alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.3**

**RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Michael S. Willner certify that:

1)              I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Insight Capital, Inc. (the “Registrant”);

2)              Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

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

4)              The Registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:

(a)           designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the Registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)          evaluated theeffectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

(c)           disclosed in thisreport any change in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theRegistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theRegistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5)              The Registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

(a)           all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b)          anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

|   | /s/ MICHAEL S. WILLNER                |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Michael S.  Willner                   |
|   | Chairman and Chief  Executive Officer |
|   | Insight  Capital, Inc.           |
|   | May 15, 2007                     |

 

----
EXHIBIT 32



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 BOE Financial Services of
Virginia, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to the best of his knowledge: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 780(d)); and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of September 30, 2005, and for the periods then ended.



|                          
|--------------------------
|/s/ George M. Longest, Jr.
|George M. Longest, Jr.    
|Chief Executive Officer   
|                          
|/s/ Bruce E. Thomas       
|Bruce E. Thomas           
|Chief Financial Officer   
|                          
|November 14, 2005         



Page: 20
Exhibit 12


    PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES
                        TOTAL ENTERPRISE

        Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

                                            Millions of Dollars
                                         ------------------------
                                             Nine Months Ended
                                                September 30
                                         ------------------------
                                           2000              1999
                                         ------------------------
                                                (Unaudited)
Earnings Available for Fixed Charges
  Income before income taxes             $2,368               697
  Distributions less than equity in
    earnings of fifty-percent-or-less-
    owned companies                        (120)               (5)
  Fixed charges, excluding capitalized
    interest*                               348               297
-----------------------------------------------------------------
                                         $2,596               989
=================================================================

Fixed Charges
  Interest and expense on indebtedness,
    excluding capitalized interest       $  259               210
  Capitalized interest                      118                34
  Preferred dividend requirements of
    capital trusts                           40                40
  Interest portion of rental expense         36                34
-----------------------------------------------------------------
                                         $  453               318
=================================================================
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges          5.7               3.1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*Includes amortization of capitalized interest totaling
 approximately $13 million in both 2000 and 1999.


Earnings available for fixed charges include, if any, the
company's equity in losses of companies owned fifty percent or
less that have debt for which the company is contingently liable.
Fixed charges include the company's proportionate share, if any,
of interest relating to the contingent debt.

In 1990, the company guaranteed a $400 million bank loan for the
Long-Term Stock Savings Plan (LTSSP), an employee benefit plan.
Consolidated interest expense included $3 million of interest
related to the LTSSP borrowing in the first nine months of 2000
and a minimal amount in the first nine months of 1999.

<PAGE>
#### UNITED STATES of America v. Frank TITZ.

No. 1595.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Aug. 7, 1937.

R. T. McCluggage, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Topeka, Kan.

Goldman & Daley, of Kansas City, Mo., for appellee.

Before LEWIS and BRATTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed on motion of appellant.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM











We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-125694 on Form S-8 of our report dated July 14, 2022, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 11-K of the PVH Associates Investment Plan for Residents of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020.





/s/ WithumSmith+Brown, PC





Whippany, New Jersey





July 14, 2022
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,

Respondent

v.

ALLEN FEINGOLD,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 126 EM 2016

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 11th day of October , 2016, the Request to Submit Reply is

GRANTED , and the “Appeal” is DENIED

.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 6, 2018

No. 04

- 17

- 00676

- CV

Peggy Sue BUTLER, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16620A

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was originally due January 19, 2018. Neither the brief nor a motion for extension of time was filed at that time. On February 1, 2018, we orde red appellant to file, on or before February 12, 2018, her appellant’s brief and a written response reasonably explaining her failure to timely file the brief. On February 12, 2018, appellant mailed a motion requesting an

extension of time to file her brief, and the motion was filed i n our court on February 14, 2018.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9.2(b) (outlining when documents filed by mailed are timely filed). Thereafter, on February 16, 2018, appellant mailed her appellant’s brief, which was filed in our court on February 20, 2018. The brief , however, did not comply with Rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See i d. R. 38.1.

Accordingly, on March 8, 2018, we granted appellant’s request for the extension of time

to file her brief , but ordered appellant’s brief stricken due to the numerous violations. We further ordered appellant to file an amended brief, correcting the violations, on or before April 9, 2018.

On March 19, 2018, appellant filed a motion requesting an extension o f time to file her amended brief. In her motion, appellant requests a thirty day extension of time due to the limited

access she has to the prison law library.

After consideration, we GRANT appellant’s motion for extension of time to file her

amended b rief and ORDER that appellant file her brief on or before May 9, 2018.

We order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this brief on appellant and all counsel._________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 6th day of April, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
**Exhibit 23.2**

 

 

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public AccountingFirm**

 

 

The Partnersof

ParkwayProperties Office Fund, LP:

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registrationstatements (Nos. 333-92957 and 333-108786) on Form S-3, the registration statements(Nos. 333-100565, 333-115286 and 333-134069) on Form S-8, and the registrationstatements (Nos. 333-88861 and 333-00311) on Form S-8 on Form S-3 of ParkwayProperties, Inc. of our report on Parkway Properties Office Fund, LP (the Partnership)dated February 28, 2007, except for note 3, which is as of March 15, 2007, withrespect to the consolidated historical-cost balance sheet of the Partnership asof December 31, 2006, and the related consolidated historical-cost statementsof operations, changes in partners' capital, and cash flows, for the year then ended,not included herein, as well as the supplemental consolidated current-valuebalance sheet of the Partnership as of December 31, 2006, and the relatedsupplemental consolidated current-value statements of operations and changes inpartners' capital for the year then ended, not included herein, which report appearsin the December 31, 2006 annual report on Form 10-K of Parkway Properties, Inc.

 

As discussed in note 3, the consolidated historical-cost and consolidatedcurrent-value financial statements and the consolidating information inSchedules I and II, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006, have beenrestated.

 

 

 

                                                                                                                /s/ KPMG LLP

 

Jackson,Mississippi

March 16,2007
##### 



Exhibit 10.7
 INDEPENDENT DIRECTOR
OPTION AWARD AGREEMENT
 Optionee: «Name___First» «Name___Last»
    
    
    
    Optionee ID #: «ID»Grant
number: «Grant_Number»
    
    
    
    Optioned shares:«M___Stock_Options»Grant date: , ___
    
    
    
    Price per share: $
 «Name_First» «Name_Last»
      Award
 
  1




---



##### 



Definitions
       2




---



##### 



Vesting; Exercise Date
 Normal Vesting st nd rd
 Accelerated Vesting
 Retention of Vested Options provided however
 Method of Exercise
  3




---



##### 



Exercise by Broker-Dealer
  Tax Withholding
  Transfer of Option
  Certain Legal Restrictions
  4




---



##### 



Disputes
  Governing Law
  Payments
  Miscellaneous
      5




---



##### 



By:{Title}
 Grant number: «Grant_Number»Grant date:
 6
**Exhibit 32.2**

CERTIFICATION 

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

WITH RESPECT TO THE ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE PERIOD ENDED 

DECEMBER 31, 2005 OF WORLDSPACE, INC. 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of WorldSpace, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to his knowledge, that: 

1. The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005, (the “Form 10-K”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

2. The information contained in the Form 10-Kfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Dated: March31, 2006 

 

The certification set forth above is being furnished as an exhibit solely pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document of the Company or the certifying officer.
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1778 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 160 ) ll-E-1 1 Docket Number: 

# A-90-0 6

Printed 10/28/2008 9:50:59 AM Sheet 160of 276P. 2

l f II-E-1 1

NSP S an d PS D Applicabilit yan d tn e por t wasningto n Projec t Tentativ e Agend a Item s Octobe r 21 , 198 8 1:0 0 p.m . I . NSP S Applicabilit y

- Hourl yEmission s (S0 2 , PM , NO* )

- S0 2 Reductio n Requirement s (percent )

- Partia l S0 2 Scrubbing

- Percen t Flu e Ga s Scrubbe d
II . PS D Applicabilit y

- Netting Criteri a

- Othe r Pollutant s Applicabilit y

- Federa l Enforceabl e Limitation s

- PS D Permi t Requirement s 

# V& \o^ \ vP. 3
- L . > * Enclosur e B NSP S Applicabilit y Por t Washingto n Powe r Plan t Renovat i n Projec t

FUL L LOA

D EMISSION S AT CURRENT CAPACIT Y (BEFORE RENOVATION )
S0 2 (LBS/HR ) P M(LBS/HR ) NO x(LBS/HR ) UNIT- 1 141 7 1 5 48 0 UNIT- 2

182 8 1 6 352 ^ UNIT- 3

204 3 1 2 28 9 UNIT- 4

158 0 1 2 22 1 UNIT-5

- 0 - - 0 - - 0 - FUL L LOA

D EMISSION S A T FUTUR E CAPACIT Y (AFTE R RENOVATION )
S0 2 (LBS/HR ) P M(LBS/HR ) NO X(LBS/HR ) UNIT- 1 204 6 1 6 69 6 UNIT- 2

203 7 1 6 39 2 UNIT- 3

208 8 1 2 29 7 UNIT- 4

226 9 1 7 31 6 UNIT 269 5 1 5 36 9 

# r S0 2 (LBS/HR ) PM(LBS/HR ) NO X(LBS/HR ) SUBJEC T T O NSP S (AFTE R RENOVATION ) UNIT- 1 UNIT- 2 UNIT- 3 UNIT- 4 UNIT- 5 YES(a ) YES(a ) YES(a ) YES(a ) YE S YES(b ) NO NO YES(b ) YE S YES(C ) " YEStC ) YES(C ) YES(c ) YES(c ) k Notes : (a ) Wit hles s add-o n contro l tha n NS^ S requirement , emission s (lb/hr ) woul d no t increas e ,an d NSP S woul d no t apply . (b ) Becaus e o f planne d ES P upgrade , P Memission s (lb/M MBtu ) afte r renovatio n ar e expecte d t o b e les s tha n NSP S requirement . However , NSP S woul d requir e CEM S fo r opacity . (c ) Becaus e arch-fire d boiler s ar e use d a t Por t Washington , curren t NO xemission s (lb/M MBtu ) ar e expecte d t o b e les s tha n V ^ NSP S requirements . However , NSP S woul d requir e a CEM S fo r NOx .P. 4

ti l SQ 2 EMISSIONRAT E H I

FOR198 7 (0 ) HOURL YS0 2 EMISSIO NRAT E (LB S S02/HR ) (bl ) UNIT- 1 UNIT- 2 UNIT- 3 UNIT- 4 UNIT- 5 ACTUAL PEAK ACHIEVABL E PEAK MAXIMUMDESIGN 141 7 145 9 204 6 1S2 8

191 9 203 7 204 3

210 4 208 8 158 0

198 4 226 9 ER

R 223 0 269 3

Not e (bl ) PE RWEPC O MEM O SEP T 27 , 198 8 an dOC T 4 , 198 8

tt t 30 2 REDUCTIONREQUIREMENT S U t (c )

(E ) PERCENT S0 2 REDUCTIO NREQUIRE D (1) TOTAL • UNIT- 1 UNIT- 2 • llNIT- 3 UNIT- 4 UNIT- 3 (d ) PLANT (f ) BASI S ACTUA L vs DESIG

N 0. 7 10. 3 

# [TT

j

# Q [74T

] [j £
Not e (c) : 50 2 REDUCTIONEQUATION •E=100(l-Di/Dd )

WHERE : E=PERCENT REDUCTIO NREQUIREMENT FO RUNI T (X ) Ci=PEA K1-H RALLONABL E S0 2 EMISSIONRAT E (ACTUAL ) (LB S S02/HR ) Dd=l-HRS0 2 EMISSIONRAT E A T MAXIMUMDESI6 NCONDITION S (LB S S02/HR ) Not e (d) : Umt- 5 Subjec t t o SUBPART-D a REQUIREMENT S E=100(l-0.6/C5 )

WHERE : C5=UNC0NTR0LLE D EMISSIO NRAT E FORUNIT- 5 (2.3 8 LB S S02/H HBTU )
## SERVE D NOVEMBE R2 , 201 1 Ol^PAHTWENTOF U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATION . .pAySPOniA^^ ^

OFFIC EO FHEARING S A.^Jt \OPErlAIIOr-J b WASHINGTON , D C 

## ZGi i ;^0 V - 3 P3

^ 5 0 I N TH E MATTERO F ISLAN D BIRD INC . FA A DOCKE T NO . [T O B E ASSIGNED ] (Civi l Penalt

y Action ) FDMSNO . FAA-201I-I00 8

NOTIC EO FASSIGNMEN T O FPROCEEDIN G Thi s proceedin g (heretofore designate da s Cas e No . 201OSOI90309 ) ha s bee n assigne dt o Administrativ e La

w Judg e J.E . Sullivan . Al l futur e pleading s an dothe r

communication s regardin g thi s proceedin g shal l b e serve don th e Judge , th e FA A Hearin g Docket , an

dth e other person s o n th e attache dServic e List .

_^- k 

### R(5iini e A . YodEf

^ " ^ ' Chie f Administrativ e La\y<ludg e Attachment

- Servic e Lis tFDMSNO . FAA-2011-100 8 (Civi l Penalt y Action ) SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA L& ON ECOP Y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2WI000 '

ON ECOP Y Kathlee n A . Yodice , Respondent' s Counse l 41 ) Aviatio n Wa y Suit e 24 5 Frederick , M D 2170 1 TEL : 301-695-230 0 FAX ; 301-695-215 1 Ja y S . Lammering , Directo r o f Maintenanc e Islan dBir dInc. , Responden l 810 9 Lindberg hDriv e Nort hRam p CyrilE . Kin g Airpor t St . Thomas , V I 0080 2 Rya n M . Landers , Complainant' s Counse l Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counsel , ASO- 7 Souther n Regio n P.O . Bo x2063 6 Atlanta , G A 3032 0 TEL : 404-305-520 0 FAX : 404-305-522 3 Th e Honorabl e J.E . S\}\\\y3in , Administrativ e La w Judg e U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 2 FAX : 202-366-753 6

^ Service wa

s b y U.S . Mail . Fo

r service i n perso n o r b y expeditedcourier, use th

e Followin g address : Federa

l Aviatio n Administration , 60

0 Independence Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2WI000 , Washington , D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk, AGC^30 .

- 2 -
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1584 

To amend title 23, United States Code, to exempt maintenance activities 

from certain analysis requirements. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 15, 2011 

Mr. LANKFORD introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Natural Resources, for a period 

to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 

concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title 23, United States Code, to exempt 

maintenance activities from certain analysis requirements. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. EXEMPTION OF MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES 

4 FROM CERTAIN ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS. 

5 Section 116 of title 23, United States Code, is 

6 amended by adding at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘(e) EXEMPTION OF MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES

8 FROM CERTAIN ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS.—In mainVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:28 Apr 20, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1584.IH H1584

pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1584 IH

1 taining the Federal-aid system to include construction oc2 curring within existing rights-of-way previously acquired 

3 and reserved for transportation purposes pursuant to this 

4 section, a State department of transportation shall not be 

5 required to secure any permit or conduct any analysis 

6 under Federal law (including any permit, review, analysis, 

7 clearance, or impact statement under the National Envi8 ronmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), 

9 the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 

10 et seq.), the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), the 

11 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 

12 or the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 

13 et seq.)).’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 25, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50641

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff - Appellee

v. 

RODRICK LIGHTEARD

Defendant - Appellant

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:05-CR-718-ALL

--------------------

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rodrick Lighteard pleaded guilty to possession of more than

five grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844, and

possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of

18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Lighteard was sentenced to

concurrent imprisonment terms of 188 months on his drug

conviction and 120 months on his firearm conviction. He appeals

his firearm conviction. 

Lighteard challenges his firearm conviction on the ground

that the factual basis supporting his plea did not establish that
No. 06-50641

-2-

the firearm he possessed had traveled in or affected interstate

commerce. Because Lighteard did not challenge the sufficiency of

the factual basis in the district court, this court reviews the

issue for plain error. See United States v. Castro-Trevino, 464

F.3d 536, 541 (5th Cir. 2006). The record contains no indication

that Lighteard ever took issue with whether the firearm had

traveled in or affected interstate commerce, and Lighteard does

not argue that he would not have pleaded guilty but for the

district court’s error, thus waiving any such argument. See

United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004);

United States v. Edwards, 303 F.3d 606, 647 (5th Cir. 2002). As

such, Lighteard has failed to make the requisite showing. See

Castro-Trevino, 464 F.3d at 544. 

Lighteard also argues that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional

on its face because it does not require a substantial affect on

interstate commerce, relying on Jones v. United States, 529 U.S.

848 (2000), United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), and

United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). This argument is

foreclosed by this court’s precedent. See United States v.

Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v.

Rawls, 85 F.3d 240, 242 (5th Cir. 1996). 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.