alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. (S)1350

       (ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

In connection with this Amendment No. 1 to the quarterly report of Dynegy Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Nick J. Caruso, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18,
Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my
knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),
as applicable, 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 at
the dates and for the periods indicated.

Date: May 14, 2003

                                                    /s/ Nick J. Caruso
                                                    ---------------------------
                                                    Nick J. Caruso
                                                    Executive Vice President and
                                                    Chief Financial Officer
• APARTMENT OF 

SERVED JANUARY 4,2011 •', •:^3vSn? v 'C 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION '^=i M ~U P 2- 55 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

RUSHMORE HELICOPTERS, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP10GL0002 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FAA No. FAA-2010-0023 

AMENDED PROCEDURAL ORDER 

This matter will not be set for hearing prior to March 1, 2011. 

Paragraphs #2 and #3 of the Procedural Order are amended as follows : 

WHEREFORE, the parties be and are hereby ORDERED to adhere to the 

following procedural schedule: 

... On or before March 1, 2011, the parties shall conclude all discovery including, 

but not limited to, depositions, document production, responses to production 

requests and/or interrogatories. If the parties cannot resolve a discovery dispute 

they shall submit the dispute to the undersigned for resolution in a timely 

manner... 

' Materials filed in the FAA Hearing Docket (except for materials filed in security cases) are also available 

for viewing at http://www. regulations, gov. 

^ The Administrator's civil penalty decisions, along with indexes of the decisions, the Rules of Practice, as 

well as other materials relating to civil penalty cases, are available on the internet at: 

http://w\nv.faa.g(n>/about/office org/headquarters_offices/agc/poladjudication/agc400/ see 

also: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&.tpl=/ecfrbrowse/TUlel4/14tab02.tpl. In 

addition, Thomson Reuters/West Publishing publishes Federal Aviation Decisions. Finally, the decisions 

are available through LEXIS (TRANS library) and WestLaw 9FTRAN-FAA database). For additional 

information, see the Web site. 
^••^i:.:-_,im' ^ 

-f^ICE IS HEREBY aiV^i^^^ i 

Attachment-Service List Law Judge 

f 'i^J&.S'M 

ii^f' 

^>i'4''i. 

••.tfcr 

".^ m 

• . m 

.:3:k;-K. 

tbedai^ '^^•ss^^;?^" ^ 
FAA Docket No. CP10GL0002 

(Civil Penahy Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000* 

ONE COPY 

Michael Jacob, Respondent 

President or CEO 

Rushmore Helicopters, Inc. 

24564 Highway 16/385 

Custer, SD 57730 

Chris G. Zurales, Complainant's Counsel 

Great Lakes Region, AGL-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2300 East Devon Avenue 

Des Plaines, IL 60018-4696 

,TEL: 847-294-7713 

FAX; 847-294-7498 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room E12-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Legal Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail, For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: 

Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S. W., Wilbur Wright Building^Suite 

2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
# C_2016202EN.01004001.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/40

---

Article 46

1.   Those Member States which wish to participate in the permanent structured cooperation referred to in Article 42(6), which fulfil the criteria and have made the commitments on military capabilities set out in the Protocol on permanent structured cooperation, shall notify their intention to the Council and to the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

2.   Within three months following the notification referred to in paragraph 1 the Council shall adopt a decision establishing permanent structured cooperation and determining the list of participating Member States. The Council shall act by a qualified majority after consulting the High Representative.

3.   Any Member State which, at a later stage, wishes to participate in the permanent structured cooperation shall notify its intention to the Council and to the High Representative.

The Council shall adopt a decision confirming the participation of the Member State concerned which fulfils the criteria and makes the commitments referred to in Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on permanent structured cooperation. The Council shall act by a qualified majority after consulting the High Representative. Only members of the Council representing the participating Member States shall take part in the vote.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

4.   If a participating Member State no longer fulfils the criteria or is no longer able to meet the commitments referred to in Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on permanent structured cooperation, the Council may adopt a decision suspending the participation of the Member State concerned.

The Council shall act by a qualified majority. Only members of the Council representing the participating Member States, with the exception of the Member State in question, shall take part in the vote.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5.   Any participating Member State which wishes to withdraw from permanent structured cooperation shall notify its intention to the Council, which shall take note that the Member State in question has ceased to participate.

6.   The decisions and recommendations of the Council within the framework of permanent structured cooperation, other than those provided for in paragraphs 2 to 5, shall be adopted by unanimity. For the purposes of this paragraph, unanimity shall be constituted by the votes of the representatives of the participating Member States only.

---
TDCJ Offender Details Page 1 of2 

m TDCJ Home El New Offender Search 

Offender Information Details 

SID Number: 

TDCJ Number: 

Name: 

Race: 

Gender: 

DOS: 

Maximum Sentence Date: 

Current Facility: 

Projected Release Date: 

Parole Eligibility Date: 

Offender Visitation Eligible: 

50287002 

01883332 

WALLACE,LEANN 

A 

F 

1959-12-20 

2029-09-08 

LOCKHART PRIV P 

2029-09-08 

2021-09-08 

YES 

Information provided is updated once daily during weekdays and multiple times per day 

on visitation days. Because this information is subject to change, family members and • 

friends are encouraged to call the unit pfior to traveling for a visit. 

SPECIAL INFORMATION FOR SCHEDULED RELEASE: 

Scheduled Release Date: Offender is not scheduied for release at this time. 

Scheduled Release Type: Will be determined when release date is scheduled. 

Scheduled Release Location: Will be determined when release date is scheduled. 

Offense History: 

Offense Offense Sentence County Case Sentence (YYDate Date No. MM-DD) 

2009-06-23 SEXUALASLT 2013-09-09 JEFFERSON 13- 16-00-00 16428 

http://offender.tdcj.state.tx.us/OffenderSearch/offenderDetail.action?sid=50287002 4/23/2015
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


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Orsus Xelent Technologies,  Inc.
(the  "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended  September 30, 2006, as filed
with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Zhao
Hongwei, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.


                                                      By: /s/ Zhao Hongwei
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Zhao Hongwei
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
                                                         November 14, 2006
Plant Variety Protection Office (PVPO) News, Issue 5 - June 2018

New Exhibit C Form Following UPOV Test Guidelines

The U.S. PVPO announces a new Characteristics form (Exhibit C) for Strawberry and Quinoa applications,

adopting the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) Test Guidelines. 

The new format aligns with the UPOV practices to make it even easier for applicants outside the United 

States to apply for a U.S. Plant Variety Protection Certificate.

The U.S. PVPO requires the Exhibit C form for the objective description of crop varieties using 

morphological and other characteristics. For most crops, these forms have been in place for 20 or more 

years. Using the UPOV Test Guidelines for the Exhibit C for Strawberry and Quinoa applications provides 

the latest valuable information regarding plant characteristics, testing protocols and grow-out trials

procedures. The Test Guidelines are regularly reviewed by experts from around the world.

The images below show some of the sections from the Strawberry and Quinoa Exhibit C forms. You can 

see the electronic forms for both crops by logging into the electronic Plant Variety Protection (ePVP) 

System (authentication required), or by downloading the PDF versions of the forms from the PVPO 

website. The links to both are at the bottom of this page.
When evaluating Strawberry or Quinoa applications, the U.S. PVPO will consider accepting the 

Distinctness, Uniformity and Stability (DUS) report from other UPOV countries on a case-by-case basis. 

If an applicant is interested in submitting a DUS report from another country, please communicate this 

on the application in the Exhibit C comments section. The U.S. PVPO will contact and work with the 

applicant to obtain an official DUS report from a relevant Country. For more information on this policy,

please contact the U.S. PVPO.

You can find out more about the PVPO, how to apply for protection and the required fees at 

https://www.ams.usda.gov/pvpo. The ePVP System is available at https://pvpo.ams.usda.gov/, with 

instructions on how to authenticate for the system and how to submit applications.

We welcome your suggestions on topics for future newsletters, as well as ideas on how we can improve 

our service. Please feel free to contact the PVPO if you have any questions, comments or suggestions.
To subscribe to updates, change your profile, or unsubscribe to this newsletter, go to 

https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDAMS.

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

For more information, please contact:

Plant Variety Protection Office

Science & Technology Program

Agricultural Marketing Service

United States Department of Agriculture

1400 Independence Ave, SW - Room 4512

Washington, DC 20250

Phone: (202) 260-8983

PVPOmail@ams.usda.gov
#### Glen E. HORTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee.

No. 3359.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

Oct. 28, 1977.

Robert Coats, Asst. Public Defender, and Brian Shortell, Public Defender, Anchorage, for appellant.

Richard J. Ray, Asst. Dist. Atty. and Harry L. Davis, Dist. Atty., Fairbanks, for ap-pellee.

*483OPINION

Before BOOCHEVER, C. J., and RABI-NO WITZ, CONNOR, BURKE and MATTHEWS, JJ.

CONNOR, Justice.

This is a sentence appeal.

Glen Horton pleaded nolo contendere to the offense of receiving and concealing stolen property in violation of AS 11.20.350. The court imposed the statutory maximum sentence of three years imprisonment, with a provision that Horton not be eligible for parole until at least one-half of his sentence is completed.

Horton was 37 years old at the time of sentencing. He had three previous felony convictions. It appears that he suffers from an inability to handle alcohol.

On appeal it is contended that the court should not have (1) pronounced Horton to be one of the worst type of offenders within his class, (2) set the eligibility for parole at one-half of the sentence imposed, and (3) sentenced Horton without benefit of psychological examinations.

Upon our review of the record we are unable to conclude that the trial court’s sentence was clearly mistaken.1 At the sentencing, the trial court reviewed Horton’s extensive criminal record and personal background. This record provided the proper foundation to support the trial court’s characterization of Horton as one of the worst type offenders within his class. *State v. Wortham,*537 P.2d 1117, 1120 (Alaska 1975); *Galaktionoff*v. *State,*486 P.2d 919, 924 (Alaska 1971).

The trial court was empowered to fix Horton’s parole eligibility at one-half of the sentence imposed. Under AS 33.15.-230(a)(1), as amended in 1974, the sentencing judge may:

> “designate ... a minimum term at the expiration of which the prisoner is eligible for parole, which term shall be *at least*one-third of the maximum sentence imposed by the court;” (emphasis supplied)

In view of Horton’s age, the nature of his present and past transgressions, and his personality and character, *Tommy v. State,*551 P.2d 179 (Alaska 1976), cited by appellant, is distinguishable. The defendant in *Tommy*was 23 years old when sentenced. Horton was 37. There was no need for psychological evaluation as a prerequisite to imposing sentence.

The sentence is affirmed.

1

. *See Nicholas v. State,*477 P.2d 447 (Alaska 1970).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           4,974
<SECURITIES>                                     2,097
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,701
<ALLOWANCES>                                       943
<INVENTORY>                                     18,359
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               183,564
<PP&E>                                          53,460
<DEPRECIATION>                                  30,648
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 266,373
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           72,058
<BONDS>                                         76,291
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,641
<OTHER-SE>                                     116,383
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   266,373
<SALES>                                        254,161
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               254,161
<CGS>                                          181,404
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  181,404
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                65,715
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   450
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,944
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,847
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,268
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,579
<DISCONTINUED>                                (59,345)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (56,766)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.50)<F1>
<FN>
<F1>The above accounts reflect the accounts of Microwave Networks (MN) and
Satellite Transmission Systems (STS) as discontinued operations.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
# EUR-Lex - 12012M004 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12012M004

**Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union - TITLE I: COMMON PROVISIONS - Article 4 **

*
Official Journal C 326, 26/10/2012, p. 0018 - 0018 *

Article 4

1. In accordance with Article 5, competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States.

2. The Union shall respect the equality of Member States before the Treaties as well as their national identities, inherent in their fundamental structures, political and constitutional, inclusive of regional and local self-government. It shall respect their essential State functions, including ensuring the territorial integrity of the State, maintaining law and order and safeguarding national security. In particular, national security remains the sole responsibility of each Member State.

3. Pursuant to the principle of sincere cooperation, the Union and the Member States shall, in full mutual respect, assist each other in carrying out tasks which flow from the Treaties.

The Member States shall take any appropriate measure, general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaties or resulting from the acts of the institutions of the Union.

The Member States shall facilitate the achievement of the Union's tasks and refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the Union's objectives.

--------------------------------------------------
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1299 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1299

 To require any delivery vehicle owned or leased by the United States 
 Postal Service have an air conditioning unit, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 15, 2019

  Mr. Cardenas (for himself and Mr. Raskin) introduced the following 
   bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require any delivery vehicle owned or leased by the United States 
 Postal Service have an air conditioning unit, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Peggy Frank Memorial Act''.

SEC. 2. REQUIRING POSTAL SERVICE DELIVERY VEHICLES TO HAVE AIR 
              CONDITIONING UNITS.

    (a) Current Vehicles.--
            (1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
        enactment of this Act, any delivery vehicle owned or leased by 
        the United States Postal Service as of that date shall be 
        modified to include an air conditioning unit.
            (2) Annual report.--The Postmaster General shall submit a 
        progress report to Congress not later than 1 year after the 
        date of enactment of this Act and annually thereafter until the 
        modifications required under this subsection are complete.
    (b) Future Vehicles.--On or after the date of enactment of this 
Act, the Postmaster General may not purchase or lease any delivery 
vehicle for use by the United States Postal Service unless that vehicle 
has an air conditioning unit.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6726

BENNY BARFIELD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

HONORABLE MARK SANFORD, Governor; JOHN MCGILL, Director 

SCDMH; CHAD LOMINICK, Director SVPTP; JON OZMIT, Director 

SCDC; ROBERT STEVENSON, Warden SCDC,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior 

District Judge. (6:09-cv-00850-PDM)

Submitted: August 19, 2010 Decided: August 30, 2010

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Benny Barfield, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II, 

Joel Steve Hughes, Kenneth Paul Woodington, DAVIDSON, MORRISON & 

LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Benny Barfield appeals the district court’s order 

denying relief on his complaint. The district court referred 

this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2010). The magistrate judge 

recommended that relief be denied and advised Barfield that 

failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could 

waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 

recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a 

magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve 

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when 

the parties have been warned of the consequences of 

noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th 

Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). 

Barfield has waived appellate review by failing to file 

objections after receiving proper notice. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district 

court. 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.

AFFIRMED