alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The certification set forth below is being submittedin connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of MuellerGroup, Inc. (the “Report”) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) orRule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “ExchangeAct”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United StatesCode.

I, Jeffery W.Sprick, the Chief Financial Officer of Mueller Group, Inc., certify that,to the best of my knowledge:

1.                the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theExchange Act; and

2.                theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of Mueller Group, Inc.
| Date: February 2, 2006 |   | By:    |   | /s/ JEFFERY W.  SPRICK                     |
|-----------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|                        |   |   |   | Jeffery W. Sprick  Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
** **

**EXHIBIT 32**

**CERTIFICATION**

Each of the undersignedofficers of NeuroMetrix, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies to hisknowledge that the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q to which thiscertification is attached (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and that the information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.
| Date: August 9, 2006 |   | /s/ Shai N. Gozani, M.D., Ph.D.       |
|----------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|                 |   | Shai N. Gozani, M.D., Ph.D.           |
|                 |   | Chief Executive Officer and President |
|                 |   |                                  |
|                 |   | /s/ W. Bradford Smith                 |
|                 |   | W. Bradford Smith                     |
|                 |   | Chief Financial Officer               |

 

This certification isbeing furnished and not filed, and shall not be incorporated into any documentfor any purpose, under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or the SecuritiesAct of 1933.

----
# 1J ORIGINAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 22-0545
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: LINDSAY B. GOUDREAU,

Petitioner, Appellee, and Cross-Appellant and JEFFREY A. GOUDREAU,

Respondent, Appellant, and Cross-Appellee. 

# FILED FEB 2 0 2024` Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana ORDER

On January 16, 2024, we issued an opinion in the above-entitled action, affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding for correction ofclerical errors in the Decree of Dissolution. In re Marriage ofGoudreau, 2024 MT 6N. Lindsay subsequently filed a petition for rehearing. Jefftimely filed a response and request for sanctions pursuant to M. R. App. P. 19(5). M.R.App. P.20(1)(a)providesthat apetition for rehearingwill be considered only whentheCourt "overlooked some fact materialtothe decision,"when "it overlooked some question presented by counsel that would have proven decisive to the case," or when "its decision conflicts with a statute or controlling decision not addressed" by the Court. Having fully considered Lindsay's petition, we see no basis for granting rehearing under M. R. App. P. 20(1)(a). M. R. App. P. 19(5)provides that the Court may "award sanctions tothe prevailing party in [a]... petition for reliefdetermined tobe frivolous, vexatious, filed for purposes of harassment or delay, or taken without substantial and reasonable grounds." While we conclude Lindsay's claims in this petition are without merit, we decline to adopt the characterization ofbad faith advanced by Jeffin his response. 02/20/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0545Justices

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for rehearing is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Jeff's request for sanctions is DENIED. The Clerk ofCourt is directed to mail copies ofthis Order to all counsel ofrecord. DATED this C-6 day ofFebruary, 2024.

2
July 1, 2015

Mr. Charles F. Jacques Jr.

Sky

- View Aerial Services LLC

602 Centerton Road

Pittsgrove, NJ 08318

Dear Mr. Jacques:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

part 21(h) and § § 45.23(b), 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.103, 91.109, 91.119,

91.121, 91.151(a), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We entered your April 16, 2015

, exemption request on behalf of Sky

- View Aerial Services

LLC into the public docket (No. FAA− 20 15

− 1346 ), but we are unable to process your request

any further. The information you sent does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81

(copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the

following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days bef ore the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9 677.

Sincerely,

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst, Aircraft and

Airport Rules Division

Enclosure3
#### Schaefer, Exrx., Appellee, *v.*Banker, Appellant.

(No. 31400

Decided May 5, 1948.)

*585
      *Mr. Clarence J.' Stoecldein,*for appellee.

*Mr. Clifford R. Curtner,*for appellant.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal -as of right be, and'the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional • question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Matthias, II-art, Zimmerman, Sohngen and Stewart, JJ., concur.
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 01900

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

01900\01900_ HardcopyLog.doc EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

x 01900\01900_Checklist.XLS EPA Completeness Review Checklist

01900\01900_Completeness Checklist.xls EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 01900\01900_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01900\01900_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01900\01900_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01900\01900_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01900\01900_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01900\01900_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01900\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\01900_MAP-1 Purdom 689 Site Location Map.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 01900\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\01900_MAP-2 Purdom 689 Site Location Map Detail.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 01900\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\01900_MAP-3 Purdom 689 Aerial Photo 1994.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 01900\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\01900_MAP-4 Purdom 689 Site Survey Map.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 01900\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\01900_MAP-5 Purdom 689 Aerial Photo 2009.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 01900\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\01900_WB-1 Purdom 689 Water Balance Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

01900\01900_Certificate Statement.pdf Plant certification statement

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
---

Exhibit: 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Pro-Tech Holding**s Ltd.**,
  (the "Company") on 10Q SB for the period ending November 30, 2004, as filed
  with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
  I, Robert , Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
  U.S.C. Hoegler ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
  Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

| | 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 result of operations
        of the Company.

|Date:    January 14, 2005. |                        
|-------------------------- | -----------------------
|                           |                        
|                           | /s/Robert Hoegler      
|                           | Robert Hoegler         
|                           |                        
|                           | Chief Executive Officer
|                           | (Title)                

---
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**POLYPORE INTERNATIONAL, INC.**

 

**CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Polypore International, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 3, 2010 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), theundersigned, Robert B. Toth, President and Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  August 6, 2010 | /s/  Robert B. Toth                    |
|----------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                       | Robert  B. Toth                        |
|                       | President  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
#### DELIVERY SERVICE AND TRANSFER COMPANY, a Utah Corporation, Plaintiff, Respondent and Cross-Appellant, v. HEINER EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY COMPANY, a Utah corporation, Defendant, Appellant and Cross-Respondent.

No. 17172.

Supreme Court of Utah.

July 16, 1981.

Leonard W. Burningham, Salt Lake City, for appellant.

David E. West, Salt Lake City, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment in its favor, granting specific performance against defendant. Although defendant had originally appealed this matter such appeal was subsequently withdrawn at defendant’s request. The sole remaining issue is the propriety of a judgment for specific performance when a money judgment was prayed.

Plaintiff, the owner of a crane, took the transmission of that crane to defendant for repair. The transmission was allegedly not properly repaired and upon trial to the court, the court entered its finding, to wit:

> 5. The Court finds from the evidence presented that the transmission was not overhauled in a workmanlike manner; that it was not repaired properly; that the work was warranted by the Defendant; and that *Plaintiff received no benefit from the amount that it paid to Defendant.*[Emphasis added]

Upon that finding, the court ordered defendant to repair the crane transmission within 15 days and in the event it failed to do so, plaintiff was to have the transmission repaired elsewhere and defendant would be charged with the cost thereof.

Plaintiff takes issue with the court’s judgment insofar as it orders specific performance. It is to be noted that plaintiff’s prayer was only for the return of that money already paid for which it received “no benefit” and plaintiff correctly points out that specific performance is a remedy which is normally only granted when damages may not accurately be ascertained or would not adequately compensate the plaintiff.1 Clearly here, the amount is determinable and acts as just *22compensation. In addition, courts should act reluctantly in going beyond the scope and nature of plaintiff’s prayer. Plaintiff did not seek specific performance and it appears that such would be an inadequate remedy in this instance.2

Accordingly, the judgment, as to specific performance, is vacated and the matter remanded to the district court with direction to enter judgment in plaintiff’s favor for $3,535.18.

1

. *Randall v. Tracy Collins Trust Co.,*6 Utah 2d 18, 305 P.2d 480 (1956).

2

. As a basis for defendant’s withdrawal of its appeal herein, it alleged that it had been dissolved by operation of law on Dec. 31, 1980.
#### STATE ex rel. Claude HOPKINS v. Hon. C. Paul PHELPS, et al., Louisiana State Department of Corrections.

No. 86-KH-2003.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 19, 1987.

In re Hopkins, Claude; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review, supervisory, remedial and habeas corpus; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “B”, No. 259-225.

Denied.
|  |  |                                                                                                                   |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|--|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|
|  |  |                                                                                                                   |  |  |
|  |  |                                                                                                                   |
|  |  | /s/ David Viney                                                                                           |  |
|  |  | David Viney                                                                                                       |  |
|  |  | Vice President and Treasurer of Harley-Davidson Credit Corp., Servicer to Harley-Davidson Motorcycle Trust 2021-B |  |
|  |  |                                                                                                                   |  |
III

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 248

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 17, 2001

Received and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that public schools

may display the words ‘‘God Bless America’’ as an expression of support for the Nation.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that
2

HCON 248 RFS

1 public schools may display the words ‘‘God Bless Amer2 ica’’ as an expression of support for the Nation.

Passed the House of Representatives October 16,

2001.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Alvin ABBOTT.

No. 87-CQ-1255.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 4, 1987.

In re Alvin Abbott, applying for rehearing of a certification granted with order on June 19, 1987, 508 So.2d 80, to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeal, No. KW-7602.

Denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 146 Agreed to House (ATH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 146

Providing for a conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives 
         and a conditional recess or adjournment of the Senate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                May 26 (legislative day of May 25), 2001

  Mr. Tiahrt submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
                        considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Providing for a conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives 
         and a conditional recess or adjournment of the Senate.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of Friday, May 25, 
2001, or Saturday, May 26, 2001, on a motion offered pursuant to this 
concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand 
adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, June 5, 2001, or until noon on the 
second day after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 
2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when 
the Senate recesses or adjourns at the close of business on Saturday, 
May 26, 2001, Sunday, May 27, 2001, or Tuesday, May 29, 2001, on a 
motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority 
Leader or his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until noon on 
Tuesday, June 5, 2001, or until such time on that day as may be 
specified by its Majority Leader or his designee in the motion to 
recess or adjourn, or until noon on the second day after Members are 
notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent 
resolution, whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the 
Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of 
the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the 
Members of the House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble 
whenever, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.3



|     |  |  |  |  |  | 
|---- |  |  |  |  |  | 
|LOGO |  | 

|                                                                                                      |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 
|1100 LOUISIANA SUITE 3800 HOUSTON, TEXAS
77002-5218    TELEPHONE (713) 651-9191    FAX (713) 651-0849

May 29, 2008

Repsol YPF, S.A.

Paseo de la Castellana 278-280

28046 Madrid

Spain

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Ryder Scott Company, L.P. hereby consents to the references to Ryder Scott Company, L.P. and the inclusion of information derived from our reports in
Section 2.2.1.1. Oil and Gas Reserves in Repsol YPF, S.A.s annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2007, and in the Supplementary Information on Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Activities
(unaudited information) in the Consolidated Financial Statements included therein.

Ryder Scott Company audited certain areas in
which Repsol YPF has interests in Perú using an as of date of September 30, 2007.



Very truly yours,RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P./s/ Herman G. AcunaHerman G. Acuna, P.E.Managing Senior International Vice President




|                             |  |                             |  |                    |  |                   
|---------------------------- |  | --------------------------- |  | ------------------ |  | ------------------
|1200, 530 - 8TH AVENUE, S.W. |  | CALGARY, ALBERTA T2P 358    |  | TEL (403) 262-2799 |  | FAX (403) 262-2790
|621 17TH STREET, SUITE 1550  |  | DENVER, COLORADO 80293-1501 |  | TEL (303) 623-9147 |  | FAX (303) 623-4258
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.28

                             PYRAMID BREWERIES, INC.

                           DIRECTORS COMPENSATION PLAN

      1. Purpose. The purpose of the Directors Compensation Plan (the "Plan") is
to compensate non-employee directors of Pyramid Breweries, Inc. (the "Company")
for their service on the Company's Board of Directors.

      2. Annual Compensation. Each non-employee director of the Company shall
receive annual compensation of $10,000, subject to adjustment pursuant to
Section 3(b) below. Such compensation shall be payable to the non-employee
directors immediately following each annual meeting of shareholders for services
as a director until the next annual meeting of shareholders.

      3. Form of Annual Compensation.

            (a) The annual compensation to the non-employee directors shall be
paid in either shares of the Company's common stock or cash, at the choice of
each individual Director. The shares of common stock payable to directors on the
annual meeting date shall be valued at the last sale price of the Company's
common stock on the Nasdaq Stock Market on the date of the annual meeting for
which the compensation is payable.

            (b) No fractional shares shall be issued under this Plan. The shares
issuable hereunder shall be rounded to the nearest whole share.

      4. Meeting Fees. Each non-employee director of the Company shall receive
additional compensation of $1,500 per Board Meeting, $750 per Audit Committee
Meeting, and $500 per Compensation Committee Meeting. All other committee
meeting shall be compensated at $500 per meeting. Payment of the fees will be
made on a quarterly basis.

      5. Board Chairman Fee. The Chairman of the Board shall be receive
additional compensation of $10,000 per annum. Payment will be made on a
quarterly basis.

      6. Committee Chair Fee. The Chairperson of each committee shall receive
additional compensation of $2,500 per annum. Payment of the fees will be made on
a quarterly basis.

      7. Per Diem Fees. Each non-employee director shall be paid a fee of $500
per diem for any project work outside of the Normal Board Duties that the
director is requested to perform by the Board. An example of such work would
include screening candidates for the CEO position, or doing research on a
subject selected by the Board of Directors.

      8. Out of Pocket Expenses. Each non-employee director will be reimbursed
for necessary travel, lodging and other expenses incurred in attending meetings.
Reimbursement will be made upon proper submittal.

      9. Stock Option Grants. Each non-employee director of the Company shall
receive an annual option grant of 5,000 shares of common stock made under the
Non-Employee

<PAGE>

Directors Stock Option Plan. The grant is to have an exercise price at the
market value as of the close of business on the date of the annual meeting and
is fully vested and exercisable as of that date.

      10. Amendment and Termination. This plan may be amended or terminated at
any time by resolution of the board of directors.

                                        2