alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct Of 2002**

**(18 U.S.C. § 1350)**

 

 

Inconnection with the quarterly report of SouthWest Water Company (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 (the “Report”),I, Mark A. Swatek, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350), that:

 

1)             to my knowledge, the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2)             the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated:  August 3, 2009 | /s/   MARK A. SWATEK |
|-----------------------------|---------------------------|
|                        | Mark A. Swatek            |
|                        | Chief Executive Officer   |
#### Buck LITTLE, Petitioner, v. B. E. MOORE, Justice of Peace, Pike County, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 1, 1951.

V. R. Bentley, Pikeville, for petitioner.

L. D. May, Pikeville, for respondent.

CULLEN, Commissioner.

The respondent, the attorneys, the factual situation, and the relief sought, in this case, are the same as those in Bentley v. Moore, Ky., 239 S.W.2d 237.

It appearing, for the reasons stated in the Bentley case, that the petitioner in this case has an adequate remedy by appeal, his motion for a writ of prohibition is overruled and his petition is dismissed.
Exhibit 31.2

ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT

I, David J. Kolibachuk, being an officer of U.S.
Bank Trust National Association, the Trustee in respect of the Corporate Backed Trust Certificates, AIG Debenture-Backed Series 2002-10 Trust (the Trust), certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K in respect of the Trust and all reports on Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports of the Trust filed by
Lehman ABS Corporation in respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual report of the Trust;
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, the information in those reports, taken as a whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report;
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 3. | Based on my knowledge, the distribution information required to be provided to the Depositor or the certificateholders by the Trustee under the pooling and servicing or
similar agreement for inclusion in such distribution reports is included in such reports; and
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 4. | I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the Trustee under the pooling and servicing or similar agreement and based on my knowledge, except as
disclosed in such reports, the Trustee has fulfilled its obligations under that agreement.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                   
|-----------------------------------
|Date: March 30, 2012               
|                                   
|/s/ David J. Kolibachuk            
|David J. Kolibachuk, Vice President
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.                  

###### International Trade Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

October 16, 2000 at 11 a.m. 

# PLACE:

Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000. 

# STATUS:

Open to the public. 

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

 

1. Agenda for future meeting: none. 

2. Minutes. 

3. Ratification List. 

4. Inv. Nos. 731-TA-474-475 (Review) (Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts from China and Taiwan)—briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determination and Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on October 25, 2000.) 

5. Outstanding action jackets: 

(1.) Document No. GC-00-070: Approval of final disposition of investigation in Inv. No. 337-TA-395 (Certain EPROM, EEPROM, Flash Memory, and Flash Microcontroller Semiconductor Devices and Products Containing Same). 

(2.) Document No. GC-00-071: Administrative matters. 

In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting. 

Issued: October 4, 2000.
      ( print page 60210)    
By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 00-26018 Filed 10-5-00; 11:04 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020-02-U
Exhibit 12(a)


           UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARY
                             AND AFFILIATE COMPANIES

                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

                                   (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Three Months Ended September 30,
Millions of Dollars Except Ratios                           1999        1998
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earnings:
<S>                                                         <C>         <C>
  Net Income.............................................   $234        $  67
  Undistributed equity earnings..........................    (14)         (11)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Total..................................................    220           56
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income Taxes.............................................    146           41
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixed Charges:
  Interest expense including amortization
    of debt discount.....................................    158          162
  Portion of rentals representing an interest factor.....     48           44
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Total..................................................    206          206
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earnings Available for Fixed Charges.....................    572          303
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixed Charges -- as above................................   $206         $206
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges (Note 6)..............    2.8          1.5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>
#### Mary F. Tucci, Respondent, v Hartford Casualty Insurance Company et al., Appellants.

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant Maloney Bindseil Agency, Inc., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McCarthy, J.), dated June 1, 1989, as denied its cross motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) insofar as it is asserted against it, and the defendant Hartford Casualty Insurance Company separately appeals from so much of the same order as denied its cross motion for summary judgment. *388Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The plaintiff was issued a "Temporary New York State Insurance Card”, or an "FS-21”, by the Maloney Bindseil Agency, Inc., an authorized agent of the Hartford Casualty Insurance Company. Seven days after the issuance of the FS-21, the plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident. Hartford denied coverage on the ground that it never received notice from its agent of the plaintiff’s application, and that it did not have a policy in effect for the plaintiff. As a result, the plaintiff brought suit against the agent, Maloney Bindseil Agency, Inc., claiming that it had breached its contract and/or was negligent when it failed to have an insurance policy issued or delivered. In addition, the plaintiff brought an action against Hartford Casualty Insurance Company for a judgment declaring that it is required to defend and indemnify the plaintiff in an action brought against her to recover damages for personal injuries arising out of the automobile accident.

The defendant Maloney’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action was properly denied. When an insurance agent undertakes to obtain a policy of insurance for a client, the agent may be held liable for neglect if it fails to procure such a policy *(see, Spiegel v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.,*6 NY2d 91). The fact that an agent acts for a disclosed principal does not relieve the agent of liability for its own negligent acts *(see, Jones v Archibald,*45 AD2d 532). .

Further, since a principal must answer to an innocent third person for the misconduct of an agent acting within the scope of its authority, Hartford’s motion for summary judgment was also properly denied *(see, Ernst Iron Works v Duralith Corp.,*270 NY 165; 3 NY Jur 2d, Agency, §§239, 249). Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Balletta, JJ., concur.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5554 

To reduce temporarily the duty on golf club putter heads. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 8, 2012 

Mr. BILBRAY (for himself and Mr. NEAL) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To reduce temporarily the duty on golf club putter heads. 

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

3 SECTION 1. GOLF CLUB PUTTER HEADS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Golf club putter heads 

(provided for in subheading 9506.39.00) ......... 3% No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5554 IH

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed March 17, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-0360 Lower Tribunal No. F07-12440A

________________ 

### Ramon Pimental, Petitioner,

vs. 

### The State of Florida, Respondent.

A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Habeas Corpus. Ramon Pimental, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Michael W. Mervine, Chief Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
Before MILLER, GORDO, and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM.2

Denied. See Pimental v. State, 301 So. 3d 944 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019); Pimental v. State, 187 So. 3d 1251 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016); Pimental v. Jones, 177 So. 3d 1270 (Fla. 2015); Pimental v. State, 195 So. 3d 383 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015); Pimental v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 574 U.S. 980, 135 S. Ct. 473, 190 L. Ed. 2d 339 (2014); Pimental v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 560 F. App’x 942 (11th Cir. 2014); Pimental v. State, 83 So. 3d 733 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Pimental v. State, 59 So. 3d 108 (Fla. 2011); Pimental v. State, 50 So. 3d 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); Pimental v. State, 20 So. 3d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also Knight v. State, 286 So. 3d 147, 151 (Fla. 2019) (“Properly understood, the fundamental error test for jury instructions cannot be met where, as in this case, there was no error in the jury instruction for the offense of conviction and there is no claim that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support that conviction. In such circumstances, one cannot plausibly claim that the conviction ‘could not have been obtained’ without the erroneous lesser included offense instruction or that the error vitiated the basic validity of the trial.”); Marshall v. State, 240 So. 3d 111, 118 n.7 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (Generally, “appellate counsel cannot be ineffective for failing to predict future changes in the legal landscape that occur years after a defendant's sentence and conviction become final.”).
#### PHARISS v. STATE.

No. 22715.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 19, 1944.

Aubrey Davee, of Brady, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The record is before us without bills of exception and without statement of facts. The procedure is regular. Nothing is presented for our consideration.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 197 (Wednesday, October 11, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 60478]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26005]


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

PRESIDIO TRUST


Notice of Receipt of and Availability for Public Comment on an 
Application for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Site; The 
Presidio of San Francisco, California.

AGENCY: The Presidio Trust.

ACTION: Public notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the Presidio Trust's receipt of and 
availability for public comment on an application from Bay Area 
Cellular Telephone Company, Sprint PCS, for colocation at an existing 
wireless telecommunications facilities site (``the project'') in the 
Presidio of San Francisco. The proposed location of the project is in 
the parking area located directly below the Doyle Drive overpass in the 
vicinity of the intersection of Halleck and Vallejo Streets.
    The project involves (i) replacing a single existing utility pole 
(installed by Cellular One) with a taller, slightly broader pole to 
accommodate three additional antenna panels, and (ii) placing the 
associated radio equipment within a nearby building. The utility pole 
will be approximately 65 feet tall, 15 feet taller than the existing 
Cellular One pole. Power for the project will be provided through 
underground coaxial cables connected to existing power sources. 
Connection to telephone lines will be through existing telephone lines.

COMMENTS: Comments on the proposed project must be sent to Devon Danz, 
Presidio Trust, 34 Graham Street, P.O. Box 29052, San Francisco, CA 
94129-0052, and be received by November 13, 2000. A copy of Sprint 
PCS's application is available upon request to the Presidio Trust.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Devon Danz, Presidio Trust, 34 Graham 
Street, P.O. Box 29052, San Francisco, CA 94129-0052. Email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d8bcbcb9b6a298a8aabdabb1bcb1b7acaaadabacf6bfb7ae"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f6929297988cb6868493859f929f998284838582d8919980">[email protected]</span></a>. Telephone: 415-561-5300.

    Dated: October 4, 2000.
Karen A. Cook,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 00-26005 Filed 10-10-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-4R-U


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON DC

SPA Rental, LLC, DBA MSI Aviation, Complainant,


### v. Somerset - Pulaski County Airport Board, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
ORDER FAA Docket No . 16- 13 - 02

On September 15,2015, counsel for Complainant, SPA Rental, LLC, d/b/a MSI Aviation, filed a motion pursuant to 14 CFR § 16.19, requesting an extension oftime to November 2, 2015, to file a Notice ofAppeal ofthe Director's Determination, FAA Docket No. 16-13-02, dated September 1, 20 15. Counsel advised that Complainant needs additional time to file a Notice of Appeal and Brief and to obtain new evidence to support its appeal. This motion was not opposed. Part 16 is intended to expedite the handling and disposition of airport

-related complaints. See Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings Final Rule, 61 Fed. Reg. 53998 (Oct. 16, 1996). Extensions oftime may be granted where necessary or appropriate for a fair and comp lete consideration of matters before the agency. See 14 CFR 

### § 16.ll(a). An extension oftime is reasonable under the circumstances. Accordingly, the Complainant is hereby granted an extension oftime in which to file an appeal pursuant to CFR 

### § 16.33(c). The Complainant's Notice ofAppeal and Briefis now due on November 2, 2015.

# &~~ Director, Airport Compliance

and Management Analysis Date I 

### ?o(C

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on

### September**.** 2015, I caused to be emailed and placed in the United States mail (first class, postage paid) a true copy ofthe foregoing Order addressed to:
Counsel for Complainant Konrad Kuczak 130 West Second Street Suite 1010 Dayton, OH 45402 your _lawyer@sbcglobal.net Counsel for Respondent Rachel Owsley Bethany A. Breetz Stites & Harbison, PLLC 400 West Market Street Suite 1800 Louisville, KY 40202 rowsley@stites.com bbreetz@stites.com Copies hand-delivered to: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket FAA Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-1 00

# ::,**cn~~~rL** Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis
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

     In connection with the Annual Report of Zone 4 Play, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 my knowledge:

     (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.

Dated: March 29, 2005

                                                             /s/ Shimon Citron
                                                             -----------------
                                                             Name: Shimon Citron
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

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

I, James A. Konrath,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. (the Registrant), do hereby certify 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) that, based on my knowledge:

(1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006
(the Form 10-K) of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit, 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.

Date: August 1, 2007



By:

/s/ James A. KonrathJames A. Konrath Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
to Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. and will be retained by Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5492 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5492

 To renew the temporary suspension of duty on certain twisted yarn of 
                             viscose rayon.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 7, 2012

  Mr. Rothman of New Jersey introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To renew the temporary suspension of duty on certain twisted yarn of 
                             viscose rayon.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN TWISTED YARN OF VISCOSE RAYON.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.54.04 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to single yarn of viscose 
rayon, with a twist exceeding 120 turns/m) is amended by striking the 
date in the effective period column and inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 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>
```
#### BRUCE v. STATE.

No. 23319.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 2, 1946.

No attorney for appellant.

A. C. Winborn, Cr. Dist. Atty., and E. T. Branch, Asst. Cr. Dist. Atty., both of Houston, and Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense is robbery. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of ten years.

The record is before us without any bills of exception and any statement of the facts. The indictment seems to be in due and legal form. Consequently there is nothing presented for review.

*475■ The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.