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





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with the quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Century Acquisition Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph Rozelle, President 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, to the best of my knowledge that:





1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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.








Date: My 13, 2011





/s/ Joseph RozelleJoseph Rozelle

President

(Principal Executive and Financial Officer)











The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Report for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filings of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-13-00786-CR

Gilbert Hernandez, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 119TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. B-13-0249-SA, THE HONORABLE THOMAS J. GOSSETT, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Gilbert Hernandez has filed with this Court a motion to dismiss his appeal. 

The motion is signed by appellant and by his counsel in compliance with Rule 42.2(a) of the Texas

Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). Accordingly, we grant the motion and

dismiss the appeal.

__________________________________________

J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Rose

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: June 3, 2014

Do Not Publish
- BL_Colombia-10-5-1962
- BL_Colombia12-2-1963
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Division of Environmental Remediation 

Office of the Director, 12th Floor 

625 Broadway, Albany, New York 12233-7011 

Phone: (518) 402-9706 • Fax: (518) 402-9020 

Website: www.dec.ny.gov Alexander B. Grannis 

JUL 1 9 LDm Commissioner 

Mr. Walter E. Mugdan, Director 

Emergency and Remedial Response Division 

USEPA, Region 2 

290 Broadway, 19th Floor 

New York, New York 10007-1866 

Re:	 Deletion of the Peter Cooper Corporation (Markhams) Superfund Site, 

Site # 905003B [EPA ID: NYD980592547] from the National Priorities List 

Dear Mr. Mugdan: 

This letter will serve as acknowledgement that the New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) concurs with the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency's (USEPA) decision to proceed' with the deletion of the Peter Cooper 

Corporation (Markhams) Site [EPA ID: NYD980592547) located in the Town of Dayton, 

Cattaraugus County, New York from the National priorities List. NYDEC has reviewed the draft 

closeout report which documents the construction activities at the Peter Cooper Markhams Site 

and finds it to be acceptable. The landfill cap is performing as expected and is effective. 

The Site's remedies must continue to be operated and monitored according to the Site 

Management Plan (SMP) prepared by Benchmark Environmental Engineering & Science dated 

January 2009, Revised June 26, 2009. The SMP provides for the proper management of all 

remedy components post-construction, such as institutional controls and operation, maintenance 

and monitoring. 

Please be informed that this site is intended to remain on the New York State Registry of 

Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites as a Class 4 site, a site that has been remediated and/or 

closed, but requires continued site management; i.e. operation, maintenance and/or monitoring. 

If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Robert Knizek at (518) 420-9814. 

~/ D A. Desnoyers, 

Director 

Division of Environmental Remediation 

cc:	 D. Garbarini, USEPA 

K. Lynch, USEPA 

4Gears of stewordship 1970-2010
### Fw: Interagency comments on RIA , Set 2 Lydia Wegman to: Tricia Crabtree 06/01/2010 11:48 AM ----- Forwarded by Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US on 06/01/2010 11:48 AM -----

From: "Laity, James A." <James

_ A.

_ Laity@omb.eop.gov> To: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Charlotte Bertrand/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Bridgid Curry/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 06/01/2010 11:43 AM Subject: RE: Interagency comments on RIA, Set 2
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 05, 2019.

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, December 05, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A19A1956. LANYARD DEVELOPMENT, INC. et al. v. DAVID VANGILLER.

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.
Record of Ex Parte Contacts

Docket No. FAA - Directorate Identifier: 2011 -NE - 04 - AD **With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA,**  **etc)?** (You might need to submit a separate record to the Rules Docket. The AD Manual defines “ **Ex Parte Contacts** .”) ORGANIZATI ON PERSON CONTACTED DATE RESPONSE 

### Honey well Paul Leiss 

### 1 st 

### contact: 4/2 /08 Nonconcur. Attach a record of comments. Honeywell Paul Leiss 2 nd contact: 5 / 15 /09 Concur w/comments. Attach a record of comments. RAA 202 - 367 - 1252 Dave Lotterer

lotterer@RAA.org 1 st contact: 11 /07/ 08 Concur. RAA 202 - 367 - 1252 Dave Lotterer 2 nd contact: 5 / 15 /09 Concur. NBAA 217 - 532 - 6101 202 - 546 - 5722 Eli Cotti

ecotti @NBAA .org 1 st contact: 11 / 7/08 Concur. NAAA 217 - 532 - 6101 202 - 546 - 5722 Ken Degg

kdegg@agaviation.org Andrew Moorre 1 st contact: 11 / 7/08 Concur. NAAA 217 - 532 - 6101 202 - 546 - 5722 Ken Degg 2 nd contact: 5 / 15 /09 Concur. Council 331 419 - 865 - 0355 Dave Corwin

davecorwin@turbinestanda rd.com 1 st contact: 1 / 7 /08 Concur w/comments. Attach a record of comments. Council 331 419 - 865 - 0355 Dave Corwin 2 nd contact: 5 / 15 /09 Concur w/comments. Attach a record of comments.

Other/Additional Information:
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Elmer Stein, Jr., Respondent.

Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law, motion denied, count one of the indictment reinstated and matter remitted to Monroe County Court for further proceedings on the indictment. Memorandum: The People appeal from an order which, on defendant’s motion challenging sufficiency of the evidence before the Grand Jury, reduced the top count of the indictment from criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree to criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree. The People contend that the evidence before the Grand Jury was legally sufficient to establish that the value of the stolen property exceeded $3000, and that the court therefore erred in reducing that count of the indictment. We agree.

Legally sufficient evidence of value is not supplied by the opinion testimony of a victim who is not qualified to testify as an expert *(People v Share,*151 AD2d 1016, *lv denied*74 NY2d 852; *People v Sweeney,*125 AD2d 978, 979, *lv denied*69 NY2d 834; *People v Clark,*91 AD2d 1102). On the other hand, the victim is competent to supply evidence of original cost *(see, People v Carter,*19 NY2d 967), and such evidence may constitute sufficient circumstantial proof of value at the time of the crime. Proof of original cost may provide sufficient evidence of value where the difference between the cost of the item and the statutory threshold is substantial and where there is little risk that the item has depreciated in value below the statutory threshold *(see, People v Carter, supra,*at 968; *People v Beauchamp,*148 AD2d 921, 922; *People v Delaney,*127 AD2d 682, 682-683; *People v Supino,*64 AD2d 720, 721). Here, the testimony of the victim established that the stolen vehicle was a 1988 Mitsubishi pickup truck, that it cost about $6500, and *1061that it was in “excellent” condition. In the absence of evidence that the condition of the vehicle had deteriorated, there is a presumption of continuity and we thus conclude that the evidence was sufficient to permit the inference that the vehicle was worth over $3000 in June 1990, the time of the crime. (Appeal from Order of Monroe County Court, Maloy, J.— Reduce Indictment.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
Exhibit 32 

Certification of CEO and CFO 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 TPG Specialty Lending, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Joshua Easterly as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Ian Simmonds, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officer’s 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. 

 

| /s/ Joshua Easterly |
|---------------------|
| Name:               |   | Joshua Easterly |
| Title:              |   | Chief Executive Officer |
| Date:               |   | May 5, 2020 |

  

| /s/ Ian Simmonds |
|------------------|
| Name:            |   | Ian Simmonds |
| Title:           |   | Chief Financial Officer |
| Date:            |   | May 5, 2020 |

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [CERCLA-04-2018-3754; FRL-9983-19—Region 4]

# AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

# ACTION:

Notice of settlement.

# SUMMARY:

                        Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has entered into a settlement with the Whitaker Oil Company concerning                               ( print page 44874)                            the Alternate Energy Resources, Inc. Superfund Site located in Augusta, Richmond County, Georgia. The settlement addresses recovery of CERCLA costs for a cleanup action performed by the EPA at the Site.                    

# DATES:

The Agency will consider public comments on the settlement until October 4, 2018. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the proposed settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.

# ADDRESSES:

Copies of the settlement are available from the Agency by contacting Ms. Paula V. Painter, Program Analyst, using the contact information provided in this notice. Comments may also be submitted by referencing the Site's name through one of the following methods:

*Internet: https://www.epa.gov/​aboutepa/​about-epa-region-4-southeast#r4-public-notices.*
      -  U.S. Mail:                          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Superfund Division, Attn: Paula V. Painter, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.                    
      - Email: Painter.Paula@epa.gov.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paula V. Painter at 404/562-8887.

Dated: June 20, 2018.

Maurice L. Horsey, IV,

Chief, Enforcement and Community Engagement Branch, Superfund Division.

[FR Doc. 2018-19130 Filed 8-31-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk January 27, 2009

d0120 

# Order

January 27, 2009

136378(15)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 136378 COA: 283147 Wayne CC: 02-005687-01 ALEJANDRO TORRIS GARDNER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for r econsideration of this Court’s October 27, 2008 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.
FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

301 Fannin, Room 245

Houston, Texas 77002

To: John D. Kinard January 15, 2015

County: Galveston (Criminal)

Subject: RETURN OF ORIGINAL EXHIBITS

Ple ase ack nowledge the receipt of the original exhibits listed below. Please sign and return

the original to this court.

14

- 11

- 00249

- CR Charles Wayne Hines v The State of Texas 10CR0438

State ’ s Exhibit 2, a DVD

Received by: ________________________________________

Received on: ________________________________________
matter. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C.
In the Matter ofHortman Aviation Services, Inc. FAA DocketNo. FAA-2015-0635 Case No. 2010EA170043 Judge Sullivan
AGENCY'S WITHDRAWAL OF COMPLAINT The Agency, under 14 CFR Section 13.215, withdraws its Complaint in this

Respectfully submitted, Peter J. Lynch Assistant ChiefCounsel

for Enforcement By: Zacha M. erman Attorney / Federal Aviation Administration Office ofthe ChiefCounsel EnforcementDivision, Northeast Team 1Aviation Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434 

### T: 718-553-3258 F: 718-995-5699 E: Zachary.Berman@FAA.GOV

1 Dated: March 24, 2016CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this day copies of the foregoing Agency's Withdrawal of Complaintwere sent first class mail and fax as follows: Judge J. E. Sullivan U.S. Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 FAX: 202-366-7536
Hortman Aviation Services, Inc. 9800 Ashton Road Philadelphia, PA 19114 FAX: 215-677-6408
I hereby certify that on this day copies of the foregoing Agency's Withdrawal of Complaint were se!l\first class mail as follows:
Federal Aviation Adwinistration 800 Independence Avenue,S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing DocketClerk, AGC-430 Wilbur WrightBuilding- Suite 2Wl000

Date: March 24, 2015 Paralegal Specialist Federal Aviation Administration 1Aviation Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434

2
#### James R. HORNE, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 68-109.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Sept. 23, 1968.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 1286

MARVELLA WILLIAMS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. ESA MANAGEMENT, LLC , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. George Jarrod Hazel , District Judge. ( 8:17

- cv
- 00806

- GJH )

Submitted : May 24, 2018 Decided: May 30, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Marvella Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Abby Uzupis Van Grinsven, BONNER, KIERNAN, TREBACH & CROCIATA, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Marvella Williams appeals the district court’s order dismissing her complaint with prejudice for failing to comply with the court’s discovery order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Williams’ complaint with prejudice. See Mut. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Richards & Assoc. , 872 F. 2 d 88, 92 (4th Cir. 1989) (district court has “wide discretion to impose sanctions for a pa rty’s failure to comply with its discovery orders”). Accordingly, we grant Williams leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### John FARLEY and R. I. Farley, Appellants, v. Maybelle McCLELLAND, Appellee.

No. 7448.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

May 5, 1967.

W. Eugene Williams, Jr., of Blair, Regen & Williams, Venice, for appellants.

Robert L. Wilson, of Fogle, Wilson & Shingler, St. Petersburg, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The record, briefs and all papers filed in this cause having been given full consideration, and appellants having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

ALLEN, C. J., and LILES and HOB-SON, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841*et seq.*) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.                

The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than October 1, 2018.

*A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City*                     (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:                

                    1.                     *N.B.C. Bancshares in Pawhuska, Inc., Pawhuska, Oklahoma;*                     to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Bank of Cushing, Cushing, Oklahoma.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 31, 2018.

Ann Misback,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2018-19342 Filed 9-5-18; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE
#### Marie Woods et al., Respondents, v Zik Realty Corp. et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and loss of consortium, the defendant Zik Realty Corp. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Williams, J.), dated October 11, 1989, which denied its motion for summary judgment, and the defendant Gardenia Deli Foods separately appeals from an order of the same court, also dated October 11, 1989, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the orders are reversed, on the law, the respective motions by the defendants Zik Realty Corp. and Gardenia Deli Corp. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims against each of them are granted, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed; and it is further,

Ordered that the appellants are awarded one bill of costs.

The appellants contend that they made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to summary judgment by submission of affirmations of their respective attorneys with deposition testimony and other proof and that the plaintiffs failed to establish the existence of material issues of fact by evidentiary proof in admissible form.

That the appellants’ supporting proof was placed before the court by way of attorneys’ affirmations annexing deposition testimony and other proof, rather than affidavits of fact made upon personal knowledge, is not fatal to their respective motions *(see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320). Moreover, once a movant has made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment, the burden shifts to the opposing party to establish the existence of material issues of fact by evidentiary proof in admissible form *(see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra,*at 324, 325).

The defendant Janusz Machnica was cleaning an appliance on the sidewalk adjacent to premises owned by Zik Realty Corp. and leased by Gardenia Deli Foods, when oven cleaner was accidentally sprayed into the eyes of the plaintiff Marie Woods as she walked along the sidewalk. On their respective motions for summary judgment the appellants established by *607deposition testimony and documentary evidence annexed to affirmations of their attorneys that Janusz Machnica was an independent contractor. The plaintiffs failed to respond with evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact. Under these circumstances the appellants were entitled to summary judgment. Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.