alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1**CERTIFICATION***Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934,as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United StatesCode, V. Igor Gonda, Chief Executive Officer of Aradigm Corporation (the “Company”), and NormanHalleen Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best ofhis knowledge:1. The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007, to which thisCertification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Quarterly Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and2. The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition of the Company at the end of the period covered by the Quarterly Report andresults of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Quarterly Report.IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 14th day of August 2007.   /s/ Igor Gonda President and Chief Executive Officer /s/ Norman Halleen  InterimChief Financial Officer   Dated: August 14, 2007 Dated: August 14, 2007  * This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing ofAradigm Corporation under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of anygeneral incorporation language contained in such filing.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2547 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2547

    To provide assistance for educational facilities, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 14, 2018

  Mr. Kennedy (for himself and Mr. Cassidy) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To provide assistance for educational facilities, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Consolidating Losses Associated to 
Severe Storms Act of 2018'' or the ``CLASS Act''.

SEC. 2. ASSISTANCE FOR EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES.

    (a) Covered Educational Facility Defined.--In this section, the 
term ``covered educational facility'' means a public facility or 
private nonprofit facility that--
            (1) is an educational facility; and
            (2) is located in a State or insular area for which more 
        than 1 flood-related major disaster was declared under the 
        Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act 
        (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) during calendar years 2016 and 2017.
    (b) Assistance.--For purposes of a reduction of Federal assistance 
under section 406(d) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5172(d)), in the case of a campus 
with more than 1 covered educational facility, the reduction amount 
determined under such section 406(d) shall be applied to the repair, 
restoration, reconstruction, and replacement costs and associated 
expenses of only 1 covered educational facility on the campus.
                                 <all>
```
IC 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2377 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 7, 2018 

Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

AN ACT 

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 200 West 2nd Street in Dayton, Ohio, 

as the ‘‘Walter H. Rice Federal Building and United 

States Courthouse’’. 

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


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

S 2377 RFH

1 SECTION 1. WALTER H. RICE FEDERAL BUILDING AND 

2 UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Federal building and United 

4 States courthouse located at 200 West 2nd Street in Day5 ton, Ohio, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Walter 

6 H. Rice Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the Federal building and United States court10 house referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be 

11 a reference to the ‘‘Walter H. Rice Federal Building and 

12 United States Courthouse’’. 

Passed the Senate June 7, 2018. 

Attest: JULIE E. ADAMS, 

Secretary. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
#### GENERAL INV. CORPORATION v. CARTER.

No. 2236.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont

March 31, 1932.

E. B. Warren, of Center, for appellant.

Anderson & Lewis and J. M. Sanders, all of Center, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a judgment of the county court of Shelby county. On December 21, 1931, the appellee filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, because, among other things, the appeal bond filed by appellant was not in accordance with law, in that the clerk of the trial court had not fixed and properly certified the probable amount of the costs, as required by article 2265, R. S. 1925. On December 31, 3931, the motion came on for consideration. Inspection of the bond showed it to be defee-tive in the particular complained. According-ingly we sustained the motion to dismiss and gave the appellant ten days in which to file a new bond. January 6, 1932, appellant presented what purported to be a bond in compliance with the order previously entered by the court. This bond was duly objected to 'by appellee, and we find it to be defective, in that the act of the clerk of the trial court fixing the probable amount of the cost for which appellant should execute its appeal bond was not certified by the clerk of the trial court, but was approved by said clerk and filed in said court. We refused approval of this bond. Now appellant presents us with a third bond, long after the time given for the filing of a new bond has expired, and requests that it be approved and ordered filed.

The motion to file is refused, because, though we do not find it necessary to decide the point, we doubt that we have authority to grant the request, but, if so, then, under article 1840, R. S. 1925, its exercise would be within the sound discretion of the court, Wilson v. Railway (Tex. Civ. App.) 298 S. W. 300, and we do not believe, under the circumstances, it would be a wholesome precedent to grant the request, Wilkes v. Brown (Tex. Civ. App.) 80 S. W. 844; First State Bank & Trust Co. v. Mann (Tex. Civ. App.) 209 S. W. 683; Wilson v. Railway (Tex. Civ. App.) 298 S. W. 300. When the first bond was found to be defective, we granted a reasonable time in which a new bond could be filed. Within that time a second bond was presented which was as defective as the first. After the time granted had elapsed, a third bond is presented with motion to grant further time for the filing of a new bond, and to approve and order same filed. When, as here, a reasonable time has been granted for the filing of a proper bond, and such is not done within that time, we think the purpose and *440intent of the law has been met, and the appeal should be dismissed, and it is so ordered.

Dismissed.

WALKER, J., not sitting.
Docket No. FAA-2012-0039

 Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed? 

Organization Person Contacted Date Response 

National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti 6/23/11

Regional Airline Association Connie

Arnold 6/23/11

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman 6/23/11

ATA Joe White 6/23/11
#### McCULLEY v. FOSTER et al.

No. 1869.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Eastland.

Jan. 6, 1939.

Foster T. Bean, of Kilgore, and Chauncey & Chauncey, of Wichita Falls, for ap-pellees..

LESLIE, Chief Justice.

E. L. Foster and Robert E. Foster, a minor, through his guardian and next friend, Ruby Rowland Feste, instituted this suit against A. J. McCulley to recover damages accruing to them by reason of the death of Mrs. Golda Foster, wife of said E. L. Foster and mother of Robert E. Foster. Robert is the adopted son of said E. L. and Golda Foster. The death of the latter resulted from the collision of a truck owned by the defendant with a Buick automobile in which the deceased was riding.

The plaintiffs’ cause of action is in substance that the defendant, his agent and servant, in the operation of the truck on the highway was guilty of various acts of negligence, each proximately causing the death of Mrs.- Golda Foster. The verdict of the jury warrants the judgment on each of four different grounds and acquits the driver and occupant of the car of all charges of negligence.

The defendant A. J. McCulley has prosecuted an appeal to this court but has filed no briefs in the case. In that situation we have examined the record to determine if there be any fundamental error in the judgment. Finding none, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Haynes v. J. M. Radford Grocery Co., Tex.Civ.App., 16 S.W.2d 1118, Id.,118 Tex. 277, 14 S.W.2d 811. It is so ordered.
**EXHIBIT 32.02**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

 

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of WellPointHealth Networks Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended June 30,2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, David C. Colby, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| /s/ DAVID C. COLBY        |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
| David C. Colby            |
| *Chief Financial Officer* |
| Date: August 9, 2004 |

 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this written statement requiredby Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
EXHIBIT 31.2
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Thomas C. Chesterman, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of AradigmCorporation;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;
     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and
     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and
     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.                         /s/ THOMAS C. CHESTERMAN   Thomas C. Chesterman   *Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer*   
Dated: November 15, 2004
*OPINION ISSUED FEBRUARY 20, 2009*

#### PRISCILLA LESTER, Administratrix of the Estate of STANLEY LESTER VS. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

(CC-06-0342)

William E. Murray and Travis E. Ellison III, Attorneys at Law, for claimant.

Andrew F. Tarr and Jason C. Workman, Attorneys at Law, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

This claim was submitted to the Court for decision upon a Stipulation entered into by claimant and respondent wherein certain facts and circumstances of the claim were agreed to as follows:

1. On December 4, 2004, Stanley Lester was driving north on County Route 3/5, near Mud Fork, in McDowell County when his truck drove into overflowing water and icy mudslides in the road, causing Mr. Lester to lose control of the vehicle. The vehicle swerved and flipped over before it came to rest on the side of the hill next to the road. Mr. Lester died as a result of injuries caused by this accident.

2. Claimant alleges that the accident was the result of respondent’s failure to properly maintain the ditch lines and culvert along the road, resulting in excess water on the road at the time of the accident. Claimant asserts that the ditches and culvert along the road had been a problem since a flood which occurred in 2001 or 2002. Claimant states that respondent had received complaints regarding the condition on the road, but failed to repair and maintain the culvert in a timely manner.

3. For the purposes of settlement, respondent acknowledges liability for this incident.

4. The parties agree that $85,000.00 is a fair and reasonable amount to settle this claim.

The Court has reviewed the facts of the claim and finds that respondent was negligent in its maintenance of County Route 3/5 on the date of this incident; that Mr. Lester’s death was a direct and proximate result of respondent’s negligence in failing to repair and maintain the ditch lines and culvert along the road; and that the amount of the damages agreed to by the parties is fair and reasonable. Thus, claimant may make a recovery in this claim.

Accordingly, the Court is of the opinion to and does make an award in the amount of $85,000.00.

Award of $85,000.00.
1

This is a draft document and does not represent a definitive view of the agency on the questions 

addressed.

This and other guidance documents are accessible on the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency 

& Renewable Energy web site at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/guidance/default.aspx?pid=2&spid=1.

Guidance Type: Certification and CCMS, Test Procedures, Enforcement, Definitions and Scope of 

Coverage

Category: Plumbing Products

Product: Faucets

Guidance Version: DRAFT

Issued: May 22, 2014

Comment Period Ends: June 23, 2014

The following is a draft U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) guidance document 

regarding the test procedure for faucets. This draft guidance document represents the Department’s 

interpretation of its existing regulations and is exempt from the notice and comment requirements of 

the Administrative Procedure Act. See 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(A). Nonetheless, the Department is accepting 

comments and suggestions from the public until June 23, 2014. Comments and suggestions should be 

provided in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or text file format by sending an email to 

FaucetGuidance2014GUID0023@ee.doe.gov. Please also include the docket number EERE-2014-BTGUID-0023. At the end of the comment period, this draft guidance document may be adopted, revised, 

or withdrawn.

Q: Can a replacement aerator be tested with a faucet model or other test device with which it is not 

itself distributed in commerce?

A: Yes. The rated water use of a basic model of replacement aerator must be derived from a test of the 

covered product, which is the replacement aerator. Because the faucet or other device to which a

replacement aerator is attached is not part of the basic model of replacement aerator, any faucet or 

other testing device may be used for testing the water consumption of a replacement aerator as long as 

the test is otherwise consistent with the required DOE test procedure.

This FAQ may also be of interest:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/faucet_flow-insert-tests_faq_2014-

05-22.pdf
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 182 (Thursday, September 19, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 76878]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-21305]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: September 19, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
September 4, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 292 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-611, CP2024-619.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-21305 Filed 9-18-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 9, 2015

N o. 04

- 13

- 00608

- CV

SMITH

- REAGAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. d/b/a Smith

- Reagan Insurance Agenc y,

Appellant

v.

FORT RINGGOLD LIMITED , Pete Diaz III, Aaron Diaz and Monica Aguillon,

Appellees

From the 381st Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC

- 02

- 343

Honorable Jose Luis Garza, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice (dissenting)

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice (dissenting)

Jason Pulliam, Justice

On April 9 , 201 5

, appellee s filed an En Banc Motion for Rehearing . The motion is

DENIED.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

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

court on this 9th day of September, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FIRSTCITY
LIQUIDATING TRUST SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 FORM 10-Q FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FIRSTCITY LIQUIDATING TRUST
SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           3,398
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     32,390
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  35,788
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,888
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      33,900
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    35,788
<SALES>                                          4,910
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,139
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,160
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,979
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,979
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,979
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

MICHAEL J. FIELDS, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D16-737

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed April 20, 2018. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Michelle Sisco 

and Thomas P. Barber, Judges.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, 

and Ivy R. Ginsberg, Special Assistant 

Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Susan D. Dunlevy, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

LaROSE, C.J., and LUCAS and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.