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



                                                                    Exhibit 99.6



Report of Independent Accountants


Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A. (the "Bank"),
Administrator of the Chase Credit Card Owner Trust Series 2002-3



We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Management
Report on Internal Control over the Administration of the Chase Credit Card
Owner Trust Series 2002-3 (the "Owner Trust"), that Chase Manhattan Bank USA NA
(the "Bank") maintained effective internal control over its administration of
the Certificates held by the Owner Trust and the Notes issued by the Owner Trust
(the "Administration" of the Owner Trust) as of December 31, 2003, based upon
the criteria for effective internal control established in "Internal Control -
Integrated Framework" issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the
Treadway Commission. The Bank's management is responsible for maintaining
effective internal control over the Administration of the Owner Trust. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on our
examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,
accordingly, included obtaining an understanding of internal control over the
Administration of the Owner Trust, testing and evaluating the design and
operating effectiveness of internal control, and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our
examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

Because of inherent limitations in any internal control, misstatement due to
error or fraud may occur and not be detected. Also, projections of any
evaluation of internal control over the Administration of the Owner Trust to
future periods are subject to the risk that the internal control may become
inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance
with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Bank maintained effective
internal control over Administration of the Certificates held by the Owner Trust
and the Notes issued by the Owner Trust as of December 31, 2003, is fairly
stated, in all material respects, based upon the criteria for effective internal
control established in "Internal Control - Integrated Framework" issued by the
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

March 29, 2004
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 accompanying Annual Report of Hotel Outsource Management
International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December
31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, I, Linor Labandter, Chief Financial 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, 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.








By:
      Linor
      LabandterLinor
      Labandter, Chief Financial OfficerHotel
      Outsource Management International, Inc.March
      31, 2008
1

Ryan Montgomery

From: Ken Hawk

Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 8:17 AM

To: Ryan Montgomery

Subject: FW: Atropine Update

Ryan,

There is a shortage of the Atropine that is part of the EMK’s and there is no delivery date insight.  The shortage is also

effecting hospitals and there is a huge quantity on backorder from the manufacturer.  We may need to pursue an

exception.

From: Steve Gilsdorf [mailto:steveg@majesticaerotech.com] 

Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 2:05 PM 

To: Ken Hawk 

Subject: Atropine Update 

Hi Ken, 

I wanted to update you from my end on the Atropine shortage. 

The FAA medical people are aware of the shortage, however as of now no exception is 

there for all airlines. The FAA is saying each airlines needs to pursue its own 

exception. Here is an FAA website for this purpose: 

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/afs/qms/

Also, there is an atropine available which is not what is used or required in the kit. We put 

an atropine which is .1mg/ml in a preloaded syringe (meets FAA requirements). The 

available atropine is .4mg/ml in a vial. Our Medical Director says this will work but is 

apprehensive considering it is a multi-dose vial and the epinephrine ( 1:1000 and 1:10000 

) already in the kit may be a more acceptable solution in the short-term. It is his opinion 

an exception should still be pursued to cover a time period until the normal atropine is 

available for the reasons of: 

1) Acceptable short-term alternative accessible 

2) No guarantee on long-term availability of .4mg/ml atropine 

Steve Gilsdorf 

Manager 

Majestic Aerotech, Inc. 

FAA Repair Station: MJKR015B

EASA Approval: 145.4652
2

324 West Bay Drive NW – Suite 200 

Olympia, WA 98502 

T: 360/528-4142 

F: 360/528-4144
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

MARIO QUINTANILLA, #04570071, '

'

Plaintiff, '

' SA-20-CV-563-DAE

v. '

'

ATASCOSA COUNTY SHERIFF DAVID '

SOWARD, CAPTAIN MARTIN GONZALES, '

and OFFICER AMANDA FAZ, '

'

Defendants. '

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants Captain Martin Gonzales, Sheriff David Soward and

Officer Amanda Faz’s (collectively, the “Defendants”) Motion for Extension of Time to File

Supplement to Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 22). Defendants’ Supplement was due 

on February 17, 2021, during the week that San Antonio and most of Texas experienced a winter 

storm with widespread power outages. Defendants state they were without internet, electricity and 

water for an extended period of time. (Id.). Additionally, Defendants have advised the Court that 

although they were unable to contact the Plaintiff, they believe this motion to be opposed. (Id.). 

Upon consideration, the Court finds the motion has merit and should be GRANTED. (ECF No. 

22).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Defendants’ deadline to file a supplement 

addressing Plaintiff’s claim construed under the Fourteenth Amendment is March 3, 2021.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 24, 2021

Case 5:20-cv-00563-DAE Document 23 Filed 02/24/21 Page 1 of 1
#### Adella Kirchmeyer, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Brian Kirchmeyer, Deceased, Appellant, v S. Subramanian et al., Respondents.

Order reversed on the law without costs and motion granted. Memorandum: We find that, under the circumstances of this case, the affidavit of decedent’s physician, proffered in support of the motion, constituted the presentation of additional facts which sufficed to make plaintiff’s motion a motion to renew *(see, Roberts v Narcissus Boutique,*72 AD2d 808). Therefore, this appeal is properly before us since an appeal lies from the denial of a motion to renew *(see, Seabrook Realty Corp. v 139 W. Mut. Assocs.,*60 AD2d 821).

Supreme Court’s denial of plaintiff’s renewal motion for leave to amend the complaint to assert a cause of action for wrongful death constituted an improvident exercise of its discretion. Contrary to defendants’ argument, the physician’s affidavit of merit submitted by plaintiff adequately demonstrated a causal connection between defendants’ alleged malpractice and decedent’s death *(see, Buono v Victory Mem. Hosp.,*151 AD2d 633; *Ullrich v Rocking Horse Ranch,*138 AD2d 372).

All concur, except Denman and Boomer, JJ., who dissent and vote to affirm, in the following memorandum.

Denman and Boomer, JJ.

(dissenting). In this medical mal-

practice action, the trial court denied plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint to assert a cause of action for wrongful death because she failed to submit competent medical proof of the causal connection between the alleged negligence and decedent’s suicide. The court did, however, grant plaintiff leave to renew her motion on submission of a medical affidavit *852establishing that causal connection. Upon renewal, plaintiff submitted a medical affidavit which asserted that decedent was depressed and anxious as a result of his heart problems and physical disabilities and that his suicide was proximately caused by those conditions.

In our view, the court properly denied plaintiff’s motion because there was no competent medical proof of any causal connection between defendants’ alleged negligence and decedent’s suicide *(see, Mahoney v Sharma,*110 AD2d 627; *Fiorentino v Cobble Hill Nursing Home,*101 AD2d 825). Indeed, the medical affidavit did not even refer to any acts of defendants as bearing on decedent’s death. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Gossel, J.—amend pleadings.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
|                                                                                                   
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                   
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                     
|View History: Annual                                                                               
|View History: Annual                                                                               
|View History:                                                                                      
|                                                                                                   
|New Mexico - East Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Estimated Production from Reserves (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                   
|New Mexico - East Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Estimated Production from Reserves (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                   

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 58    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 63     | 70     | 83     | 98     | 117    | 143    | 139    | 164    | 241    | 321   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 363    | 454    |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
|                                                                
|----------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                  
|View History: Annual                                            
|View History: Annual                                            
|View History:                                                   
|                                                                
|Oklahoma Shale Proved Reserves Divestitures (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                
|                                                                
|Oklahoma Shale Proved Reserves Divestitures (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 1,591  | 586    | 0      | 339    | 702    | 1,722  | 278    | 61     | 1,285 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 414    | 269    |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATE OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant
to Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
Chapter 63 of Title 18 United States Code

The undersigned, being the Principal Executive Officer of Enbridge
Energy Management, L.L.C. (Enbridge Management), hereby certifies that Enbridge Managements Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009, (the Annual Report), filed with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)), as amended, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Enbridge Management.

Date: February 18, 2010



|    |  |                                                
|--- |  | -----------------------------------------------
|By: |  | /S/    STEPHEN J. J.
LETWIN                    
|    |  | Stephen J. J. Letwin                           
|    |  | Managing Director (Principal Executive Officer)
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

GIDDY HOLDINGS, INC.

PLAINTIFF,

VS.

ERNEST KIM

DEFENDANT.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-00434-LY

JOINT ADR REPORT

Plaintiff Giddy Holdings, Inc., (Plaintiff) and Defendant Ernest Kim (Defendant) 

respectfully submit this Joint ADR Report in compliance with Local Rule CV-88(b) and pursuant 

to the scheduling order of the Court, and would show the Court as follows:

Status of Settlement Negotiations

The parties have conferred on the appropriateness of ADR methods in the above referenced 

matter. The parties believe ADR is premature at this time.

Person Responsible for Settlement Negotiations

The person responsible for settlement negotiations for Plaintiff is M. Wilson Stoker. The 

person responsible for settlement negotiations for Defendant is Casey Erick.

Evaluation of Alternative Dispute Resolution

While Plaintiff and Defendant agree that ADR may be appropriate, further discovery is 

needed prior to conducting mediation in this case, including the deposition of Defendant. The 

parties have agreed to revisit possible mediation, if informal settlement negotiations are not 

successful before February 15, 2021.
2 

Respectfully submitted, 

COKINOS│YOUNG

/s/ M. Wilson Stoker

M. Wilson Stoker

State Bar No. 24076806

900 S. Capital of Texas Highway

Las Cimas IV, Suite 425

Austin, Texas 78746

Tel. (512) 615-8573

Fax: (512) 610-1184

wstoker@cokinoslaw.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF,

GIDDY HOLDINGS, INC. 

/s/Casey S. Erick

COWLES & THOMPSON, P.C.

901 Main Street, Suite 3900 

Dallas, Texas 75202 

cerick@cowlesthompson.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5290 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5290

    To suspend temporarily the duty on Ester gum 10D 25KG BG China.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2012

Mr. Roe of Tennessee introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To suspend temporarily the duty on Ester gum 10D 25KG BG China.

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

SECTION 1. ESTER GUM 10D 25KG BG CHINA.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00        Glycerol ester of   Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          dimerized gum                                                     12/31/2015
                          (100%) rosin,
                          catalyzed with
                          sulfuric acid,
                          softening point
                          not less than 104
                          degrees
                          centigrade, acid
                          number 3 to 8
                          (CAS No. 68475-37-
                          6) (provided for
                          in subheading
                          3806.30.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                         Special Emphasis Panel in Chemical and Transport Systems (1190).                     

*Date and Time:*                         November 3, 2000, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                               ( print page 58824)    

*Place:*                         National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, 365 Arlington, VA.                     

*Type of Meeting:*                         Closed.                     

*Contact Person:*                         Dr. Geoffrey Prentice, Program Director, Division of Chemical and Transport Systems (CTS), Room 525, (703) 292-8371.                     

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.                     

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate for FY 2000 Career Panel of proposals as part of the selection process for awards.                     

*Reason for Closing:*                         The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                     

Dated: September 27, 2000.

Karen J. York, 

Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. 00-25202  Filed 9-29-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M