alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



RemedyTemp, Inc. Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 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), each of the undersigned officers of RemedyTemp,
Inc., a California corporation (the Company), does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly
Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 2, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the 10-Q Report) that to the best of his knowledge:  (1)
    the 10-Q Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended; and(2)
    the information contained in the 10-Q Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. February 7, 2005
    
    /s/ GREG D. PALMERGreg D. PalmerPresident and Chief Executive OfficerRemedyTemp, Inc.February 7, 2005
    
    /s/ MONTY A. HOUDESHELLMonty A. HoudeshellSenior Vice President, Chief Administrative Officerand Corporate
Secretary(Principal Financial Officer)RemedyTemp, Inc.
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within
the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
### 3p3ag47 

# Chemical

- 

# P roducts - -

I 1 FEu ?_ 

# Co rp

# oration OP101--z0a7-d53/

January 27, 2011 102Old Mill Road SE P .O
. Box 2470 Cartersville, Georgia 30120-1692 Phone: 770-382-2144 Fax: 770-386-6053 e-mail : jcook@cpc-us.com 

# wuiiiuAmiiiniusu~iumiuiauimuiui
Document Control Office (7407M) Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460-0001 (Attention: TSCA section 4 test rule) <20 Subject : Test Rule: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0531

Declaration of Intent to Test 9,10 Anthracenedione, CAS # 84-65-1

Dear Madamor Sir ; .-- Oki

Chemical Products Corporation and its subsidiary, CPT Pulp and Paper, LLC, imports, processes, and markets the HPV chemical 9,10 Anthracenedione, CAS number 84-65-1
. 9,10-anthracenedione is one of the 19 chemical substances listed in Table 2, paragraph (j) of 40 CFR 799
. 5087 published in the January 7, 2011 Federal Register, Volume 76, Number 5, at pages 1067 through 1093 entitled, "Testing of Certain High 

### Page l of3 CONTAINS NOCBtChemical Products Corporation

Production Volume Chemicals; Second Group of Chemicals" with EPA docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0531
. Chemical Products Corporation hereby declares its intention to sponsor testing of 9,10 Anthracenedione, CAS number 84-65-1, and submits the following information: (1) Identification of test rule: EPA final rule under section 4(a)(1)(B) of TSCA published in the January 7, 2011 Federal Register, Volume 76, Number 5, at pages 1067 through 1093 entitled "Testing of Certain High Production Volume Chemicals, Second Group of Chemicals" docketed under EPA docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007- 0531
. (2) Name, address, and telephone number of the firmwhich will be sponsoring the tests: Chemical Products Corporation 102 Old Mill Road, SE P.O
. Box 2470 Cartersville, GA 30120-1692 Telephone: 770-382-2144 Fax: 770-386-6053 (3) Name, address, and telephone number of the appropriate individual to contact for further information : Jerry A
. Cook, Technical Director Chemical Products Corporation 102 Old Mill Road SE P .O
. Box 2470 Cartersville, GA 30120-1692 Telephone: 770-382-2144 Ext
. 272 Email : icookC~?cpc-us .com Page 2 of3Chemical Products Corporation

(5) A list of the testing requirements for which the sponsor intends to conduct tests: Testing category - Aquatic Toxicity Test symbol - C6 Test Requirements - Toxicity to Plants (Algae) : ASTME1218- 04e1
. If I can answer any questions concerning this letter, please telephone me at 770-382-2144 Ext
. 272 or 770-714-3806 (cell), or email me at icookecpc-us .com . Sincerely, Jerry A
. Cook Technical Director

Page 3of3
PROCEDURE 2–Quality Assurance Requirements for

Particulate Matter Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources

(40 CFR 60, Appendix F)

Summary of Routine System Check Requirements

Drift Check [§§10.2(1), 10.2(2), 10.2(4), 10.4(1)]

• Applicability: all PM CEMS

• Frequency: daily

• Procedure: 

- Check zero and upscale drift

- Adjust instrument if daily zero or upscale drift exceeds 4 percent

- If instrument automatically adjusts for drift, it must be programmed to record either the

unadjusted concentration or the amount of the adjustment

• Use Equation 2-3 to calculate zero drift 

• Use Equation 2-2 to calculate upscale drift 

• Instrument is out of control if zero or upscale drift exceeds:

- 4 percent for 5 consecutive days

- 8 percent for any one day

System Optics Check [§10.2(3)]

• Applicability: light-scattering, extinction type, or other optical PM CEMS

• Frequency: daily

• Procedure: 

- check system optics to ensure proper operation

Sample Volume Check [§§10.2(5), 10.4(2)]

• Applicability: extractive PM CEMS that incorporate measured sample volume in output

• Frequency: daily

• Procedure: 

- check sample volume at normal sampling rate

- adjust system if daily sample volume check error exceeds 10 percent

• Instrument is out of control if sample volume check error exceeds:

- 10 percent for 5 consecutive days

- 20 percent for any one day
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50322

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARVIN ISRAEL VELASQUEZ-CASCO, also known as Juan Magai-Perez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:18-CR-1834-1

Before CLEMENT, GRAVES, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Marvin Israel Velasquez-Casco has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Velasquez-Casco has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

* Pursuant to 5TH 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 18, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-50322 Document: 00515313181 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/18/2020
No. 19-50322

2

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 19-50322 Document: 00515313181 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/18/2020
Exhibit 32.1
 Certification
  (1)
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009 (the
Quarterly Report) 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 780(d)); and
 (2)
    
    The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: May 7, 2009
    By:
    /s/ John McDermottJohn McDermottPresident and Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7743

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BERNARDO SEGUNDO CALLEJA, a/k/a Beni, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-86-28-R, CA-97-270-R) Submitted: August 31, 1998 Decided: January 26, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerald Chester Ruter, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Thomas Jack Bondurant, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate ofappealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Calleja , Nos. CR-86-28-R; CA-97-270- R (W.D. Va. Nov. 4, 1997). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 277 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 277

To prohibit assistance to the Palestinian Authority until it withdraws 
         its request to join the International Criminal Court.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 12, 2015

 Mr. Hastings introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit assistance to the Palestinian Authority until it withdraws 
         its request to join the International Criminal Court.

    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 ``Defend Israel by Defunding 
Palestinian Foreign Aid Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress makes the following findings:
            (1) On December 31, 2014, Mahmoud Abbas, the President of 
        the Palestinian Authority, signed several international 
        conventions in an attempt to join the International Criminal 
        Court.
            (2) The Palestinian Authority has indicated that it will 
        seek to use the International Criminal Court as a means to 
        pursue charges against Israel.
            (3) The Palestinian Authority remains engaged in a unity 
        government with Hamas, a terrorist organization responsible for 
        countless deaths and whose charter declares that ``there is no 
        solution to the Palestinian question except by Jihad''.
            (4) The United States provides more than $400,000,000 in 
        assistance to the Palestinian Authority each year.
            (5) Section 7041(i)(2) of the Department of State, Foreign 
        Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2015 
        (division J of Public Law 133-235) includes limitations on 
        assistance to the Palestinian Authority if it seeks to join the 
        International Criminal Court.
            (6) The United States Government must make immediately 
        clear to the Palestinian Authority that its attempts to join 
        the International Criminal Court will carry serious 
        consequences.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON FUNDING.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no amounts may be 
obligated or expended to provide any assistance, loan guarantee, or 
debt relief to the Palestinian Authority, or any affiliated governing 
entity, until the Palestinian Authority withdraws its request to join 
the International Criminal Court.
                                 <all>
```
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2022265EN.01001301.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 11.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 265/13 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10656 – FLUTTER ENTERTAINMENT / SISAL)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 265/06)

1.

On 4 July 2022, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2022265EN.01001301-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Flutter Entertainment plc (‘Flutter’, Ireland), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Sisal S.p.A. (‘Sisal’, Italy). |

Flutter will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Sisal.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Flutter: global sports betting, gaming and entertainment operator, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Sisal: betting, gaming and lottery operator. |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2022265EN.01001301-E0002) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10656 – FLUTTER ENTERTAINMENT / SISAL

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| |
| --- |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2022265EN.01001301-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2022265EN.01001301-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
### Chemical Sector Risk Document and appendices 1-3 **Elaine Manning** to: Higgins, Cortney 11/15/2011 02:36 PM Cc: Nick Parsons, Andrea Siefers, Dave Guinnup, Darcie Smith, Penny Lassiter History: This message has been forwarded. 

### I understand the Chemical Sector preamble was just transmitted to you . Here's the supporting risk document. Please let us know if you have questions. I'm attaching appendices 1-3 to this email and will send 4-7 in a separate email. Thanks, Elaine Manning OAQPS, HEID (919) 541-5499

7 Chem Source Categories Draft Risk Assessment OMB 11_15_11.docx

Appendix 1.pdf Appendix 2.pdf Appendix 3.pdf
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

As adopted pursuant to

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Park Bancorp, Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
May 16, 2011, (the Report), I, Victor E. Caputo, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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, as amended; 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/ Victor E. CaputoVictor E. CaputoTreasurer and Chief Financial OfficerDated: May 16, 2011




35
OPINION ISSUED FEBRUARY 11, 2009

#### ELVIS D. HARRIS VS. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

(CC-07-0282)

Claimant appeared *pro se.*

Andrew F. Tarr, Attorney 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 August 30, 2007, a tree from W.Va. Route 21 fell across the road and onto the property of Premier Body Works located in Barrackville, Marion County. The tree landed on claimant’s 1991 Chevrolet Corsica, which his son, Chris Harris, had driven to work and parked in Premier Body Works’ parking lot.

2. Respondent was responsible for the maintenance of W.Va. Route 21 which it failed to maintain on the date of this incident.

3. As a result of this incident, claimant’s vehicle sustained damage in the amount of $425.00.

*2154. Respondent agrees that the amount of $425.00 for the damages put forth by the claimant is fair and reasonable.

The Court has reviewed the facts of the claim and finds that respondent was negligent in its maintenance of W.Va. Route 21 on the date of this incident; that the negligence of respondent was the proximate cause of the damages sustained to claimant’s vehicle; and that the amount of the damages agreed to by the parties is fair and reasonable. Thus, claimant may make a recovery for his loss.

Accordingly, the Court is of the opinion to and does make an award in the amount of $425.00.

Award of $425.00.
#### SCOTT v. VILBIG CONST. CO.

No. 3699.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

May 11, 1940.

Rehearing Denied May 29, 1940.

*875David E. O’Fiel, of Beaumont, for appellant.

Renfro & Keen, of Beaumont, for appel-lee.

WALKER, Chief Justice.

This was an action in County Court of Jefferson County at Law, Jefferson County, by appellant, Geo. S. Scott, against appellee, Vilbig Construction 'Company, a corporation, for $300, claimed as the balance due on a wage contract whereby appellant was employed by appellee as its night watchman on its road contract with the Texas State Highway Department. The theory of appellant’s petition was that though he was employed as a night watchman at $16 per week, appellee used him as “an unskilled laborer” within that classification of labor as made in appel-lee’s contract with-the State Highway Department. Appellee answered by pleas of general demurrer, general denial and payment. On trial to the court without a jury, judgment was entered in appellant’s favor for $70.40. In support of the judgment, the court found that appellant worked for ap-pellee 1,020 hours “as an unskilled laborer.” The court further found that appellant “worked without any objection to the amount of pay being received by him.” Appellant has duly prosecuted his appeal to this court and has briefed his assignments of error.

On the undisputed evidence, appellant worked seven days per week, twelve hours per day; so, he worked twelve and one-seventh weeks. Appellee paid him for this time on the basis of $16 per week, totalling $194.28. On the finding of the court that appellant had worked 1,020 hours, appellee was due him for his services $408. The judgment should have been in appellant’s favor for $213.72.

The finding of the court that appellant “worked without any objection to the amount of pay being received” is immaterial: 1st, because the contract provided for compensation at 40 cents per hour for unskilled labor; 2nd, because by the provisions of Article 5165, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St, and of House Bill No. 115, Chapter 259, Acts 44th Legislature, Regular Session, p. 644, amending Article 1580 of the Revised Penal Code of 1925, Vernon’s Ann.P.C. art. 1580, and repealing Article 5166, R.C.S. of 1925, appellee was bound to pay appellant an unskilled laborer 40 cents per hour for his services.

The statement made by appellant in his brief does not make the issue of “time and a half” for overtime.

The judgment of the lower court is here reformed awarding appellant $213.72, and as reformed it is affirmed.
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

MERISTAR HOSPITALITY CORPORATION
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
of Meristar Hospitality Corporation, (the Registrant) on
Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Paul W. Whetsell, Chief Executive Officer of
MeriStar Hospitality Corporation, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 and
Exchange Act of 1934; and                            
| | -- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | 2) |  | The information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

/s/ Paul W. Whetsell
Paul W. Whetsell
Chief Executive Officer
November 13, 2002
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7171
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ERIC DELANO SANDERS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CR-95- 454-MJG, CA-96-3655-MJG) Submitted: November 6, 1997 Decided: November 25, 1997 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Delano Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, United States Attorney, Martin Joseph Clarke, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Sanders , Nos. CR-95-454-MJG; CA-96-3655-MJG (D. Md. July 28, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED