alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10(y)(ii)

                       STUART LITT CONSULTING ARRANGEMENT

On February 8, 2005, the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors authorized
the extension of the term of the consulting agreement between the Company and
Northport Systems, Inc., a corporation owned by Stuart Litt, a director of the
Company. The term of the agreement was extended for one year through December
31, 2005, retroactive to January 1, 2005.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       9,238,000  
<SECURITIES>                                19,678,000 
<RECEIVABLES>                               14,621,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (732,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  5,072,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            49,498,000
<PP&E>                                      32,687,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (6,133,000) 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             145,736,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       18,914,000
<BONDS>                                     90,639,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       225,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  34,223,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               145,736,000
<SALES>                                     47,898,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            61,219,000
<CGS>                                       27,924,000          
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               81,464,000 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           7,357,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (23,218,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   361,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (23,579,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (23,579,000)     
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.07)
        


</TABLE>
115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2030 

AN ACT 

To deem the compliance date for amended energy conservation standards for ceiling fan light kits to be January 

21, 2020, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 2030 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ceiling Fan Energy 

3 Conservation Harmonization Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. COMPLIANCE DATE FOR AMENDED ENERGY CON5 SERVATION STANDARDS FOR CEILING FAN 

6 LIGHT KITS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The compliance date for the 

8 amended energy conservation standards established for 

9 ceiling fan light kits in the final rule entitled ‘‘Energy 

10 Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards 

11 for Ceiling Fan Light Kits’’ (81 Fed. Reg. 580 (January 

12 6, 2016)) is deemed to be January 21, 2020. 

13 (b) CONFORMING CHANGES.—Not later than 60 days 

14 after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 

15 Energy shall make such technical and conforming changes 

16 to any regulation, guidance document, or procedure as 

17 may be necessary to implement subsection (a). 

Passed the Senate December 21, 2017. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2030 

AN ACT 

To deem the compliance date for amended energy 

to be January 21, 2020, and for other purposes. conservation standards for ceiling fan light kits
EXHIBIT 32



D&E Communications, Inc. and Subsidiaries



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 on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 of D&E Communications, Inc. (the Company) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, G. William Ruhl, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 (15 U.S.C. § 78m(a) or § 78o(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.



|                    |  |                        
|------------------- |  | -----------------------
|/s/ G. William Ruhl
|Name:               |  | G. William Ruhl        
|Title:              |  | Chief Executive Officer
|Date:               |  | May 10, 2004           



---

D&E Communications, Inc. and Subsidiaries



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 on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 of D&E Communications, Inc.
(the Company) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas E. Morell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant
to § 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 (15 U.S.C. § 78m(a) or § 78o(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.



|                     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------
|/s/ Thomas E. Morell
|Name:                |  | Thomas E. Morell       
|Title:               |  | Chief Financial Officer
|Date:                |  | May 10, 2004
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7676

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BENNIE JAY EATMON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CR-00-127-BO; CA-03-679-5-BO) Submitted: December 16, 2005 Decided: February 2, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bennie Jay Eatmon, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis M. Duffy, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Bennie Jay Eatmon, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and Eatmon’s supplemental filings and conclude that Eatmon has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Eatmon’s motions to amend, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We further deny Eatmon’s motion for discovery, motion for abeyance, and motion for a new trial. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification
(Principal Financial Officer)
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2007 of AirNet Systems, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this 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 report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange
Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a.
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b.
    
    [Reserved];c.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case
of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;
and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
 Dated:  November 13, 2007
    By:
    /s/ Ray L. DruseikisPrinted Name:  Ray L. DruseikisTitle:
    Vice President of Finance and
Controller; Interim Chief
Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary 
 32
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification
(Principal Executive Officer)
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2005 of AirNet Systems, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this 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 report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange
Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a.
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b.
    
    [Reserved];c.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
 Dated: August 15, 2005
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Joel E. BiggerstaffPrinted Name: Joel E. BiggerstaffTitle: Chairman of the Board, Chief ExecutiveOfficer and President
 27
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18
                               UNITED STATES CODE

      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 CITGO Petroleum Corporation (the "Registrant"), does
hereby certify, to his knowledge, that:

      The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 of
the Registrant fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Registrant.

Dated: August 9, 2004                    /s/ Jerry E. Thompson
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Name: Jerry E. Thompson
                                         Title: Chief Operating Officer
                                               (Acting Chief Financial Officer)
<PAGE>   1
 
   
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
    
 
   
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
    
 
   
     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements
(Form S-8 Nos. 33-59918, 33-59916, 33-59920, 33-91900, 33-92684 and 333-       )
pertaining to the Davstar Industries Ltd. Stock Option Plan, 1992 Employee Stock
Option Plan, the Non-Employee Directors Stock Option Plan, the Davstar
Industries, Ltd. 1994 Stock Incentive Plan, Dacomed 1989 Stock Option Plan, 1996
Directors Non-Qualified Stock Incentive Plan, Employee Stock Purchase Plan,
Advanced Surgical 1992 Stock Plan and Employee Reserved Stock Agreements of
UroHealth Systems, Inc. of our reports dated June 4, 1996, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of UroHealth Systems, Inc.
included in the Transition Report (Form 10-K/A) for the nine months ended March
31, 1996.
    
 
   
                                          /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
    
                                          --------------------------------------
   
                                               Ernst & Young LLP
    
 
   
Orange County, California
    
   
January 7, 1997
#### MOTEN v. STATE.

No. 20299.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 22, 1939.

Eldon Lee Bell, of Dallas, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

Conviction is for unlawfully carrying a pistol; punishment assessed is a fine of $100.

Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to justify and sustain his conviction. The state’s testimony, briefly stated, shows that about midnight of May 15, 1938, W. E. Worthy saw appellant going across the railroad tracks in the City of Dallas, and saw him shoot a pistol. He caught the appellant, took the pistol away from him and turned both appellant and the pistol over to. a city policeman.

Appellant testified in his own behalf. He admitted having a pistol, but denied shooting it. He testified that a boy by the name of “Curley” came to the place where he was employed on said afternoon of the day in question and borrowed $1.50 from him. As security therefor, this boy turned over to him the pistol. That he worked until 12:15 A. M. and then started home. That he took the pistol with him, intending to leave it with his wife. The record discloses that appellant waived ’a jury and submitted all of the issue of fact to the court, who decided the same adversely to him. In such instances, the trial court is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony, and this court would not be authorized to disturb his judgment. In support of the conclusion reached, we refer to the cases of Kimbro v. State, 132 Tex.Cr.R. 65, 102 S.W.2d 416; Kirby v. State, 61 Tex.Cr.R. 1, 133 S.W. 682; O’Hara v. State, 74 Tex.Cr.R. 447, 167 S.W. 1113; Gee v. State, 129 Tex.Cr.R. 312, 87 S.W.2d 483.

Appellant also complains of the action of the court in overruling his motion for a new trial. He alleged in said motion that since the trial, he had located James Price, known as “Curley”, who pawned the pistol to him on the afternoon prior to the night of his 'arrest. That the reason he did not have Price summoned was because he did not know his true name or where he lived. This is not newly discovered evi*480dence. Nor is there any diligence shown on the part of appellant to locate the witness. No application for a continuance was made to secure the attendance of the witness. Hence, no reversible error is reflected by the bill.

The judgment 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.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Fabian Benjamin, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant froma judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Grajales, J.), rendered October 6, 1986, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress statements made by him to the police and physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant argues that the hearing court should have suppressed the statements he made to the police as well as the property seized from him because he was unlawfully stopped, detained and arrested. We disagree. Here, the defendant was seen by three police officers carrying bags of unboxed stereo *456equipment in a residential area in which frequent daytime burglaries took place. Thus, the police had an articulable reason to stop the defendant in order to inquire about his possession of the stereo equipment *(see, People v De Bour,*40 NY2d 210, 213; *People v Carrasquillo,*54 NY2d 248, 253; *People v Hopkins,*163 AD2d 416). Moreover, the record shows that the defendant freely answered the police officers’ questions and voluntarily consented to remain with one of the officers while the other two officers canvassed the neighborhood. Clearly there was probable cause to arrest the defendant based on the police learning that a house in the vicinity had been recently burglarized and was missing a stereo, the defendant’s answers, as well as the fact that a neighbor had told the officers that he had seen a man wearing a gray jacket and a hooded sweatshirt, which were the clothes the defendant was wearing, at the front of the burglarized house *(see, People v Carrasquillo, supra,*at 254). Thus, the defendant’s statements as well as the property seized from him were properly admitted into evidence *(see, People v Leung,*68 NY2d 734, 736).

The defendant also argues that the People failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining claims are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Balletta, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 236 (Thursday, December 7, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 76652]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31200]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 522b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute 
Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date: January 7-9, 2001.
    Time: 7 pm to 6 pm.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Holiday Inn--Chevy Chase, Palladian East and Center 
Rooms, 5520 Wisconsin Avenue, Chevy Chase, MD 20815.
    Contact Person: Anne P Clark, PhD, NIH, NHLBI, DEA, Review 
Branch, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7202, Bethesda, MD 
20892-7924, 301/435-0310.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, 
National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and 
Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, 
Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of 
Health, HHS)

    Dated: November 28, 2000.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-31200 Filed 12-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
```