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



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
  1.
    
    The quarterly report of the Company for the period ending June 30, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: August 15, 2005
    /s/ J. Michael AllenJ. Michael AllenChief Executive OfficerDate: August 15, 2005
    /s/ J. Dave DeVennyJ. Dave DeVennyChief Financial Officer
# Table 2aQtr

# Sheet2

# Sheet3
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

IN THE MATTER OF JET MIDWEST TECHNIK, INC. FDMS NO. FAA-2015-0637 FAA CASE NO. 2014CE050039 (Civil Penalty Proceeding) ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE Han. RichardC. Goodwin Hearing Date: NOT YETASSIGNED Hearing Location: Kansas City, MO 

# RECEIVED JUN 292015 

## HEARING DOCKET

RESPONDENT'S AMENDMENT TO ANSWER COMES NOW, Respondent, Jet Midwest Technik, Inc. (hereinafter "JMTI"), by and throughundersigned counsel, pursuant to Rule 209 ofthe Rules ofPractice (14 C.P.R. § 13.209) and hereby files the following Amendment to the Answer filed on June 23, 2015. The remainder ofRespondent's Answer and Affirmative defenses remains the same. ANSWER III. !(a). Respondent has moved for dismissal ofthe allegations contained in section III, paragraph number !(a) ofthe Complaint pursuantto 14 C.P.R. §13.218(£). Regardless, JMTI denies the allegations contained in section III, paragraphnumber !(a) ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof.Dated: June 24,2015

2 

### Gregov'Y S. 

## w· to , Esq. The 4'viation LawFirm 1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway Suite 300 Annapolis, MD 21401 Tel: (30 1) 294-8550 Fax: (301) 294-2525 Counsel for RespondentCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this date sent via U.S. mail, postage pre-paid, an original and one copy ofthe foregoing Respondent'sAnswer andAffirmative Defenses addressed to: ORIGINAL AND ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000 Washington, DC 20591 And further, that I have this date served a copy ofthe foregoing viafacsimile and U.S. mail, postage pre-paid, to the following: ONE COPY VIAFACSIMILE NO. 202-366-7536 HON. Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 Attn: Patricia Matthews (Richard.Goodwin@dot.gov) ONE COPY VIAFACSIMILE NO. 816-329-3771 Mark G. Camacho, Esq. Federal Aviation Administration Central Region, ACE-7 901 Locust, Room 506 Kansas City, MO 64106-2641 Tel: 816-329-3765 Fax: 816-329-3771 Counsel for Complainant Dated: June 24,2015

3 Gr gory S. Winton, Esq. The Aviation LawFirm 1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway Suite 300 Annapolis, MD 21401 Counsel for Respondent
##### 



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 Company.
 Date:  May 15, 2007
    /s/ Robert K. MoskovitzName:
    Robert K. MoskovitzTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer of the General Partner
OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 
719 

Honorable A. a. tr;tckerson - Page e 

proT0ke0 your inquiry, Is that part or se0t10n 4 reading 

am follous~ 

nPtwvided, bowevor, t&at in all mmtie0 beving a ppulstiQn of not less than 

fourteen tiaouoand, a.TLra hundred and ruty 

(14,680) nOr plrffe thal’i foUrteen tbOl~sond, 

el@t huMriM ($4,~300), aooordtng to the 

last available federal mnsus, as sam now 

axSets or way b6rosSter exist, ouch preohnct 

4waradstil.oaer shall be entitled to moeire 

In salary not ia ex.4368~ of Three Thousand 

Dollars ($3000&O) per annum.’ 

There is soms apparent sonSuslor in this pxym-kro, 

dth mapoat to the refer@neo to the alast atallabls federal 

o4n8us .* If’ the tit in this proviso had used the language, 

l ao~ording to the laot arrflable Sederal census as the em 

new aidis,* It doubtlsllr rwl4 hw8 embraced LiontgQmry 

Qoun~, far, as the last available federal Ooollus &x$&ad 

on the date of this enactment, that fmtxnt~ did fall tit@n 

the braekot’14,660-l4*600 population. mat such is not the 

1-e OS the Aot,for itooataios tho a&‘XtionaX wwda 

*or mat hereafter esi8tar %a that, those womh?myhcmsoihr exidi~ aa-0 pert~ntto the194Oi~deraloqmsarhen 

the name beoaPa 8railablet onii aOcOrd&~ to Wt - 

&ontgomery County does mt fall witbin tba abowbraekei 

rri,th reapsot to wbA& population the @000.00 salw taa 

preeoribod. 

We ham armstrued tidsAotwAthout8ny oonsideratioa Of its oon5titution8l raUdity.
#### Todd Evan PEARL, Appellant, v. Wendy Haston PEARL, Appellee.

No. 85-2367.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 14, 1986.

Rehearing Denied June 13, 1986.

Andrea Lee Wolfson, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Wendy Pearl, Delray Beach, pro se.

*110PER CURIAM.

The pleadings and evidence presented furnish a sufficient basis to sustain the trial court’s award of lump sum alimony. We find no abuse of discretion and accordingly, the final judgment is affirmed. *See Canakaris v. Canakaris,*382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980).

AFFIRMED.

HERSEY, C.J., and ANSTEAD and DELL, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.0

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the report of SI
Financial Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as added by 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 Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of
and for the period covered by this Report.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





| |  |                           
| |  | --------------------------
| | 
| |  | By: /s/ Rheo A. Brouillard

Rheo A. Brouillard

President and Chief Executive Officer

November 13, 2009





|                     
|---------------------
|                     
|By: /s/ Brian J. Hull

Brian J. Hull

Executive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer

November 13, 2009
Agricultural Quality Assessment Division AWA Specification

Marketing 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0258 May 5, 2021

Service Washington, DC 20250 Page 1 of 2

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

LIVE ANIMAL SPECIFICATION

AMERICAN WAGYU ASSOCIATION’S

SPECIFICATION FOR CHARICTARISTICS OF CATTLE ELIGIBLE 

FOR APPROVED PROGRAMS CLAIMNG WAGYU INFLUENCE 

1 SCOPE

1.1 This specification sets forth the requirements for live cattle from which carcasses 

can be derived for certification in approved branded beef programs claiming 

Wagyu influence. Cattle may qualify for the breed influence specification of these 

branded beef programs by meeting the Genotype requirements specified below.

2 REQUIREMENTS

2.1 Cattle eligible for Wagyu Fullblood (100% Wagyu) certified beef programs must be 

registered with the American Wagyu Association and DNA parent verified through 

the American Wagyu Association to both sire and dam. Both parents will be registered 

by the American Wagyu Association.

2.2 Cattle eligible for Wagyu Purebred (93.75% Wagyu minimum) certified beef 

programs must be registered with the American Wagyu Association and DNA parent 

verified through the American Wagyu Association to both sire and dam. Both parents 

will be registered by the American Wagyu Association.

2.3 Cattle eligible for Wagyu influence certified beef programs must have positive 

identification (e.g. ear tags, tattoos, brands) and be traceable to provable (e.g.

registration papers) Wagyu parentage. Qualifying cattle must be traceable to at least one

registered parent (Fullblood or Purebred). The registration categories can be viewed at

www.wagyu.org. For an animal to qualify as Wagyu, subsequently allowing the meat 

from the animal to be eligible to claim Wagyu influence, the animal must be an 

offspring of:

2.3.1 A registered sire of at least 15/16 or 93.75% Wagyu blood (i.e. Fullblood 

or Purebred) or;

2.3.2 A registered dam of at least 15/16 or 93.75% Wagyu blood (i.e. Fullblood 

or Purebred);

3. VERIFICATION

3.1 Genotype. Compliance with genotype requirements shall be determined and controlled 

through a quality management program approved and monitored by the Livestock and Poultry 

Program.
Agricultural Quality Assessment Division AWA Specification

Marketing 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0258 May 5, 2021

Service Washington, DC 20250 Page 2 of 2

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

___________________________________

Chad Nelson, National Meat Supervisor

Standards and Specifications Division

Livestock & Poultry Program
**
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGEACT OF 1934,**

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

I, Robert Meyerson, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of C5 Acquisition Corporation; 

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 tomake 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 materialrespects 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(s) 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) [Omitted]; 

(c) Evaluated theeffectiveness 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 onsuch evaluation; and 

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred 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 internalcontrol over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation 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 arereasonably 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’sinternal control over financial reporting. 

 
Date: March 28, 2022  By: 
/s/ Robert Meyerson
   **Robert Meyerson**   **Chief Executive Officer**   **(Principal Executive Officer)**
 
**
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 13

- 00062

- CV

In the Interest of L.L.M. and S.M.M., Children

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011

- PA

- 00439

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI

, JUSTICE BARNARD , AND JUSTICE MARTINEZ

In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, the trial court’s

termination order is AFFIRMED.

SIGNED September 4, 2013.

_____________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice
|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| April 26, 2011 | /s/ Jeffrey O. Nyweide |
|----------------|------------------------|
|           | Name:                  | Jeffrey O. Nyweide |
|           | Title:                 | Chief Financial Officer, Executive Vice |
|           |                   | President – Corporate Development, and |
|           |                   | Secretary (Principal Financial Officer and |
|           |                   | Principal Accounting Officer) |

----
Exhibit 10.2


 


DIVERSIFIED HEALTHCARE TRUST


 


Summary of Trustee Compensation


 


The following is a summary of the currently effective compensation
of the Trustees of Diversified Healthcare Trust (the “Company”) for services as Trustees, which is subject to modification
at any time by the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) or the Compensation Committee of the Board, as applicable:


 


		· 	Each Independent Trustee receives an annual fee of $75,000 for
services as a Trustee. The annual fee for any new Independent Trustee is prorated for the initial year.



 


		· 	Each Independent Trustee who serves as a committee chair of
the Board’s Audit Committee, Compensation Committee or Nominating and Governance Committee receives an additional annual fee of
$20,000, $15,000 and $15,000, respectively. The committee chair fee for any new committee chair is prorated for the initial year.



 


		· 	The Lead Independent Trustee receives an additional annual cash
retainer fee of $17,500 for serving in this role.



 


		· 	Each Trustee receives a grant of 20,000 of the Company’s
common shares of beneficial interest on the date of the first Board meeting following each annual meeting of shareholders (or, for Trustees
who are first elected or appointed at other times, on the day of the first Board meeting attended).



 


		· 	The Company generally reimburses all Trustees for travel expenses
incurred in connection with their duties as Trustees and for out of pocket costs incurred in connection with their attending certain
continuing education programs.
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2016

- 4220 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2015

- NM

- 076

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If

they do not, click (or Tab) into a nd then out of the changed cell

.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement)

Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance)

Work

- hours

(include

access, testing,

and close

- up) Labor

c ost

(@$8 5 /h

our) Parts Cost Total Costs

(labor +

parts) Number of

U.S.

Registered

Products Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Revise Limitations 1.0 $ 85.00 $0 $ 85.00 

### 2 $ 170.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0 .00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 170



### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

On

- Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement) Work

- hours

(include access,

testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$8 5/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00



### Special considerations for Economic Analys is ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant reg ulatory action”?

YES * NO

* Expla nation:

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

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

either a Yes or No an swer.

YES NO

Explanation:

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
AMS Frozen Pasteurized Whole Eggs Microbial Performance - Fiscal Year: 20211/,2/

Standard Plate Count3/ Total Coliforms4/ Salmonella5/

Contractor

# Lots Produced 

(% of Total)

# Exceeding 

Critical Limit

% Exceeding 

Critical Limit

# Exceeding 

Critical Limit

% Exceeding 

Critical Limit # Positive % Positive

C1 16 (2.5) 0 0 0 0 0 0

C2 128 (19.9) 0 0 0 0 0 0

C3 186 (28.9) 0 0 0 0 0 0

C4 64 (10.0) 4 6.3 0 0 0 0

C5 170 (26.4) 1 0.6 0 0 0 0

C7 79 (12.3) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 643 (100.0) 5 0.8 0 0 0 0

1/A full description of the frozen pasteurized whole eggs purchase program specification is available at https://www.ams.usda.gov/selling-food/product-specs#Eggs. 2/Production Dates: October 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021. 3/Standard Plate Count Critical Limit: 1,000 CFU/g.

4/Total Coliforms Critical Limit: 10 CFU/g.

5/Salmonella Critical Limit: Positive (+) Result / 25g.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-50365 & No. 95-50620 

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROBERT BOUVIER,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-90-CR-30

 USDC No. A-90-CR-30-1

- - - - - - - - - -

March 21, 1996

Before REAVLEY, DUHÉ and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert Bouvier, in this consolidated appeal of the district

court's denial of his motion to reconsider its judgment granting

relief pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and the court's

subsequent entry of an amended order reducing his sentence,

argues that 1) the district court's method of recalculating his

base offense level resulted, erroneously, in a base offense level

of 32 rather than a base offense level of 30; 2) the district

court, for sentencing purposes, should not have relied upon a 
No. 95-50365 & No. 95-50620

-2-

statement by codefendant Kelly without clear corroboration of the

statement; 3) the district court should have distinguished

between L-type and D-type methamphetamine at sentencing; 4) the

district court, for sentencing purposes, should have used a 75

percent yield rather than a 100 percent yield in determining how

much methamphetamine Bouvier could have produced; and 5) the

district court, for sentencing purposes, mischaracterized

Bouvier's role in the offense as aggravating.

Even assuming the district court used an improper method of

calculating Bouvier's base offense level, any error was harmless

because the court, in its amended order, determined Bouvier's

base offense level as 30. Bouvier's remaining issues do not seek

retroactive application of changes, but rather pertain to

challenges to the district court's application of the guidelines. 

These issues are thus not cognizable under § 3582(c)(2). United

States v. Shaw, 30 F.3d 26, 29 (5th Cir. 1994). 

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7102

WILLIAM ALLEN LEGG,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ARCHIE C. GEE, Warden; DOCTOR TOMASINO, EMSA

Staff; DOCTOR GRAIG, EMSA Staff; NURSE

CAMPFIELD; NURSE GRAY; PSA ASSOCIATE KRAFT;

PSA ASSOCIATE PLAFSSON; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER

DICKUS, Patuxent,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA98-990-DKC)

Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 23, 1999

Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Allen Legg, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

William Allen Legg filed an untimely notice of appeal. We

dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing

notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods

are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of

Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v.

Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have

thirty days within which to file in the district court notices of

appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1).

The only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district

court extends the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or

reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

The district court entered its order on April 15, 1998; Legg's

notice of appeal was filed on July 23, 1998, which is beyond the

thirty-day appeal period. Appellant's failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period leaves this court

without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant's appeal.

We therefore dismiss the appeal. We deny Legg’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED