alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.3




                            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 Asconi Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Constantin Jitaru, as
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Anatolie Sirbu, as Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, each certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
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/ CONSTANTIN JITARU
------------------------
Constantin Jitaru
Chief Executive Officer

March 31, 2002




/S/ ANATOLIE SIRBU
------------------------

Anatolie Sirbu
Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL 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 KeyOn Communications Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Annette Eggert, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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 condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| Date:  | December 7, 2010 |   | By:    | /s/ Jonathan Snyder           |   |
|--------|------------------|--------|--------|-------------------------------|--------|
|   |             |   |   | Jonathan Snyder               |   |
|   |             |   |   | Chief Financial Officer       |   |
|   |             |   |   | (Principal Financial Officer) |   |

 

----
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 The undersigned officer of NYMAGIC, INC. (the Corporation) hereby certifies that the Corporations Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, fully complies with the applicable reporting
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Corporation. March 12, 2010
    
    /s/ A. George KallopA. George KallopPresident and Chief Executive Officer
  5
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH CIR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED January 8, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 06-50833 Summary Calendar

_____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JESUS SALVADOR ALVAREZ-ANIMA,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

--------------------- Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * IT IS ORDERED that appellee’s unopposed motion to vacate sentence is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that appellee’ s unopposed motion to remand for resentencing is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that appellee ’s unopposed motion to extend time to file appellee’s brief for 30 days from this court’s denial of appellee’s motion to vacate and remand is DENIED as unnecessary.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 18205]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7302]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[Docket No. 111115678-2197-02]


Privacy Act System of Records

AGENCY: U.S. Census Bureau, Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of amended Privacy Act System of Records: COMMERCE/
CENSUS-3, Special Censuses, Surveys, and Other Studies.

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

SUMMARY: In order to update the system of records the Department of 
Commerce publishes this notice to announce the effective date of an 
amended Privacy Act System of Records titled ``COMMERCE/CENSUS-3, 
Individual and Household Statistical Surveys and Special Studies 
Records.'' The notice of proposed amendment to this system of records 
was published in the Federal Register on January 26, 2012 (77 FR 4002).

DATES: The system of records becomes effective on March 27, 2012.

ADDRESSES: For a copy of the system of records please mail requests to: 
Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Room HQ-8H115, U.S. Census 
Bureau, Washington, DC 20233-3700.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, 
Room HQ-8H115, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC 20233-3700, 301-763-
6560.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 26, 2012, the Department of 
Commerce published and requested comments on proposed amendments to the 
Privacy Act System of Records titled, ``COMMERCE/CENSUS-3, Individual 
and Household Statistical Surveys and Special Studies Records.'' Upon 
amendment, the system will be titled, ``COMMERCE/CENSUS-3, Special 
Censuses, Surveys, and Other Studies.'' The amendment serves to 
generally update the system of records by updating the purpose of the 
system, updating categories of individuals in the system, updating 
categories of records in the system, and updating policies and 
practices for storing, retaining, disposing, and safeguarding the 
records in the system. No comments were received in response to the 
request for comments. This notice informs the public that the 
Department is adopting the proposed system as final without changes, 
effective March 27, 2012.

    Dated: March 21, 2012.
Jonathan R. Cantor,
Chief Privacy Officer, U.S. Department of Commerce.
[FR Doc. 2012-7302 Filed 3-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
#### John L. NUNLEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-83-63.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

May 9, 1984.

ORDER

John L. Nunley was convicted of Arson in the First Degree pursuant to 21 O.S. Supp.1979, § 1401 in the District Court of Oklahoma County Case Ño. CRF-79-4582. He now appeals, his sentence of ten (10) years’ imprisonment plus a fine of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500).

It is unnecessary to recite the facts of this case inasmuch as they have already been stated in *Campbell v. State,*652 P.2d 305 (Okl.Cr.1982), wherein we affirmed the conviction of appellant’s co-defendant. The defendants were tried together. On appeal three assignments of error are argued. Appellant first asserts that the trial court erred when it failed to grant a mistrial to the appellant based on a conversation had between the court and a juror. Appellant’s second argument asserts that the trial court erred in not allowing the appellant to inquire of a defense *772witness regarding his interest, bias or prejudice and in not allowing evidence of the witness’ interest, bias or prejudice to be presented to the jury. Both of these issues were raised in identical arguments and presented by appellant’s co-defendant in *Campbell v. State,*supra, where they were dealt with on their merits. The arguments were found to be without merit. We find no reason to now decide the matters differently.

Appellant’s final assignment of error states that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to sustain a verdict of guilt. We do not agree. The appellant was observed outside the residence near a fire which had been started on the front porch. The fire had clearly been set. The defendant’s vehicle was at the scene of the crime and the defendant had threatened the family earlier that evening. It is the exclusive province of the jury to weigh the evidence and determine the facts. *Hall v. State,*570 P.2d 955 (Okl.Cr.1977). We find that there was ample evidence to support the verdict.

Accordingly, the judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

WITNESS OUR HANDS AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT this 9th day of May, 1984.

HEZ J. BUSSEY, P.J.

TOM BRETT, J.
EXHIBIT 10.5

                       SECOND ALLONGE TO PROMISSORY NOTE
                       ---------------------------------


     This Second Allonge to Promissory Note (this "Allonge"), made and entered
into as of March 12, 2001, between Semele Group Inc. (formerly known as Banyan
Strategic Land Fund II), a Delaware corporation (the "Maker"), and Equis
Financial Group Limited Partnership, as assignee of Equis Exchange LLC (the
"Payee"), is firmly affixed to and made a part of that certain Promissory Note
dated May 31, 1997, as amended by that certain First Allonge to Promissory Note
dated March 21, 2000, in the original principal amount of $4,419,500, payable to
the order of the Payee (the "Note").

     For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
is hereby acknowledged by the parties hereto, the Maker and the Payee hereby
agree that, effective as of the date hereof, the Note shall be further amended
as follows:

     1.  The date on which the outstanding principal balance of the Note
together with interest thereon is due and payable shall be April 30, 2003.

     As hereby amended, the Note is hereby ratified and confirmed in all
respects.

                                             SEMELE GROUP INC.


                                             By: /s/ JAMES A. COYNE
                                                 -------------------------
                                             Title: President & CEO
                                                    ----------------------
The foregoing is accepted:

EQUIS FINANCIAL GROUP LIMITED
 PARTNERSHIP

By: Equis Corporation, its General Partner

    By: /s/ GARY D. ENGLE
       --------------------------
    Title: PRESIDENT & CEO
          -----------------------
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ROBERT CARVER,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

'

'

'

'

'

'

No. 08-12-00300-CR

Appeal from the

362nd District Court

of Denton County, Texas

(TC# F-2010-2243-D)

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is Appellant’s motion to represent himself on appeal. 

Appellant’s appointed counsel has previously filed a brief in this case and he has not filed a motion 

to withdraw. In order to determine whether Appellant is entitled to the relief requested in the 

motion, we abate the appeal and remand the cause to the trial court in order for the court to conduct 

a hearing in compliance with Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 2541, 45 

L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), and Hubbard v. State, 739 S.W.2d 341, 345 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987). The trial 

court is directed to make findings of fact and conclusions of law related to the following:

1
1. whether Appellant desires to prosecute the appeal;

2. whether Appellant’s request to remove appointed counsel and represent himself on 

appeal is an attempt to obstruct court procedure or interfere with the administration of 

justice;

3. whether Appellant is aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation on 

appeal;

4. whether Appellant is aware that if he persists in his desire for self-representation, the 

brief previously filed by appointed counsel will be stricken and will not be considered 

by the Court of Appeals for any purpose; and

5. whether Appellant’s decision to represent himself on appeal is competently and 

intelligently made.

A transcription of the hearing and a supplemental clerk’s record containing the court’s 

findings and orders must be certified and filed in this Court by July 8, 2013.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that deadline for these appeals are suspended pending further 

order of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of June, 2013.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera and Rodriguez, JJ. 

2
Bureau of Labor Statistics

**Series Id: Series title:**  **Labor force status: Type of data:**  **Age: Years:**  **Year Qtr1**  **Qtr2 Qtr3**  **Qtr4 Annual**  **2011** 200657 Civilian noninstitutional population Number in thousands 25 years and over 2011 to 2011 

### Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey **Original Data Value** LNU00000048Q **Not Seasonally Adjusted** (Unadj) Population Lev el - 25 yrs. & over

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Generated on: May 16, 2011 (02:08:08 PM)
First Amendment of Reorganization Agreement



 Exhibit 10.4.1 
  
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO REORGANIZATION AGREEMENT 
  
 This First Amendment to Reorganization Agreement (“Amendment”) is entered into by and among ConocoPhillips, Duke
Capital LLC and Duke Energy Field Services, LLC. 
  
 Recitals 
  
 ConocoPhillips, Duke Capital LLC and
Duke Energy Field Services, LLC are parties to a Reorganization Agreement dated May 26, 2005 (the “Agreement”). Any capitalized term used but not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to such term in the Agreement. 
  
 The Parties desire to amend the Agreement in accordance with the terms of
this Amendment. 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, in and for the terms and
provisions hereof and other good and valuable consideration, the Parties agree as follows: 
  
 1. Amendment. Section 3.3(a) is generally amended to reflect that any transfer to be made by the Company pursuant to clause (ii) thereof shall be in U.S. dollars (versus Canadian Dollars) and the amount to be
transferred pursuant to clause (ii) thereof shall be converted to U.S. dollars from Canadian Dollars using the Bank of Canada Noon Canadian/USD Exchange Rate on June 30, 2005 as reflected on Bloomberg screen “CDCFUSD Index” on the same
date. 
  
 2. Miscellaneous. This Amendment may be executed
in one or more counterparts, all of which shall be considered one and same agreement, and shall be effective when the one or more counterparts have been signed by each Party and delivered (including by facsimile) to the other Parties. 
  
 Executed and delivered on the date first set forth above. 
  

			
	CONOCOPHILLIPS
		
	By:	 	 /s/ John E. Lowe


	Name:	 	John E. Lowe
	Title:	 	 Executive Vice President, Planning, Strategy
 and
Corporate Affairs

	
	DUKE CAPITAL LLC
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Paul H. Barry


	Name:	 	Paul H. Barry
	Title:	 	Vice President
	
	DUKE ENERGY FIELD SERVICES, LLC
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Brent L. Backes


	Name:	 	Brent L. Backes
	Title:	 	 Vice President, General Counsel and
 Secretary
Home | About | Getting Started

Search

Home › Code Status › Code Status

Code Status

The Building Codes Assistance Project (BCAP) has created a series of maps to provide a national snapshot of building 

energy code adoption and implementation status, as well as international adoption status.

Click on a map to learn more about the status of energy codes in each state and country.

BCAP makes every effort to ensure that the maps are accurate and up-to-date. If you have any questions or comments about 

the maps, please contact us.

Also be sure to check out our State Fact Sheets for a summary of energy code activities and opportunities in each state.

Other BCAP Code Status Maps

Energy Policy Act (EPAct) Compliance - Commercial

Energy Policy Act (EPAct) Compliance - Residential

International Code Status - Non-Residential

International Code Status - Residential

User Login

Username: *

Password: *

Create new account

Request new password

Code Status | Online Code Environment and Advocacy Network Page 1 of 2

http://energycodesocean.org/code-status 5/29/2014
	
	Building Codes Assistance Project Contact Us |RSS Feed |Terms of Use |Privacy Policy |Credits

Attachment Size

Code_Status_Home_Image-Apr14.jpg 73.86 KB

Code Status | Online Code Environment and Advocacy Network Page 2 of 2

http://energycodesocean.org/code-status 5/29/2014
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 21, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-20787

Conference Calendar

 

DARRELL J. HARPER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CITY OF HOUSTON,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:04-CV-3079

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

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Darrell J. Harper filed a civil complaint against the City

of Houston for $10,000,000, alleging unspecified “racial

profiling” and “corruption.” The district court dismissed his

complaint because it violated an injunction entered December 23,

2002. Harper has filed a motion in this court seeking leave to

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. 

 Harper’s financial affidavit establishes that he is unable

to pay the costs of his appeal without undue hardship or
No. 04-20787

-2-

deprivation of life’s necessities. See Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont

de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). However, Harper does

not address the reason for the district court’s dismissal of his

complaint, and Harper has failed to establish a nonfrivolous

ground for appeal. See Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th

Cir. 1982); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). His IFP motion is DENIED. 

As the appeal contains no nonfrivolous issues, it is DISMISSED. 

Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2. Harper is warned that any future frivolous filings will

subject him to sanctions. 

 MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Bedford Doyle RUFF.

No. 87-K-0944.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 12, 1987.

In re State of Louisiana; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 18355-KA; Parish of Richland, 5th Judicial District Court, Div. “A”, No. 42831.

Prior report: La.App., 504 So.2d 72.

Denied.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-60227

Summary Calendar

 

WARDELL ANDREWS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CALLIE DANTZLER, individually

and in her official capacity;

JOHN DONNELLY, individually 

and in his official capacity, 

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:97-CV-867-BN

- - - - - - - - - -

March 4, 1999

Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM, and SMITH, Circuit

Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Wardell Andrews, Mississippi state prisoner # R-0460, argues

that the district court abused it discretion in dismissing his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous and/or for failure to state

a claim. He argues that he was denied his rights, including his

right to privacy, under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments as 

a result of a female guard subjecting him to a strip search. 
Andrews also argues that his rights were violated as a result of

female guards being permitted to view prisoners using the

restroom and taking showers.

We have reviewed the record, including the transcript of the

Spears hearing and the briefs of the parties, and have determined

that the district court’s dismissal of the complaint must be

VACATED IN PART and the case REMANDED for further consideration

of Andrews’ claim concerning the strip search. The district

court prematurely dismissed the case without determining that a

legitimate security interest of the prison was served by the

female guard conducting the strip search. See Elliott v. Lynn,

38 F.3d 188, 191-92 (5th Cir. 1994).

This court has previously indicated that there is no

constitutional violation if female guards are employed in guard

towers giving a full view of males taking showers. See Letcher

v. Turner, 968 F.2d 508, 510 (5th Cir. 1992). Therefore, the

dismissal of the portion of Andrews’ complaint complaining about

female guards in the tower viewing inmates in the rest room and

showers is AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED.
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

 Docket Number: FAA-2012-0806

Directorate Identifier: 2012NM022AD

84-24-47 --- 4/26/11

84-24-48 --- 4/26/11

84-24-49 --- 4/26/11

84-24-50 --- 4/26/11

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

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

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

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
1 Filed 5/13/15 Cruz v. Super. Ct. CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELL ATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

PETER CASEY CRUZ, Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest. E063224 (Super.Ct.No. RIC463349)

OPINION

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of prohibition/mandate. Petition is granted. Peter Casey Cruz, in pro. per. No appearance for Respondent. Michael A. Hestrin, District Attorney, and Natalie M. Pitre, Deputy District Attorney, for Real Pa rty in Interest.2 Although a proceeding under the Sexually Violent Predators Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 6600 et seq.) is in th e nature of a civil proceeding ( People v. McDonald (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1367), where a substantial liber ty interest is imp licated, the technical label is not controlling. It is inappropriate to place financial obstacles in the path of one seeking to defend such an interest. (See Smith v. Bennett (1961) 365 U.S. 708.) Although the superior court has not file d a response, the People agree that no filing fee can be charged to petitioner. The Peop le have also informed this court that the explanation for the rejection of petitioner’s paperwork has been deleted from the court’s minutes; it is therefore unclear whether the supe rior court has rethought its position. The petition for writ of prohibition/ma ndate is therefore granted.

DISPOSITION We issue this order to clarify the rights and obligations of the parties. Let a peremptory writ of prohibition/manda te issue, directing the Superior Court of Riverside County to accept for filing, with out fee, motions and applications presented by petitioner in respect to the proceedings under the Sexually Viol ent Predators Act. Petitioner is directed to prepare and have the peremptory writ of prohibition/mandate issued, copies served, and the original filed with the clerk of this court, together with proof of service on all parties.3 This order shall be final forthwith.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RAMIREZ P. J. We concur:

HOLLENHORST J.

KING J.