alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**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 Sunrise Energy Resources, Inc. a Delaware
      corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31,
      2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the “Report”), Konstantin Tsiryulnikov, Principal Executive Officer of the
      Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, 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;
                and





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





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Sunrise Energy Resources, Inc., and will be retained by Sunrise Energy
      Resources, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
      its
      staff upon request.






Date:
                March 31, 2008By:
            /s/
                Konstantin TsiryulnikovKonstantin
                TsiryulnikovChief
                Executive Officer
J. Parker Erkmann 

T: +1 202 776 2036 

perkmann@cooley.com 

1299 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, SUITE 700, WASHINGTON, DC 20004-2400 T: (202) 842-7800 F: (202) 842-7899 WWW.COOLEY.COM 

July 18, 2014 

VIA REGULATIONS.GOV & EMAIL 

Mr. Robert Finamore 

Division Chief 

Foreign Air Carrier Licensing Division 

Office of the Secretary of Transportation 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Application of Blue Jet Sp. z o.o. for Foreign Air Carrier Permit and 

 Exemption Authority: Docket DOT- OST-2014-0026 

Dear Mr. Finamore: 

I submit this letter on behalf of JetBlue Airways Corporation (“JetBlue”) in connection with the 

above-referenced proceeding. On May 27, 2014, counsel for Blue Jet Sp. z o.o. (“Blue Jet”) and 

JetBlue responded to an inquiry from the Department of Transportation concerning the status of 

the litigation between them, JetBlue Airways Corp v. Blue Jet Sp. z o.o., Case 1:14-cv-01315-

GBD (S.D.N.Y.) (the “Litigation”). JetBlue believes that recent developments warrant a followup communication. 

JetBlue and Blue Jet have reached a settlement in principle of the Litigation. While closing 

documents have not been finalized, the parties filed a “Joint Notice of Settlement” with the court 

on July 15, 2014 requesting a 30-day adjournment of all deadlines and appearances in the 

Litigation. Until such definitive agreement is finalized, however, JetBlue retains its objections to 

the Blue Jet application and requests that the Department not act upon it. JetBlue is confident, 

however, that the definitive agreement can be concluded within the 30-day period and, 

accordingly, that the definitive settlement will resolve JetBlue’s objections to Blue Jet’s 

application. 

 
Mr. Robert Finamore 

July 18, 2014 

Page Two

1299 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, SUITE 700, WASHINGTON, DC 20004-2400 T: (202) 842-7800 F: (202) 842-7899 WWW.COOLEY.COM 

This letter is submitted to advise the Department of developments in the dispute between JetBlue 

and Blue Jet. It should not be construed as waiving any JetBlue right or legal position in the 

above-referenced or any other proceeding. 

Very truly yours, 

/s/ 

J. Parker Erkmann 

Counsel for JetBlue Airways Corporation 

cc: Gary Garofalo, Esq. 

 Erin Tallardy, Esq. 

 Jason Maddux, Esq. 

 Counsel for Blue Jet Sp. z o.o. (via email) 

Toby Butterfield, Esq., Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC 

 Beth Goldman, Esq., Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC 

Jonathan B. Hill, Esq., Cooley LLP (via email)

108988164 v1 07/18/14
# Phantom 3 **Pre**

**- Flight Safety Check** 

Physical: Electrical:

Start

- Up: Flight Check: Drone Main Body Check Drone Landing Gear Check Drone Gimbal Lock & Camera Cover in Place Drone Propeller Check Controller Main Body Check Controller Antenna Check Controller Device Mount Check Monitoring Device Exterior Body Check Drone Battery Level Check Controller Battery Level Check Monitoring Device Battery Level Check

Forward Flight Rearward Flight Left Turn Right Tu rn Move Left Move Right Gimbal Up Gimbal Down Turn Controller On Connect Controller to Monitoring Device Open Drone App on Monitoring Device Running Insert Battery into Drone Turn Drone Battery On Verify Drone

- Controller

- Monitoring Device Connection Verify GPS Signal Calibrate Dr one to Specific Location Spool Drone Motors (No Blades) Verify Proper Motor Idle Shutdown Motors Attach Blades to Motors Remove Gimbal Lock and Camera Cover Verify Drone

- Controller

- Monito ring Device Connection Verify GPS Signal Launch to 4ft Hover Start 18min Flight Timer
*OPINION ISSUED DECEMBER 29, 2008*

#### JESSIE L. CUTLIP AND CHARLES E. CUTLIP VS. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

(CC-08-0285)

Claimant appeared *pro se.*

Jason C. Workman, Attorney at Law, for respondent.

*196PER CURIAM:

Claimants brought this action for vehicle damage which occurred when their 2000 Buick Park Avenue struck a hole as claimant, Charles E. Cutlip, was driving on U.S. Route 60 between Rupert and Charmco in Greenbrier County. U.S. Route 60 is a road maintained by respondent. The Court is of the opinion to deny this claim for the reasons more fully stated below.

The incident giving rise to this claim occurred approximately during the middle of July 2007. U.S. Route 60 has a speed limit of fifty-five miles per hour in this area. At the time of the incident, claimant, Charles E. Cutlip, and his wife, Jessie L. Cutlip, were returning from the VA Medical Center in Salem, Virginia to their home in Craigsville, Nicholas County. As Mr. Cultip was driving at between forty and forty-five miles per hour, their vehicle struck a hole that was approximately one foot wide, two feet long, and six to eight inches deep. The incident occurred on a straight stretch of road, and Ms. Cutlip testified that there was an oncoming coal truck traveling in the other lane of traffic. Claimants travel on this road every three to six months and did not notice the hole on the edge of the road on a prior occasion. Ms. Cutlip stated that she could not see the hole before the vehicle struck it because she is blind in her right eye. As a result of this incident, claimants’ vehicle sustained damage to its rim in the amount of $680.00. Claimants were unable to provide documentation for the vehicle’s damage because C. Adam Tony’s Tires, which had preformed the repairs, no longer has a record of the purchase of the rim. Since claimants’ insurance deductible at the time of the incident was $500.00, their recovery is limited to that amount.

The position of the respondent is that it did not have actual or constructive notice of the condition on U.S. Route 60. Respondent did not present a witness at the hearing.

The well-established principle of law in West Virginia is that the State is neither an insurer nor a guarantor of the safety of travelers upon its roads. *Adkins v. Sims,*130 W.Va. 645, 46 S.E.2d 81 (1947). In order to hold respondent liable for road defects of this type, a claimant must prove that respondent had actual or constructive notice of the defect and a reasonable time to take corrective action. *Chapman v. Dep’t of Highways,*16 Ct. Cl. 103 (1986).

In the instant case, the Court is of the opinion that respondent did not have actual or constructive notice of the hole on U.S. Route 60. Consequently, there is insufficient evidence of negligence upon which to justify an award. Thus, claimants may not make a recovery for their loss in this claim.

In view of the foregoing, the Court is of the opinion to and does deny this claim.

Claim disallowed.
(OCLI Letterhead)



October 31, 1995


Mr. John McCullough
P.O. Box 6737
Santa Rosa, California 95406

     Re:  Continued Employment by Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc.

John:

On behalf of Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc. upon the expiration of the
August 19, 1991 Employment Agreement between yourself and OCLI, I am
pleased to offer you continued employment as a Vice President of the
Company on the following terms:

     1.   Term of Employment. Your employment under the terms of this
letter will commence upon the expiration of your current Employment
Agreement on November 1, 1995 and continue at the pleasure of the Board of
Directors.

     2.   Title and Duties.   You will serve as a Vice President and
Officer of the Company.  You will devote your knowledge and skill to the
performance of the following duties in an efficient, trustworthy and
businesslike manner:

          Fixed Tasks
          * Participation as a member of the Board of Directors of
            Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc.
          * Participation as a member of the Board of Directors of
            Flex Products, Inc.
          * Participation in the Company's Senior Staff meetings;
          * Participation in the Company's business planning efforts

          Variable Tasks
          * Those tasks that may be identified and approved by
            the CEO or his designees and which you agree to
            undertake

     3.   Compensation.       As compensation for the completion of the
Fixed Tasks set forth above, you will receive a base salary of $71,000 per
year payable biweekly.  As compensation for any Variable Task you are
retained for by the Company, you will receive $150 per hour or $1,400 per
day, whichever is less. The base salary and the variable compensation rates
may be adjusted annually at the discretion of the Compensation Committee of
the Board of Directors based upon the Company's performance and your
contribution thereto.  You may also participate in other incentive
compensation programs at the discretion of the Compensation Committee.

     4.   Other Benefits.     You will continue to receive all benefits
consistent with the Company's executive officer benefits plan, including
major medical, dental and vision coverage and the Supplemental Medical
Reimbursement Program.

     5.   Indemnification.    You will continue to be covered under the
Company's standard form of Directors' and Officers' Indemnification
Agreement pursuant to which the Company agrees to indemnify you to the
fullest extent permitted by law or its Certificate of Incorporation.

I trust that you will find this offer consistent with our earlier
discussions, and would ask you to indicate your acceptance by signing in
the space provided below.


Sincerely,


/s/HERBERT M. DWIGHT
Herbert M. Dwight


AGREED:

/S/JOHN MCCULLOUGH
John McCullough
Dated: October 31, 1995
<PAGE>   1
Exhibit 99




               Report of Independent Certified Public Accountants




To the Stockholders of
IMC Mortgage Company and Subsidiaries


We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of IMC Mortgage
Company and Subsidiaries as of March 31, 2000, and the related statements of
operations and cash flows for the three months ended March 31, 2000 and 1999.
These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institution of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim financial
information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial
data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with generally accepted auditing standards, the objective of which is the
expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole.
Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the accompanying financial statements for them to be in conformity
with generally accepted accounting principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 1999, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash
flows for the year then ended (not presented herein) and in our report dated
March 24, 2000, we expressed an unqualified opinion with an explanatory
paragraph for a going concern on those consolidated financial statements. In our
opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying consolidated balance
sheets as of December 31, 1999, is fairly stated, in all material respects, in
relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.


/s/ Grant Thornton L.L.P.
-------------------------

Tampa, Florida
May 10, 2000
# Euroopan unionin C 273/2015

| | ISSN 1977-1053 |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopan unionin
  virallinen lehti | C 273 |
| | |
| Suomenkielinen laitos | Tiedonantoja ja ilmoituksia | 58. vuosikerta18. elokuu 2015 |

ISSN 1977-1053

Euroopan unionin

virallinen lehti

C 273

Suomenkielinen laitos

Tiedonantoja ja ilmoituksia

58. vuosikerta18. elokuu 2015

---

| Ilmoitusnumero | Sisältö | Sivu |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Oikaisuja |
| 2015/C 273/01 | Oikaisu neuvoston ensimmäisessä käsittelyssä vahvistamaan kantaan (EU) N:o 10/2015 Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston asetuksen antamiseksi jäsenvaltioiden hallintoviranomaisten keskinäisestä avunannosta sekä jäsenvaltioiden hallintoviranomaisten ja komission yhteistyöstä tulli- ja maatalousasioita koskevan lainsäädännön moitteettoman soveltamisen varmistamiseksi annetun neuvoston asetuksen (EY) N:o 515/97 muuttamisesta – Hyväksytty neuvostossa 15 päivänä kesäkuuta 2015( EUVL C 239, 21.7.2015 ) | 1 |

Ilmoitusnumero

Sisältö

Sivu

Oikaisuja

2015/C 273/01

Oikaisu neuvoston ensimmäisessä käsittelyssä vahvistamaan kantaan (EU) N:o 10/2015 Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston asetuksen antamiseksi jäsenvaltioiden hallintoviranomaisten keskinäisestä avunannosta sekä jäsenvaltioiden hallintoviranomaisten ja komission yhteistyöstä tulli- ja maatalousasioita koskevan lainsäädännön moitteettoman soveltamisen varmistamiseksi annetun neuvoston asetuksen (EY) N:o 515/97 muuttamisesta – Hyväksytty neuvostossa 15 päivänä kesäkuuta 2015( EUVL C 239, 21.7.2015 )

( EUVL C 239, 21.7.2015 )

1

---

| FI | |
| --- | --- |

FI

---

Oikaisuja

| 18.8.2015 | FI | Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti | C 273/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2015

FI

Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti

C 273/1

---

Oikaisu neuvoston ensimmäisessä käsittelyssä vahvistamaan kantaan (EU) N:o 10/2015 Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston asetuksen antamiseksi jäsenvaltioiden hallintoviranomaisten keskinäisestä avunannosta sekä jäsenvaltioiden hallintoviranomaisten ja komission yhteistyöstä tulli- ja maatalousasioita koskevan lainsäädännön moitteettoman soveltamisen varmistamiseksi annetun neuvoston asetuksen (EY) N:o 515/97 muuttamisesta – Hyväksytty neuvostossa 15 päivänä kesäkuuta 2015

(
  Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti C 239, 21. heinäkuuta 2015
  )

(2015/C 273/01)

Sivulla 10, 1 artiklan 15 kohdassa:

Lisätään alakohta seuraavasti:

| ”c) | kumotaan 3 kohta.” |
| --- | --- |

”c)

kumotaan 3 kohta.”

---
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, John M. Palumbo, certify that: 

 

1. I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Keystone Automotive Industries, 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, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on myknowledge, 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 periodspresented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officerand 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 underour 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) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure 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; and 

 

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol 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 materiallyaffect, 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’sboard 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 andreport financial information; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: February 9, 2004
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.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, Agriculture (USDA).

# ACTION:

Notice; withdrawal.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Ouachita National Forest is withdrawing its notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement for the Heavener Coal Leasing Project. The original notice of intent was published in the                         **Federal Register**                         (FR Vol. 88, No. 246) on December 26, 2023. The Ouachita National Forest's decision to withdraw the notice of intent is based on the project proponent's (Ouro Mining Inc.) decision to withdraw their request for a lease of Federal metallurgical coal.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Questions concerning this notice should be directed to the Southern Region's Lead Executive for Energy and Infrastructure, Mike Donaldson, at                         *michael.donaldson1@usda.gov*                         or 404-556-1081. Individuals who use telecommunications devices for the hearing impaired may call 711 to reach the Telecommunications Relay Service, 24 hours a day, every day of the year, including holidays.                    

Keith Lannom,

Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.

[FR Doc. 2024-20341 Filed 9-9-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
#### ROSEBERRY et al. v. GRAHAM et al.

No. 10647.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Dec. 20, 1939.

Lloyd & Lloyd, of Alice, for appellants.

Perkins & Floyd, of Alice, and Keys & Holt, of Corpus Christi, for appellees.

SMITH, Chief Justice.

Neither party to this appeal has filed any brief in the case. No fundamental error is apparent of record.

The judgment is affirmed.
*Pursuant to 5

TH 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.

 

1

 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(I).

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-40551

Summary Calendar

MICHAEL LOU GARRETT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

R. McVEY; G.J. GOMEZ; D.B. McELVANEY;

R. MUNOZ; E. FRANCO; A. LOPEZ; J. LOPEZ;

R. ROMERO,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(G-97-CV-602)

December 30, 1999

Before POLITZ, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael Lou Garrett, a Texas prisoner, appealsthe dismissal asfrivolous1of

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against several prison officials. We affirm in part

and vacate and remand in part.

Garrett alleges that prison officials did not investigate adequately several

grievances he made. We agree with the district court that these allegations are

insufficient to support a constitutional claim. Garrett further alleges retaliation and
 

2 Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222 (5th Cir. 1993).

 

3 Brewer v. Wilkinson, 3 F.3d 816 (5th Cir. 1993).

 

4 Nance v. Kelly, 912 F.2d 605 (2d Cir. 1990).

 

5

Id. at 606.

2

certain conspiracy claims which the district court dismissed. Garrett attempts to

support these claims on appeal by incorporating factual allegations and arguments

raised in the district court. This he may not do.2 Garrett fails to acquit his burden

of showing that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing these claims

and the action of the trial court is accordingly affirmed.

We do not agree, however, with the summary dismissal of Garrett’s

complaint that prison officials denied his constitutional right of accessto the courts

by stealing his mail.3 The factual deficiencies identified by the trial court do not

warrant a dismissal as frivolous at this stage of the proceedings.4 “So long as the

in forma pauperis plaintiff raises a cognizable claim, dismissal on the basis of

factual deficiencies in the complaint must wait” for further developments and

filings.5 Garrett alleges that a folder containing materials he had compiled in

anticipation of litigation was stolen by prison officials. He alleges a potential

motive, that the underlying claim in the intended lawsuit involved action by the

spouse of the alleged thief. Garrett claims that witnesses saw that particular prison

official leaving his cubicle with a file. We note that prison officials acknowledge

a “shakedown” of Garrett’s cubicle by the alleged thief at about the relevant time.

Under these circumstances, the dismissal of this claim as frivolous at this time is
3

inappropriate and the judgment of the court in that regard must be vacated.

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED and REMANDED in part for further

proceedings consistent herewith.