alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection  with the Annual Report of  Penn-Pacific  Corp.,  on Form
10-KSB for the year ending  December 31, 2004 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "REPORT"),  the  undersigned,  Rose
Fischer,  Chief  Executive  Officer  and  Principal  Accounting  Officer  of the
Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         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.

Date: May 10, 2005


/s/ Rose Fischer
Rose Fischer
CEO, CFO, Chairman, Secretary, Director
(Principal Executive & Accounting Officer)


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
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.
[No. 19142-7-III.

Division Three.

December 26, 2000.]

#### Martin F. Roys, *Appellant,*v. Custom Fruit Packers, Inc., *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Chelan County, No. 98-2-00367-1, Lesley A. Allan, J., entered February 11, 2000. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Kato, J., concurred in by Kurtz, C.J., and Brown, J.
EXHIBIT 31.3





PARKER DRILLING COMPANY


RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION








I, Gary G. Rich, certify that:


|   |                                                                                                                                                                
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2018, of Parker Drilling Company (the registrant); and

|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|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.




Date: April 29, 2019





/s/ Gary G. Rich


Gary G. Rich


President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.4

Statement of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of
Southern California Gas Company (the "Company") certifies that:

(i)	the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2004 (the "Annual Report") fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended; and

(ii)	the information contained in the Annual Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.



February 23, 2005
                                               /S/ STEVEN D. DAVIS
                                             ______________________
                                               Steven D. Davis
                                               Chief Financial Officer
# C_2022458EN.01000701.xml

| 1.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 458/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 458/7

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

(2022/C 458/05)

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

| Date and time of closure | 11.11.2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 11.11.2022 - 31.12.2022 |
| Member State | European Union (All Member States) |
| Stock or Group of stocks | POK/1N2AB. |
| Species | Saithe (Pollachius virens) |
| Zone | Norwegian waters of 1 and 2 |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | --- |
| Reference number | 11/TQ109 |

Date and time of closure

11.11.2022

Duration

11.11.2022 - 31.12.2022

Member State

European Union (All Member States)

Stock or Group of stocks

POK/1N2AB.

Species

Saithe (Pollachius virens)

Zone

Norwegian waters of 1 and 2

Type(s) of fishing vessels

---

Reference number

11/TQ109

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

---
#### In re Gregg.

(No. 28899

Decided December 31, 1941.)

*Mr. Alfred L. Steuer,*for appellant, Catherine J. Gregg.

*Mr. Frank T. Gullitan,*prosecuting attorney, *Mr. Neil W. McGill*and *Mr. John P. Butler,*for appellee, Jos. M. Sweeney, sheriff.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Williams, Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman and Bettman, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED May 21, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-41481 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff - Appellee

v. MICHAEL WAYNE MAJOR Defendant - Appellant

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 3:93-CR-9-1

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Michael Wayne Major (Major) appeals the sentence imposed after his guilty-plea conviction for conspiring to cultivate more than 3000 marijuana plants. Wayne contends that the district court improperly increased his sentencing guidelines offense level for possessing a dangerous weapon in connection with the crime. He also contends that the court should have given him an offense level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, despiteNo. 03-41481 -2- the fact that he was a fugitive for nine years after he was first arrested. Even were Major’s claims meritorious, which they are not under the proper “clear error” standard of review, any error would be harmless. Major was sentenced to the mandatory minimum sentence of ten years’ imprisonment and five years’ supervised release under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) & (A)(vii). Even if his guidelines range was reduced to less than ten years, Major’s sentence would not be affected. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(b) & (c); see also Williams v. United States , 503 U.S. 193, 203 (1992) (harmless error); United States v. Tello , 9 F.3d 1119, 1131 (5th Cir. 1993). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed.R. App. P. 32.1

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted April 16, 2008*

Decided April 29, 2008

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIREWILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

No. 07-2247

SHAVAUGHN CARLOSWILSON-EL,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

ALAN FINNAN,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United

States District Court for the

Southern District of Indiana, 

Terre Haute Division.

No. 2:06-cv-171-LJM-WTL

Larry J. McKinney, Judge.

Order

A Conduct Adjustment Board at a prison in Indiana concluded that Shavaughn Wilson-El had been insolent to a guard. The Board issued a written reprimand and cut off 

Wilson-El’s telephone privileges for a month. He responded by filing a petition for a 

writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. §2254. The district court denied the petition, ruling

that Wilson-El is not “in custody” as a result of the Board’s decision.

The district court’s conclusion is correct. “Custody” is essential to any proceeding

under §2254. The Board’s decision did not extend the duration of Wilson-El’s confine-

 

* After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See

Fed.R. App. P. 34(a); Cir.R. 34(f).
No. 07-2247 Page 2

ment and thus did not subject him to additional custody. Indeed, the Board did not deprive Wilson-El of either liberty or property under the approach that Sandin v. Conner, 

515 U.S. 472 (1995), adopts for prisoners’ suits, so the Board’s decision cannot be challenged as a violation of due process using either §2254 or 42 U.S.C. §1983.

Wilson-El maintains that the Board’s finding that he had been insolent played a role

in a later proceeding in which the Board concluded that he is a habitual offender. The

habitual-offender designation led to the loss of 180 days’ good-time credit and so subjected Wilson-El to additional custody. Yet Wilson-El has not sought judicial review of 

the habitual-offender decision and cannot use the outcome of that proceeding to find

“custody” in this one, which involves only telephone privileges. (Whether the Board’s

finding of insolence could have been collaterally attacked in the habitual-offender proceeding is questionable, given Lackawanna County District Attorney v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394 

(2001), but we need not address that subject.)

AFFIRMED
Benjamin, lynorae 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Bentley, Keith [Keith.Bentley@dnr.state.ga.us] 

Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:11 PM 

Kemker, Carol; Wayland, Richard 

Benjamin, Lynorae; jimmy.johnston@dnr.state.ga.us 

Georgia Ozone Data 

This e-mail is to confirm that Georgia EPD is in agreement that EPA can use the preliminary 2013 ozone season data in 

the Air Now data base as an indicator that the Atlanta area is maintaining compliance with the 1997 ozone ambient air 

standard. Georgia EPD will be following up with pertinent OA processes to validate the data in a timely manner. 

If you have any questions, please call. 

1
#### CORDOSA v. STATE.

No. 14757.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 20, 1932.

B. L. Palmer, of Houston, for appellant.

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

LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for murder; punishment five years in the penitentiary.

The record is here without any bills of exception. No exceptions were taken to the charge of the court.

 The evidence is in condition of direct conflict; the witnesses for the state testifying that but one shot was fired, and that by appellant, who shot and killed deceased. The defense witnesses, including appellant, testified that two shots were fired, and that deceased fired first. The jury are the exclusive judges of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony, under our statute. They having accepted as true the testimony of the state witnesses, and there being evidence before them sufficient to support the verdict, the judgment will be affirmed.
H. R. 2928 

One Hundred Fourteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, 

the fourth day of January, two thousand and sixteen 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 201 B 

Street in Perryville, Arkansas, as the ‘‘Harold George Bennett Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. HAROLD GEORGE BENNETT POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 201 B Street in Perryville, Arkansas, shall be 

known and designated as the ‘‘Harold George Bennett Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Harold George Bennett Post Office’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 6, 2023

No. 04-22-00871-CR

Sean Michael FOXX,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CR8672A

Honorable Mary D. Roman, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant Sean Michael Foxx entered into a plea bargain with the State, pursuant to 

which he pleaded nolo contendere to the charged offense. The trial court imposed a sentence on 

January 13, 2014 in accordance with the agreement and signed a certificate stating this “is a pleabargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). This 

court must dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal 

has not been made part of the record.” Id. The clerk’s record includes the written plea bargain 

agreement. See id. 25.2(d). The record establishes the punishment assessed by the court does not 

exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. See id.

25.2(a)(2). The record also appears to support the trial court’s certification that Appellant does 

not have a right to appeal. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding 

court of appeals should review clerk’s record to determine whether trial court’s certification is 

accurate). 

The record further demonstrates Appellant did not file a motion for new trial. Therefore, 

a notice of appeal was due February 12, 2014, or the notice and a motion for extension of time to 

file, were due fifteen days later on February 27, 2014. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1), 26.3. The 

record contains a notice of appeal file stamped December 9, 2022. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. 

We therefore order appellant to file a response, by January 26, 2023, establishing 

(1) the notice of appeal was timely filed by mail and (2) an amended certification showing he 

has the right to appeal has been made part of the appellate record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d), 

26.2, 26.3, 37.1. If a supplemental clerk’s record is required to show appellant has the right to 

appeal, appellant must request a supplemental record from the trial court clerk and file a copy of 

FILE COPY
the request with this court. If appellant fails to satisfactorily respond to this order within the time 

provided, the appeal will be dismissed. 

We order all appellate deadlines suspended until further order of the court. We further 

order the clerk of this court to serve copies of this order on the attorneys of record and the court 

reporter. 

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 6th day of January, 2023.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, I, Manuel V. Pangilinan,
Chairman of the Board, President and CEO of PLDT Inc., hereby certify, to my knowledge, that our annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2016 (the Report) fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, our financial condition and results of operations.

April 27, 2017



/s/    Manuel V.
PangilinanMANUEL V. PANGILINANChairman of the BoardPresident and CEO(Principal Executive Officer)


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not
being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
#### HARGRAVES v. STATE.

No. 20473.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 14, 1939.

R. L. Moulden, of McKinney, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

The conviction is for driving an automobile upon a public highway while intoxicated. The punishment assessed is confinement in the county jail for a period of five days and a fine of $50.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exceptions. The indictment is sufficient to charge the 'offense and procedural matters appear to be in due order.

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.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 183 (Friday, September 20, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77121-77122]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-21486]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 6398-000]


Hackett Mills Hydro Associates, LLC; Notice of Authorization for 
Continued Project Operation

    The license for the Hackett Mills Hydroelectric Project No. 6398 
was issued for a period ending August 31, 2024.
    Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1), requires the 
Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue from year-to-
year an annual license to the then licensee(s) under the terms and 
conditions of the prior license until a new license is issued, or the 
project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section 15 or any other 
applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior license waived 
the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based on section 9(b) 
of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c), and as set forth 
at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project has filed an 
application for a subsequent license, the licensee may continue to 
operate the project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the 
license after the minor or minor part license expires, until the 
Commission acts on its application. If the licensee of such a project 
has not filed an application for a subsequent license, then it may be 
required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to continue project operations 
until the Commission issues someone else a license for the project or 
otherwise orders disposition of the project.
    If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is 
hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 6398 is issued to 
Hackett Mills Hydro Associates, LLC for a period effective September 1, 
2024, through August 31, 2025, or until the issuance of a new license 
for the project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes 
first.
    If issuance of a new license (or other disposition) does not take 
place on or before August 31, 2025, notice is hereby given that, 
pursuant to 18 CFR 16.18(c), an annual license under section 15(a)(1) 
of the FPA is renewed automatically without further order or notice by 
the

[[Page 77122]]

Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise.
    If the project is not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is 
hereby given that Hackett Mills Hydro Associates, LLC is authorized to 
continue operation of the Hackett Mills Hydroelectric Project under the 
terms and conditions of the prior license until the issuance of a 
subsequent license for the project or other disposition under the FPA, 
whichever comes first.

    Dated: September 13, 2024.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-21486 Filed 9-19-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
nStor Technologies, Inc.
                                   Exhibit 11
              Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Earnings
                      For the Year Ended December 31, 2001

Weighted Average Common Shares Considered Outstanding

                                            Outstanding        Weighted Average
             Period                        Common Shares             Shares
January 1, 2001 - May 16, 2001              35,478,489            13,219,383
May 17, 2001 - October 27, 2001             35,719,022            16,049,094
October 28, 2001 - November 19, 2001        37,719,022             2,376,815
November 20, 2001 - December 31, 2001      114,603,144            13,187,211
                                                                 ------------
                                                                  44,832,503
                                                                 ============


Basic and Diluted Net Loss Per Common Share

                                       Earnings (Loss)             Per Share
Loss before extraordinary items          (19,387,000)                ($.43)
Extraordinary gains                          869,000                   .02
                                       ---------------          ------------
Net loss per common share               $(18,518,000)                ($.41)
                                       ===============          ============
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                      13,255,743
<SECURITIES>                                 6,935,060
<RECEIVABLES>                                  242,029
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            21,004,108
<PP&E>                                       3,713,461
<DEPRECIATION>                                 991,428
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              24,046,978
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,477,470
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    49,841,759
<OTHER-SE>                                   (627,502)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                24,046,978
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               169,540
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,800,854
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,549
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,310,489)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,310,489)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,311,289)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.42)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.42)
<FN>
<F1>Primary Represents Basic Net Loss Per Share
</FN>
        

</TABLE>