review is hereby affirmed.

1

. § 627.0851(4), Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
# C_2011269EN.01000101.xml

| 10.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/1

---

2011/C 269/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 252, 27.8.2011

OJ C 252, 27.8.2011

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 238, 13.8.2011

OJ C 232, 6.8.2011

OJ C 226, 30.7.2011

OJ C 219, 23.7.2011

OJ C 211, 16.7.2011

OJ C 204, 9.7.2011

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
#### James Molinaro et al., Appellants, v Kathryn L. Bedke et al., Respondents.

[721 NYS2d 534]

—Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered January 14, 2000, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint as barred by res judicata, and denied plaintiffs’ motion to serve an amended complaint, deemed an appeal from the judgment, same court and Justice, entered May 15, 2000, dismissing the complaint, and so considered, the judgment is unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The appeal should be considered on the merits even though plaintiffs have not appealed the judgment that ministerially implemented the order they did appeal (CPLR 5501 [c]; *see, Morris & Partners v Alfin, Inc.,*234 AD2d 56; *Neuman v Otto,*114 AD2d 791). The action was properly dismissed on the ground that plaintiffs’ claim of legal malpractice is barred by the order rendered in the underlying action permitting defendants to withdraw and recognizing their claim to a charging lien on account of their services in that action *(see, Chisholm-Ryder Co. v Sommer & Sommer,*78 AD2d 143). The record clearly shows that it was a charging lien that defendants sought, and not, as plaintiffs claim, a retaining lien, and it would not necessarily avail plaintiffs even if it were a retaining lien that had been recognized in the underlying action *(cf., Summit Solomon & Feldesman v Matalon,*216 AD2d 91, 92, *lv denied*86 NY2d 711; *Sage Realty Corp. v Proskauer Rose,*251 AD2d 35, 39). Nor does it avail plaintiffs for purposes of their malpractice claim that the order recognizing defendants’ charging lien did not fix the amount thereof, a task that could properly be deferred pending resolution of the underlying action *(see, Klein v Eubank,*87 NY2d 459; *cf., Butler, Fitzgerald & Potter v Gelmin,*235 AD2d 218, 219). Of course, plaintiffs can challenge the reasonableness of defendants’ claimed fee in defense of defendants’ counterclaims. The motion court *243properly denied plaintiffs leave to serve an amended complaint raising only the barred malpractice claims. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams, Mazzarelli and Friedman, JJ.
P. 1



# OAR Box 

# 1875 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 26 ) I I-E-4 4
Docket Number: 

# A-90-1 9

Printed 12/1/200811:12:45AM

Sheet 26 of 86P. 2 

## A-90-1 9 MA Y2 8 I99 2 ll-E-4 4
tiosr^m UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y I -.<9K^1 \

Offic e ofAi rQualit yPlannin g an d Standard s \ -4Ml£fr
- /

Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolin a 2771 1
MA Y2 8 I99 2 

### nt c 

### i B MEMORANDU

M SUBJECT : Teleconferenc e o n th e Hazardou s Organi c NESHA P (HON ) FROM : Daphn e McMurre r t 2

Standard s Developmen t Branch , ES D (MD-13 ) TO : Th e File s On Marc h23 , 199 2 representative s o f th e Standard s Developmen t Branch , Emissio n Standard s Division , Offic e o f Ai r Qualit yPlanning an d Standard s (OAQPS ) conducte d a teleconferenc e wit hrepresentative s o f th e Chemica l Manufacturer s Associatio n (CMA ) an

d representative s o f CM Amembe r companies
. Thi s teleconferenc e wa s hel d t o discus s idea s tha t ha d bee n raise d i n a February13 , 199 2 meetin g attende d b yrepresentative s o f OAQPS , CM Aan d CM Amembe r companies
. Th e Februarymeetin g wa s hel d s o tha t OAQP S staf f coul d explai n th e provision s o f th e draf t propose d HON . Th e Marc hteleconferenc e wa s use d t o clarif yth e reguirement s i n th e Decembe r 24 , 199 1 draf t propose d HO Nan d t o discuss , i n a preliminaryway , some idea s fo r potentia l change s t o tha t draf t proposal
. Th e following aspect s o f th e HO Nwer e discusse d during th e Marc h23 , 1992/ : (1 ) th e HONImplementatio n plan ; (2 ) th e definitio n o f a proces s vent ; (3 ) th e possibilit yo f adding a low flo wcut-of f t o th e proces s ven t provisions ; (4 ) th e nee d fo r contro l o f intermitten t proces s vents ; (5 ) th e nee d fo r specifi c languag e excluding lowle g drains , highpoin t bleed s an d bypasse s fromth e proces s ven t definition ; (6 ) th e possibilit yo f using a Departmen t o f Transportatio n regulatio n t o ensur e th e vapo r tightnes s o f truck s an d rai l car s transporting chemical s regulate d b

yth e HON ; (7 ) th e nee d fo r paramete r monitorin g fo r Grou p 2 proces s vents , especiall ythos e withou t a recoverydevic e i n place ; (8 ) th e nee d fo r combining proces s vent s fo r Tota l Resourc e Effectivenes s (TRE ) calculations ; an d (9 ) th e possibilit yo f using engineerin g estimate s instead o f paramete r monitoring result s i n TR E calculations
.
Table 6.  Homeownership Rates by Area:  Fourth Quarter 2006 and 2007
          (in percent)



                                     Fourth      Fourth         90-Percent
Area                                quarter    quarter  Confidence Interval (&plusmn;)a
                                     2006       2007    of 2007 rate of difference

United States.....................      68.9       67.8        0.5         0.4

  Inside Metropolitan
     Statistical Areas............      67.6       66.4        1.3         0.5
    In principal cities...........      54.4       53.0        1.0         0.5
    Not in principal cities
    (suburbs).....................      76.4       75.3        1.2         0.5
  Outside Metropolitan
    Statistical Areas.............      75.7       75.0        2.6         0.7

 Northeast........................      65.3       64.6        0.9         0.8
 Midwest..........................      73.0       71.7        1.0         0.7
 South............................      70.8       70.0        0.9         0.6
 West.............................      64.5       62.7        1.2         0.8


aA 90-percent confidence interval is a measure of an estimate's reliability.  The larger the 
confidence interval is, in relation to the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate.

Note:  Metropolitan Statistical Area data for 2005 and later are not comparable to earlier data.  
Beginning in  first quarter 2005, the Current Population Survey/Housing Vacancy Survey is using the 
new metropolitan and micropolitan definitions that were announced by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
in June 2003, and were based on the application of the 2000 standards to Census 2000 data.  OMB announced 
updates as of December 2003, based on application of the 2000 standards to more recent Census Bureau estimates.  
In this report, outside Metropolitan Statistical Areas includes micropolitan and non-metropolitan statistical areas.  
The December 2003 definitions are available at:  
http//www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metrodef.html and http:/www/census.gov/population/estimates/about metro.html.
#### Merlena JOHNSON, Appellant, v. Martin ROSSBACH, Appellee.

No. 72-1249.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 30, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY, a New York corporation, Appellant, v. Romelda SHEPPARD and Arthur Sheppard, her husband, Appellees.

No. 66-321.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Jan. 10, 1967.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 8, 1967.

Dean, Adams, George & Wood, Jeanne Heyward, Miami, for appellant.

Carey, Dwyer, Austin, Cole & Stephens and Edward A. Perse, Miami, for appellees.

Before HENDRY, C. J., SWANN, J., and KANNER, A. O., Associate Judge,

PER CURIAM.

Sears appeals from an adverse final judgment, after a jury trial, in a slip and fall suit by a business invitee.

Appellants claim that the appellees failed to prove a prima facie case of negligence sufficient to go to the jury and that the trial judge should have granted their motions for directed verdict, for new trial, or for judgment non obstante veredicto.

The record on appeal indicates that there was conflicting evidence concerning the creation of the conditions alleged to have caused the accident. The evidence of negligence here was slight but there was sufficient evidence of negligence to withstand the motion for directed verdict and it was proper to submit the question to the jury,1 which was entitled to make reasonable deductions and inferences from the evidence.2

No error having been clearly demonstrated, the judgment is

Affirmed.

1

. Mercy Hospital, Inc. v. Larkins, Fla.App.1965, 174 So.2d 408.

2

. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Gary, Fla.1951, 57 So.2d 10.
# C_2011308EN.01000102.xml

| 20.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 308/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 308/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6333 — BMW/ING Car Lease)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 308/02

On 23 September 2011, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6333. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6333. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
# A

http://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/files/annual19/ann19def.pdf