alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit No. 15 

Awareness Letter from Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

April 27, 2006 

Armstrong Holdings, Inc. 

Lancaster, Pennsylvania 

Re: Registration Statement No. 333-74501; 33-91890; 33-18996; 33-18997; 33-65768; 333-79093; 333-43872 

With respect to the subject registration statements, we acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of our report dated April 27, 2006 related to our review ofinterim financial information of Armstrong Holdings, Inc. 

Pursuant to Rule 436 under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Act”), such report is notconsidered part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an independent registered public accounting firm, or a report prepared or certified by an independent registered public accounting firm within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 ofthe Act. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
EXHIBIT 32
                                                             ----------

          CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                 AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
             PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
            AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
                 THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

            In connection with the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-KSB/A of Touchstone Applied Science Associates,
Inc. (the "Company"), for the period ended October 31,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Andrew
L. Simon, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Touchstone
Applied Science Associates, Inc., to the best of my
knowledge, 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 results of operations of the Company.

Dated:  August 8, 2005                  /s/ ANDREW L. SIMON
                                         ---------------------------
                                         Andrew L. Simon, President,
                                         Chief Executive Officer and
                                         Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided to Touchstone Applied
Science Associates, Inc. and will be retained by
Touchstone Applied Science Associates, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**@ROAD, INC.**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of @Road, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Krish Panu, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted 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) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

May10, 2005

 
| /s/ Krish Panu |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
|                     |
| Krish  Panu              |
| Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION
 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 10, 2007
    /s/ Sung Won Sohn, Ph.D.Sung Won Sohn, Ph.D.President and Chief Executive Officer
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22A0910. JUAN KEON HARRIS v. THE STATE.

In 2008, Juan Keon Harris was convicted of malice murder, felony murder,

aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. 

Harris filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court denied. Harris then filed this

appeal. The Supreme Court, however, has jurisdiction over this case. 

The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over “[a]ll cases in which a

sentence of death was imposed or could be imposed.” Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI,

Sec. VI, Par. III (8). Because a penalty of death may be imposed for the crime of

murder, jurisdiction is proper in the Supreme Court. See OCGA § 16-5-1 (e) (1); Neal

v. State, 290 Ga. 563, 572 (722 SE2d 765) (2012) (Hunstein, C. J., concurring); see

also State v. Thornton, 253 Ga. 524, 524 (1) (322 SE2d 711) (1984) (directing this

Court to transfer to the Supreme Court “all cases in which either a sentence of death

or of life imprisonment has been imposed upon conviction of murder”), overruled in

part on other grounds as recognized in Elliott v. State, 305 Ga. 179, 205 (III) (C) (i) 

February 09, 2022
(824 SE2d 265) (2019). Accordingly, this appeal is hereby TRANSFERRED to the

Supreme Court. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

02/09/2022
|EXHIBIT 32.1
|------------

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Cognigen Networks, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB/A-2 for the period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert K. Bench, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 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.
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





| | /s/ Robert K. BenchRobert K. Bench,Chief Executive OfficerOctober 26, 2007
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.51

                                ADDENDUM TO LEASE

      This Addendum to Lease is made by and between Cambridge Apartments, Inc.,
a Minnesota corporation ("Lessor"), and Navarre Corporation, a Minnesota
corporation ("Lessee").

      WHEREAS, Lessor and Lessee entered into a certain Office/Warehouse Lease
dated April 1, 1998, as subsequently amended by that certain First Amendment to
Lease dated April 1, 1998, and Second Amendment to Office/Warehouse Lease dated
effective as of July 14, 2003 (collectively, the "Lease") pursuant to which
Lessor has leased to Lessee certain premises located in the City of New Hope
located at 7400 49th Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota (the "Demised Premises");
and

      WHEREAS, Lessor and Lessee pursuant to the Second Amendment to
Office/Warehouse Lease agreed to signed this Addendum to Lease identifying the
Expiration Date of the Lease.

      NOW, THEREFORE, the Lessor and Lessee agrees as follows:

      1. The Expiration Date of the Lease is June 30, 2019.

                   [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
                        SIGNATURE PAGE ON FOLLOWING PAGE]

<PAGE>

             [SIGNATURE PAGE TO ADDENUDM TO LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
               NAVARRE CORPORATION AND CAMBRIDGE APARTMENTS, INC.]

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Lessor and Lessee have caused this Addendum to
Office/Warehouse Lease to be executed and delivered effective this 27th day of
May, 2004.

                                         LESSOR:
                                         CAMBRIDGE APARTMENTS, INC.

                                         By: /s/ David Dahl
                                             -----------------------------------
                                         Its: Executive Vice President

                                         LESSEE:
                                         NAVARRE CORPORATION

                                         By: ___________________________________
                                         Its: __________________________________

<PAGE>

            [SIGNATURE PAGE TO ADDENUDM TO LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
               NAVARRE CORPORATION AND CAMBRIDGE APARTMENTS, INC.]

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Lessor and Lessee have caused this Addendum to
Office/Warehouse Lease to be executed and delivered effective this 27th day of
May, 2004.

                                         LESSOR:
                                         CAMBRIDGE APARTMENTS, INC.

                                         By: ___________________________________
                                         Its: __________________________________

                                         LESSEE:
                                         NAVARRE CORPORATION

                                         By: [ILLEGIBLE]
                                              ____________________________
                                         Its: [ILLEGIBLE]
                                              ____________________________
CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO
              THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,
                     RULES 13a-14 AND 15d-14
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Lewis Eslick, Chief Executive Officer/Chief Financial Officer
of Pure Country, certify that:

     (1)  I have reviewed the report on Form 10-QSB of Pure
          Country;

     (2)  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

     (3)  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
          financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;



Dated:    October 22, 2002





/s/ Lewis Eslick
Lewis Eslick
President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
FROM: David Randall, RTI International

TO: Nick Parsons, EPA/OAQPS

FOR: EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0871

DATE: January 17, 2012

SUBJECT: Geodesic Dome Costs

1. Purpose

This memorandum presents the data used to estimate costs of geodesic domes for storage 

vessels.

2. Analysis

In 2001, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) obtained cost 

information from three manufacturers of geodesic domes for storage vessels. The SCAQMD 

then used these costs to estimate costs for most of the storage vessels in the District that would 

be subject to proposed rule 1178. The resulting costs were plotted in Figure 6-1 of the final staff 

report for rule 1178.

1

That figure was part of an embedded spreadsheet in the report. Table 1 

presents an excerpt of costs from that spreadsheet for a range of storage vessel sizes. The 

SCAQMD final staff report also noted that one refiner estimated the cost of a geodesic dome for 

a storage vessel that has a 25-ft diameter; this cost is also presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Geodesic dome costs estimated by SCAQMD in 2001

Tank diameter 

(ft)

Estimated total capital investment of geodesic domes based on data from a petroleum refiner and 

dome manufacturers (2001 dollars)

Refiner Temcor Conservatek Ultraflote Average

25 19,700 19,700

59.4 67,600 61,560 52,138 60,400

80 102,900 90,720 81,344 91,700

98 131,800 109,080 113,957 118,300

120 185,000 162,000 153,360 166,800

150 248,000 246,240 243,000 245,700

201.5 455,000 438,480 429,482 441,000

230 525,000 583,200 570,240 559,500

We escalated the costs in Table 1 to 2010 dollars using the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost 

Annual Indexes. The indexes are 394.3 for 2001 and 550.8 for 2010.2,3 The escalated costs are 

presented in Table 2. We then developed an equation for the best-fit line through the average 

values as shown in Figure 1.
2

Table 2. Estimated geodesic dome costs in 2010

Tank diameter 

(ft)

Estimated total capital investment of geodesic domes (2010 dollars)

Refiner Temcor Conservatek Ultraflote Average

25 27,519 27,519

59.4 94,431 85,994 72,832 84,400

80 143,742 126,727 113,630 128,000

98 184,112 152,374 159,187 165,200

120 258,428 226,299 214,229 233,000

150 346,433 343,974 339,448 343,300

201.5 635,592 612,515 599,946 616,000

230 733,376 814,676 796,572 781,500

Figure 1. Plot of geodesic dome costs versus storage vessel diameter

3. References

1. South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2001. Further Reductions of VOC Emissions 

From Storage Tanks at Petroleum Facilities. Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1178. 

December 11, 2001. Retrieved from: http://www.aqmd.gov/hb/2001/011233a.html. Last 

accessed in November 2011.

2. Economic Indicators. Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI). Chemical 

Engineering. Published by Access Intelligence. April 2011.

3. Economic Indicators. Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI). Chemical 

Engineering. Published by Access Intelligence. April 2004.
#### James Arlon GULLEDGE, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 31149.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 2, 1959.

No appearance for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This purports to be an appeal from a conviction for a liquor law violation, with punishment assessed at a fine of $400.

*878The notice of appeal appearing in the transcript is not shown to have been entered' of record, as is required under Art. 827, C.C.P. Young v. State, 60 Tex.Cr.R. 290, 131 S.W. 413; Tuel v. State, 142 Tex. Cr.R. 581, 155 S.W.2d 808.

In the absence of a valid notice of appeal this court is without jurisdiction of the appeal.

The appeal is dismissed.
#### Rowan GREEN, Petitioner, v. John T. VANCE et al., Respondents.

No. A-6847.

Supreme Court of Texas.

June 18, 1958.

*795Fields & Carroll, Port Lavaca, for petitioner.

John T. Vance, Callaway S. Vance, Cullen B. Vance, Edna, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

We approve the principal holding of the Court of Civil Appeals in this case, 311 S.W.2d 738, namely, that a logical distinction is not to be drawn between a holding over after the execution of a deed and a holding over after the rendition of a judgment which is either adversary in nature or by consent. In other words, the continued possession of land after the rendition of a judgment divesting the one in possession of title and vesting it in another is not adverse until notice of a hostile claim is brought to the prevailing patty as required by law.

An unqualified refusal of the application for writ of érror cannot be given for the reason that the Court of Civil Appeals passed on certain points that are not before us for consideration. Therefore the application is refused, no reversible error.
# C_2016343EN.01001202.xml

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/12

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 July 2016 — Vichy Catalán, SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office, Hijos de Rivera, SA

(Case C-399/15 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - European Union trade mark - Period within which an action must be brought - Unforeseeable circumstances - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Manifest inadmissibility))

(2016/C 343/18)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Vichy Catalán, SA (represented by: R. Bercovitz Álvarez, abogado)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, Agent), Hijos de Rivera, SA (represented by: C. Sueiras Villalobos, abogada)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Vichy Catalán SA shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Vichy Catalán SA shall pay the costs.

| 3. | Hijos de Rivera SA shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Hijos de Rivera SA shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.

1

---
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Petrol Oil and Gas, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul Branagan, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 

 

|   | /s/Paul Branagan                                 |  
 

Paul Branagan

 
 

President and Chief Executive Officer

 

May 19, 2006

  |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-16-00356- CV

In re DT Lif

estyle, L.L.C.; C im arron Hills Developm ent L.L.C.; Cim arron 2009, L.L.C.; Cim arron Hills 2009, L.P.; Cim arron TX 2009, L.P .; G ary Elbogen; Daniel S. S m ith; MattGuley; and Ch ris Hill

ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM WI LLIAM SO N COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relators seek mandamus relief from a May 1 7 , 2 016 order in which the trial court

g rante d a motion to co m p el d i s co v ery filed by the rea l parties in interest, who are the plaintiffs
below. On J une 8, 2016, afte r rela tors filed this orig inal proce eding , the trial court amende d its discovery order to omit relief with reg ard to p l ai n t i ff s’ reque sts nos. 26 and 27 of their fourth
requests for production. The trial court also modified its order with respe ct to reque st No

. 3 2

. Be cause the t rial court amende d i t s o rder to omit relief on plaintiffs’ requests 26 and 27, rela tors’

p e ti ti o n w it

h r e s p e c t to th o s e r e q

u e s ts is d is mi s s e d a s mo o t. B a s e d o n th e r e c o r d p r e s e n te d to u s w it h

respe ct to the rema inder of the trial court’s order , we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its
discretion. Acc ording ly , the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a)

.__________________________________________ Scott K. Field, Just ice

Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Goodwin, and F ield
Filed: Jul y

15, 2016

2
August 6 , 2015

M r. William Hall

1207 Fort St #219

Boise, ID 83702

Dear Mr. Hall :

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

§ xx.xx 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 No t Process Your Request

We received your May 26

, filed in D ocket No

. FAA

- 20 15

- 1933 , but we are unable to process

your request any further. Your petiti on 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 specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the

relief you se ek, and the reason you seek relief.

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

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would prov ide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.2

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Avia tion Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 1 1.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at

least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. I f

you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure3