alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**CERTIFICATION      OF**

**CHIEF      EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND**

**CHIEF      FINANCIAL OFFICER**

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

| 1.     | Such                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30,                2006,                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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for                the                period ended September 30, 2006, fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Eastern                Services Holdings, Inc. |
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |

**EASTERN      SERVICES HOLDINGS, INC.**

*/s/      Akhee Rahman*
#### Wanda Leblanc SAVOY, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. The STONE OIL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 86-606.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

June 26, 1987.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 12, 1987.

Roger Sellers, Abbeville, Charles N. Wooten, Andrew Gates, III, Lafayette, for plaintiffs-appellees.

Charles Bailey, Lafayette, for defendants-appellants.

John McCollam, of Gordon, Arata, McCo-llam, Stuart & Duplantis, New Orleans, for appellee.

Before DOMENGEAUX, LABORDE and YELVERTON, JJ.

YELVERTON, Judge.

For the reasons stated in the consolidated case of *Bares v. Stone Oil Corporation,*510 So.2d 102 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1987), the judgment of the trial court is reversed and set aside and the case is hereby remanded for further proceedings consistent with that opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.
EXHIBIT 23.1 

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS 

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-99755, 333-91138, 333-68586, 333-68096, 333-60676,333-51642, 333-89701, 333-66913, 333-44877, 333-43905, 333-36527, 333-26869, 333-24753, 333-2600) of Verity, Inc. of our report dated June 13, 2003 relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form10-K. 

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

 

San Jose, California 

August 7, 2003
Martin, Michael (OST)

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

'-- ., '--

- -, . "1"- '("~=- -::.J:-,:,Richard Slutzker <iifurnish2@yahoo.co.uk>

;~,,':':.',"i,I..it~esday, April 29, 2014 2:14 PM

Martin, Michael (OSn

':: ,'~ i:::; ,'J 2Es'Untial Air Service From and Into Altoona/Blair County Airport

Dear Michael

I am quite familiar with the essential air service needs of our community as well as all of the pitfalls

involved in providing reliable air service through a committed and dedicated carrier. Please consider

the latter as meaning a carrier who is willing to fill the planes on a frequent basis, willing to advertise,

and aggressively committed to expanding both in terms of the number of flights as well as the number

of destinations. Air service pricing must be low enough to be in the $55.00 or lower range to make

the airport competitive with Latrobe or the expense insuring State College or the expense of driving to

and parking at BWI or Pin.

The number of flight is important as having multiple flights allows for making same day connections

when flights are delayed or cancelled. Destinations are quite important as well and making timely

connections with a hub or hubs with non-stop flights is vital to a successful selection of a provider to

ADO. I'm certain that our Congressman Bill Shuster and the community are counting on you to get

this one right so that essential air service will not only survive but indeed thrive with reasonable flight

costs, frequency, and excellent connections.

Personally, I hate waste on all levels including wasted opportunities so I trust you understand my

concerns as.you move forward on this all too important issue.

Sincerely,

Richard Slutzker

611 Ruskin Drive

Altoona, PA 16602-2925

(P)814.943.7503

1
#### Norman BROWN, Appellant, v. Sandra Reisman BROWN, Appellee.

Nos. 86-1151, 86-1353.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 10, 1987.

Edward J. Schack, Oakland Park, Eliot R. Weitzman, Miami, for appellant.

Gars, Dixon & Shapiro, P.A., and Robert Dixon, Miami, Bruce Rogow, Fort Lauder-dale, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and JORGENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the final judgment of dissolution of marriage in all respects.

In a separate appeal, Norman Brown asserts that the trial court failed to make a necessary finding with respect to his present ability to comply with the provisions in the contempt order as required by *Bowen v. Bowen,*471 So.2d 1274 (Fla.1985). Appellee concedes this error. We remand for that correction. Upon its fulfillment, the judgment of contempt is likewise affirmed.

Final judgment of dissolution affirmed; judgment of contempt remanded for correction.
EXHIBIT 32.1

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Cdoor Corp. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lavi Krasney of the
Company, CEO certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec.
13650, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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; 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/ Lavi Krasney
                                        --------------------
                                        Lavi Krasney
                                        CEO
                                        August 15, 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### Walter REED, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. BI-460.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 19, 1987.

Terry P. Lewis, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Patricia Con-ners, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *See Wiggins v. State,*101 So.2d 833 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958); *Guthrie v. State,*407 So.2d 357 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); *Owens v. State,*289 So.2d 472 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974).

WENTWORTH, WIGGINTON and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.
#### SAINT ANTHONY HOSPITAL SYSTEMS, Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF the STATE OF COLORADO, Gloria A. Matheny, and Linda J. Johnston, Respondents.

Nos. 84CA1429, 85CA0120.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I.

Oct. 24, 1985.

Bradley, Campbell & Carney, Earl K. Madsen, Golden, for petitioner.

Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., Mary Karen Maldonado, Asst. Atty. Gen., Christa D. Taylor, Denver, H. Kenneth Johnston, II, Broomfield, for respondents.

*968PIERCE, Judge.

Petitioner, St. Anthony Hospital Systems, seeks review of two final orders of the Industrial Commission awarding unemployment benefits to respondents Gloria A. Matheny and Linda J. Johnston (claimants). We set aside the orders.

Both claimants began employment at the hospital in March 1984, as licensed practical nurses (PRN) in the Practical Nurse pool. The uncontested evidence indicates that nurses in the Practical Nurse pool worked on an on-call, as-needed basis. Every six weeks they would complete a schedule indicating how many days per week and on what shifts they would be available. The hospital then would call a nurse from the pool if there was work available during the hours requested. At the time of the decisions by the Industrial Commission, both claimants continued to be employed under this arrangement.

Section 8-78-108(4), C.R.S. (1984 Cum. Supp.) states that:

> “An individual separated from a job-shall be given a full award of benefits.... ”

Neither the record nor the Commission’s findings show any evidence of either claimant being “separated from a job,” nor did the claimants or the Commission specify any theory that would substantiate an award. Hence, the Commission was without authority to award unemployment compensation benefits.

Like the situation in *Denver Post v. Industrial Commission,*199 Colo. 466, 610 P.2d 1075 (1980), the claimants here accepted and continued to receive, during the period for which they sought unemployment compensation, employee benefits, *i.e.,*they continued to be nurses as part of the Practical Nurse pool employed on an as-needed basis. As such, claimants were not separated from employment within the meaning of the statute.

The Industrial Commission orders are therefore set aside.

VAN CISE and STERNBERG, JJ., concur.
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 24, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

____________ 

NO. 14-12-00058-CV

_____________

SEASCAPE OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant

V.

INTERNATIONAL RISK CONTROL, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 10th District Court 

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 10-CV-4172

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

Both parties filed notices of appeal from a summary judgment signed December 5, 

2012. The appeal filed by International Risk Control, LLC has been docketed under this 

court’s appellate case number 14-12-00016-CV. The judgment was in favor of Seascape 

Owners Association, Inc., except that the judgment denied attorney’s fees. Seascape filed

a motion to modify the judgment, and on February 24, 2012, the trial court signed a 

modified final judgment awarding Seascape its attorney’s fees. 
2

On April 16, 2012, appellant Seascape filed a motion to dismiss its appeal. See

Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The motion is granted.

Accordingly, the appeal filed by Seascape Owners Association, Inc. is ordered 

dismissed. The appeal filed by International Risk Control, LLC remains pending under 

this court’s appellate case number 14-12-00016-CV.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Seymore and Brown
The requirements for the aftermarket catalytic converter policy (AMCC Policy) are established in

the Federal Register (51 FR 28114- 28119, 28113 (Aug. 5, 1986); 52 FR . 42144 (Nov. 3, 1987)) , not in the Code of Federal Regulations.
#### In re the MARRIAGE OF Thomas Wayne THACKER, Appellee, and Retta Lou Thacker, Appellant.

No. 84CA0104.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I.

Jan. 24, 1985.

*872No appearance for appellee.

Ronald A. Peterson, P.C., Ronald A. Peterson, Colorado Springs, for appellant.

BABCOCK, Judge.

In this dissolution of marriage action, Retta Lou Thacker, wife, appeals the trial court’s denial of her motion to set aside the decree for lack of personal jurisdiction. The primary issue presented is whether the return of service which named the person served as “Patta Lou Thacker” constituted sufficient proof of service of process upon wife to allow the court to acquire personal jurisdiction over her. We conclude that it did not and reverse the denial of the motion to set aside.

A return of service constitutes *prima facie*evidence of the facts cited therein. *Neher v. District Court,*161 Colo. 445, 422 P.2d 627 (1967). This showing may be overcome by clear and convincing proof. *Neher v. District Court, supra.*However, if service has actually been made, it will not be invalidated merely because the return of service contains a technical error, defect, or omission which does not affect the substantial rights of defendant. *Clark v. National Adjusters, Inc.,*140 Colo. 593, 348 P.2d 370 (1959).

Here, the return of service presented a *prima facie*case that service was made upon the wrong person. In addition, wife submitted two affidavits stating that she had not been served, as well as an affidavit of her attorney stating that to the best of her recollection, wife had not been served with process. Husband failed to present any evidence to show that the incorrect name on the return of service was a technical error, nor did he present any competent evidence showing that wife had actually been served with process. Upon this evidence, the trial court was bound to hold that proper service had not been effected and to grant wife’s motion to set aside the decree. *See Gibbs v. Ison,*76 Colo. 240, 230 P. 784 (1924).

Contrary to the trial court’s conclusion, wife’s knowledge of the pending lawsuit was not a substitute for service of process. *Weber v. Williams,*137 Colo. 269, 324 P.2d 365 (1958). Furthermore, wife’s previous filing of an action under the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, §§ 14-5-101, et seq., C.R.S. did not confer jurisdiction over her upon the trial court. Section 14-5-133, C.R.S. Apparent consolidation of that support action with this case does not change this result.

Accordingly, the order denying wife’s motion to set aside the decree of dissolution is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to set aside the decree.

PIERCE and SMITH, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 130 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 130

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas the United States Capitol stands as a symbol of democracy, equality, and 
        freedom to the entire world;
Whereas the year 2000 marks the 200th anniversary of the opening of this 
        historic structure for the first session of Congress to be held in the 
        new Capital City;
Whereas slavery was not prohibited throughout the United States until the 
        ratification of the 13th amendment to the Constitution in 1865;
Whereas previous to that date, African American slave labor was both legal and 
        common in the District of Columbia and the adjoining States of Maryland 
        and Virginia;
Whereas public records attest to the fact that African American slave labor was 
        used in the construction of the United States Capitol;
Whereas public records further attest to the fact that the five-dollar-per-month 
        payment for that African American slave labor was made directly to slave 
        owners and not to the laborer; and
Whereas African Americans made significant contributions and fought bravely for 
        freedom during the American Revolutionary War: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That--
            (1) the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the 
        President pro tempore of the Senate shall establish a special 
        task force to study the history and contributions of these 
        slave laborers in the construction of the United States 
        Capitol; and
            (2) such special task force shall recommend to the Speaker 
        of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore 
        of the Senate an appropriate recognition for these slave 
        laborers which could be displayed in a prominent location in 
        the United States Capitol.

            Passed the Senate September 15, 2000.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
106th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            S. CON. RES. 130

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

     Establishing a special task force to recommend an appropriate 
 recognition for the slave laborers who worked on the construction of 
                       the United States Capitol.
```
**Exhibit 32**

 

**Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18**

**of the United States Code**

 

I, Robert E. Busch, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of PSE&G Transition Funding II LLC, to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of PSE&G Transition Funding II LLC on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the "Periodic Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PSE&G Transition Funding II LLC.

 

|   | /s/ Robert      E. Busch                                                                             |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | **Robert        E. Busch**Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer        August 11, 2006 |

 

----
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant To18 U.S.C. Section 1350As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002

I, Warren B. Kanders, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report of Armor Holdings, Inc. on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Armor Holdings, Inc.

A signed original of this written 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.

Date: April 30, 2007

|  | By:        /s/ Warren B. Kanders             Name:   Warren B. KandersTitle:      Chief Executive Officer |
|--|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<S>                           <C>
<ARTICLE>      5
<CIK>          0000846476
<NAME>         EFTEK CORP.
<MULTIPLIER>   1
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                    Jan-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                      Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          12-MOS
<CASH>                                     96
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                         164,468
<ALLOWANCES>                            2,865
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      219,269
<PP&E>                              4,354,190
<DEPRECIATION>                        518,673
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      4,688,645
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               1,991,304
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                               11,700
<OTHER-SE>                          2,142,197
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        4,688,645
<SALES>                             1,586,467
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    1,586,467
<CGS>                                 605,510
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       2,825,484
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     (104,833)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    124,574
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (1,343,850)
<INCOME-TAX>                              731
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (1,344,581)
<DISCONTINUED>                        (50,209)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                       (1,394,850)
<EPS-BASIC>                              (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                            (.12)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 16261]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6810]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[USITC SE-12-008]


Government In the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: United States International Trade 
Commission.

TIME AND DATE: March 21, 2012 at 11 a.m.

PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 
(202) 205-2000.

STATUS:  Open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
    1. Agendas for future meetings: none
    2. Minutes
    3. Ratification List
    4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 731-TA-313, 314, 317, and 379 (Third Review) 
(Brass Sheet and Strip from France, Germany, Italy, and Japan). The 
Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determinations and 
Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on or before April 
13, 2012.
    5. Outstanding action jackets: none
    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, 
not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the 
agenda of the following meeting.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: March 14, 2012.
James R. Holbein,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012-6810 Filed 3-16-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
permit application no.sac12-01 sierra pacific industries anderson

elray kleis to: R9AirPermits 01/10/2014 11:28 AM

From: elray kleis <geoandora@yahoo.com>

To: R9AirPermits@EPA, 

Please respond to elray kleis <geoandora@yahoo.com>

1) what guarantee do we have that best available control 

technology is sufficient and what does " the greatest extent 

feasable" actually mean?

2)how will this affect the community of people who rely on 

wood heat, when spi uses all or most of the available 

pollutants?

3)who is physically going to be the watchdog, and if they are 

not maintaining it properly, will it be closed?

4)without knowing the outcome of the legal 

proceding/decision from the court of appeals,we have no 

real way of knowingexactly what will or will not be allowed.

what is the truth?

signed ,elray kleis and ora blankenshipkleis
MATERIALS NOT INCLUDED IN

AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE (AD) DOCKET

FAA-2012-0774

Docket Number

2010-SW-057-AD

Directorate Identifier

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in DMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin No. 25.01.02, dated September 24, 2008

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Office of the Regional Counsel,

Southwest Region

Rules Docket

2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663

Fort Worth, Texas 76137

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays.