alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

William H. Joyce, Chairman and ChiefExecutive Officer of Nalco Holdings LLC("Nalco") and Bradley J. Bell, Executive VicePresident and Chief Financial Officer of Nalco, in conjunction with thefiling of Nalco's 10-Q financial report (the"Report") with the Securities and ExchangeCommission, covering the calendar quarter ending September 30, 2005,hereby certify as follows:

|          |                                                                                           |
|----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| a.  | The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,and |

|          |                                                                                                                                     |
|----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| b.  | The information in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations for Nalco. |

|  | /s/ WILLIAM H.JOYCE                          William H.Joyce Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Date: November 10,2005 |
|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

    

|  | /s/ BRADLEY J.BELL                             Bradley J.Bell Executive Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer Date: November 10, 2005 |
|--|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
[No. 36959-8-I.

Division One.

June 3, 1996.]

#### William D. Morris, et al., *as Trustees, Respondents,*v. Nathaniel Armstrong, et al., *Appellants.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 95-2-14343-1, Maurice Eptsein, J. Pro Tern., entered June 15, 1995. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Exhibit 32.2**POLYPORE INTERNATIONAL, INC.****CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Polypore International, Inc. (the“Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Lynn Amos, Chief Financial Officerof the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and 2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.     November 14, 2006           /s/ Lynn Amos     Lynn Amos    Chief Financial Officer
IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 130

Authorizing printing of the book entitled ‘‘Asian and Pacific Islander

Americans in Congress’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 8, 2001

Mr. UNDERWOOD (for himself, Mr. WU, Mr. HONDA, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr.

FALEOMAVAEGA, Mr. MATSUI, Mrs. MINK of Hawaii, Ms. PELOSI, Mr.

BECERRA, Ms. BERKLEY, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Ms.

ESHOO, Mr. FILNER, Mr. LANTOS, Ms. LEE, Ms. LOFGREN, Mrs.

MORELLA, Mr. STARK, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ, and Ms.

JACKSON-LEE of Texas) submitted the following concurrent resolution;

which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing printing of the book entitled ‘‘Asian and Pacific

Islander Americans in Congress’’.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),

3 SECTION 1. ASIAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER AMERICANS IN

4 CONGRESS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The book entitled ‘‘Asian and Pa6 cific Islander Americans in Congress’’, prepared by the Li7 brary of Congress under the direction of the Joint Com8 mittee on Printing, shall be printed as a House document.
2

•HCON 130 IH

1 (b) SPECIFICATIONS.—The House document de2 scribed in subsection (a) shall include illustrations and

3 shall be in the style, form, manner, and binding as di4 rected by the Joint Committee on Printing.

5 (c) NUMBER OF COPIES.—In addition to the usual

6 number of copies, there shall be printed the lesser of—

7 (1) 30,700 copies of the document described in

8 subsection (a), of which—

9 (A) 25,000 shall be for the use of the

10 Committee on House Administration of the

11 House of Representatives; and

12 (B) 5,700 shall be for the use of the Com13 mittee on Rules and Administration of the Sen14 ate; or

15 (2) such number of copies of the document de16 scribed in subsection (a) as does not exceed a total

17 production and printing cost of $220,000, which

18 copies shall be for the use of the Committee on

19 House Administration of the House of Representa20 tives and the Committee on Rules and Administra21 tion of the Senate in the same proportions as de22 scribed in paragraph (1).

Æ
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a),

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Christopher R. Huber, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of NightHawk Radiology Holdings, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c. Disclosed in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other
certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent functions):

a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.

Date: August 11, 2006



/S/    CHRISTOPHER R.
HUBERChristopher R. HuberChief Financial Officer and Vice President of Operations(Principal Financial Officer)
Order 2011-6-28

Served: June 28, 2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 28th day of June, 2011

Essential air service at

RHINELANDER, WISCONSIN

under 49 U.S.C. 41731 et seq.

 Docket DOT-OST-2011-0109

ORDER ALLOWING SUSPENSION OF SERVICE

Summary

By this order, the Department is allowing Mesaba Aviation, Inc., operating as Delta Connection 

(Mesaba) to suspend its scheduled air service at Rhinelander, Wisconsin, as of 

September 5, 2011.

Background

Rhinelander is an essential air service (EAS) community by virtue of its being listed on a 

certificated carrier’s certificate on October 24, 1978, the date of enactment of the Airline 

Deregulation Act. Mesaba currently provides nonsubsidized air service at Rhinelander with 13 

nonstop round trips a week to Minneapolis using 34-seat Saab 340 aircraft. In addition, 

Rhinelander receives nonsubsidized scheduled air service from Chautauqua Airlines, operating as

Frontier Express (Chautauqua), with 13 nonstop round trips a week over a MilwaukeeRhinelander-Ironwood routing using 37-seat Embraer 135 aircraft. On June 7, 2011, Mesaba 

filed a 90-day notice of its intent to suspend its service at Rhinelander. If Rhinelander were not 

an EAS community, Mesaba could have simply suspended service without filing any notice.

Decision

We will allow Mesaba to discontinue its service at Rhinelander, as of September 5, 2011, as it 

requested. Chautauqua’s remaining service of two round trips a day to Milwaukee with 37-seat 

regional jets meets the community’s essential air service determination, which calls for two 

round trips a day offering 67 seats in each direction. Thus, we have no authority to require

Mesaba to continue beyond the end of the 90-day notice period. 
- 2 -

Before Mesaba suspends its services, we expect it to contact all travelers holding reservations for 

travel after its suspension date; to notify them of its suspension and the alternative services

available from other carriers; and to assist them in arranging alternate transportation or to provide 

them with a refund of their ticket price, without penalty, if requested.

This order is issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.56a(f).

ACCORDINGLY,

1. We allow Mesaba Aviation, Inc., operating as Delta Connection to suspend its scheduled air 

service at Rhinelander, Wisconsin, as of September 5, 2011;

2. This docket will remain open until further order of the Department; and

3. We will serve copies of this order on the mayor and airport manager of Rhinelander, Mesaba 

Aviation, Inc. and Chautauqua Airlines, operating as Frontier Express.

By:

 SUSAN L. KURLAND

Assistant Secretary for Aviation

and International Affairs

(SEAL)

An electronic version of this document is available

at www.regulations.gov
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PAUL E. JOZWIAK, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

RAYTHEON MISSILE SYSTEMS; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-17361 

D.C. No. 4:20-cv-00039-DCB 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 17, 2021**

Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Paul E. Jozwiak appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing 

his action alleging federal claims arising from the termination of his employment

and benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an 

abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to serve the summons and complaint 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

AUG 26 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 20-17361 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Oyama v. Sheehan (In re Sheehan), 

253 F.3d 507, 511 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Jozwiak’s action

because Jozwiak failed to effect proper service of the summons and amended 

complaint after being given notice and repeated opportunities and directives to do 

so. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (outlining requirements for proper service and 

explaining that a district court may dismiss for failure to serve after providing 

notice and absent a showing of good cause for failure to serve); Ariz. R. Civ. P. 

4.1-4.2 (outlining requirements for proper service); In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d at 512-

13 (discussing good cause and district court’s broad discretion to dismiss an

action).

The district court properly dismissed Jozwiak’s original complaint with 

leave to amend for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (pleading must contain “a short and plain statement of 

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”); McHenry v. Renne, 84 

F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of complaint that failed to 

set forth simple, concise and direct averments); see also Barren v. Harrington, 152 

F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is reviewed de novo); Dominguez v. Miller (In re Dominguez), 

51 F.3d 1502, 1508 n.5 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 is 
 3 20-17361 

reviewed de novo).

We reject as without merit Jozwiak’s contentions that the district court was 

biased.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
#### Valerie Kay ROLLO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Ricky Klien ROLLO, Defendant and Respondent.

No. 18605.

Supreme Court of Utah.

March 25, 1983.

*963Willard R. Bishop, Cedar City, for plaintiff and appellant.

Ricky Klien Rollo, pro se.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal stems from a judgment rejecting specific performance of that part of a divorce decree in which defendant was obligated to pay $3,600, being one-half of a loan from his grandmother, which loan was secured by a second mortgage executed by the parties. The loan was obtained to make the down payment on a house and lot the parties bought during the marriage. The property was awarded to plaintiff in the divorce decree in the following language: “To the plaintiff: ... 2) the homestead located at 336 West Sunbow.” The second mortgage, as well as a subsisting first mortgage, described the awarded home by metes and bounds, as “Lot 3, Block 1 Sun Bow Subdivision, Cedar City, Utah.” This same description was used in a quitclaim deed signed and delivered by the defendant to plaintiff in compliance with and in aid of the award of the property to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, after the divorce, found it necessary to sell the property and, in doing so, to satisfy and release the second mortgage. She asked defendant to pay his half of the loan as he was required to do under the decree. The defendant refused and the plaintiff paid the second mortgage debt herself, after which she sought reimbursement of the $3,600 defendant was obligated to pay under the judgment.

In refusing to order such reimbursement, the trial court attached an unwarranted meaning to the word “homestead” in the description of what was awarded in the decree. The court said “homestead” meant only the equitable, statutory right to secure the “homestead” amount stated in the statute incident to a sale on execution to satisfy creditors. The record is devoid of any fact or document or statement that would support such an interpretation. The language of the award says nothing about a statutory “homestead” right.1 On the contrary, it describes property at a specific street address, and the second mortgage and defendant’s deed to plaintiff more specifically described the property in issue here by block, lot and subdivision in Cedar City, Utah.

The judgment denying the motion for reimbursement of $3,600 to plaintiff is reversed, and the case remanded with instructions to enter judgment requiring reimbursement of such amount to the plaintiff, together with applicable interest. No costs on appeal are awarded.

1

. U.C.A., 1953, § 78-23-4 provides that if one does not declare a homestead right, his conveyance of the property passes title free and clear of homestead rights. *Cf.*U.C.A., 1953, § 75-2-401.
Incentive Opportunities Term Sheet



 EXHIBIT 10.14 
  
 PEARL MEYER & PARTNERS 
  
 PULITZER INC. 
  

  
 Incentive Opportunities for TERRY EGGER 
  

  
 This term sheet outlines certain incentive opportunities that will be offered to you if the current strategic review process leads to a sale of the Company (a
“Transaction”) that takes place before September 1, 2005. 
  

	A.	TRANSACTION INCENTIVE OPPORTUNITY 

  
 To encourage you to continue with the Company and share in the value realized by our stockholders, you will be eligible to receive the following amounts
UPON THE TRANSACTION CONSUMMATION IF YOU ARE THEN STILL EMPLOYED BY THE COMPANY: 
  
 DEAL PARTICIPATION BONUS 
  

			
	$75,000	 	This Bonus is being offered to you in recognition of your efforts up until the date of the Transaction consummation.
	
	 BONUS IN LIEU OF 2004 STOCK OPTION GRANT

		
	$195,000	 	This Bonus is being offered in lieu of a 2004 stock option grant.
		
	$270,000	 	TOTAL TRANSACTION INCENTIVE OPPORTUNITY

  

	B.	RETENTION INCENTIVE OPPORTUNITY 

  
 To encourage you to continue with the Company following the transaction, you will be eligible to receive the following amount on the date that is THREE
MONTHS FOLLOWING THE TRANSACTION CONSUMMATION IF YOU ARE THEN EMPLOYED BY THE COMPANY (OR ITS SUCCESSOR): 
  
 RETENTION BONUS 
  

			
	$648,657	 	You would also be entitled to the Retention Bonus if your employment is terminated during the period of three months following the Transaction other than by the Company for “Cause”
or by you without “Good Reason” (as those terms are defined in your Executive Transition Agreement).

  
 A Clark Consulting
Practice 









 PEARL MEYER & PARTNERS 
  
 PULITZER INC. 
  

  
 Incentive Opportunities for TERRY EGGER

  

  

	C.	STOCK OPTIONS 

  
 All of your unvested options to purchase common stock of Pulitzer Inc. will vest immediately before consummation of the Transaction, assuming your
employment continues until that time. Your vested options are, of course, currently exercisable, subject to compliance with federal securities laws and Company policies. 
  

	D.	EXECUTIVE TRANSITION PLAN 

  
 The above incentive opportunities will be in addition to any rights or entitlements you have under your Executive Transition Agreement. 
  
 A Clark Consulting Practice 
  

 -2-
**Exhibit      32.2**

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

**AS        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | 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                  Registrant. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                          |                                                                                                                          |                                       |
|-------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
| Date:            May 18, 2007 | By:                                                                                                                 | /s/ Michel                  St-Pierre |
|                          | Name:                  Michel St-Pierre                  Title:                      Acting Chief Financial Officer |

----
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2011-0859 Directorate ID: 2010-SW-052-AD

Helicopter Model: Eurocopter France (ECF) Model EC120B Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 20 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: prevent the inability to isolate electrical equipment during an emergency, the risk of an 

uncontrolled electrical fire, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $17

Labor per Helicopter

(1 x $85/work-hour)

$85

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $102 

Total US Fleet Cost $2,040

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: George Schwab
[No. 34652-1-I.

Division One.

June 3, 1996.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Eugene Black, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 94-1-00563-1, George T. Mattson, J., entered May 2, 1994. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Becker, J., concurred in by Kennedy, A.C.J., and Ellington, J.
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 0

- 0471
STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee,

v. STEVEN LEE STRIKE, SR. , Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel of record pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. § 46

- 8

- 103(2) and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Appellant in thi s matter shall file a response to this motion within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. The response must be served upon all counsel of record, including the Attorney General, the County Attorney, and the Appellate Defender’s Office. 05/23/2022

Case Number: DA 20-04712 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court give notice of this Order by mail to all counsel of record and to the Appellant at h is last known address.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 23 2022
United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 13, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________

m 05-10509

_______________

SUE C. MCNEIL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

WYETH,

Formerly Known as American Home Products Corporation,

Doing Business as A.H. Robins Company, Inc.,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

_________________________

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Before KING, SMITH, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

IT IS ORDERED that the “Motion for Modification of Certain

Statements in the Court’s Opinion” and the “Petition for Panel

Rehearing for the Limited Purpose of Modifying Certain Statements

in the Opinion” are DENIED.

/s/ Jerry E. Smith 

JERRY E. SMITH

United States Circuit Judge