alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
March 18, 1998



Pease Oil and Gas Company
751 Horizon Court, Suite 203
Grand Junction, CO 81506

We are  providing  this  letter  to you  for  inclusion  as an  exhibit  to your
Form-10KSB filing pursuant to Item 602 of Regulation S-B.

We have read  management's  justification for the change in accounting from the
successful  efforts method to the full cost method  contained the Company's Form
10-KSB for the year ended  December 31,  1997.  Based on our reading of the data
and discussions with Company  officials about the business judgment and business
planning factors relating to the change, we believe  management's  justification
to be reasonable.  Accordingly,  in reliance on  management's  determination  as
regards elements of business judgment and business planning,  we concur that the
newly  adopted  accounting  principle  described  above  is  preferable  in  the
Company's circumstances to the method previously applied.


/s/ Hein + Associates LLP
HEIN + ASSOCIATES LLP
**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 MAP IV Acquisition, Inc. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Lawrence E. Koehler, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
      knowledge:





(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 results of operations of the Company.





November
                13, 2007
            /s/
                Lawrence E. KoehlerLawrence
                E. KoehlerPrincipal
                Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 99

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the annual report of the Pittsburgh & West Virginia
Railroad (the Trust) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2007 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Herbert E. Jones, III, President of the Trust, certify, to
the best of my knowledge, 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; and

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


/s/ Herbert E. Jones, Jr.
Herbert E. Jones, Jr.
Chairman of the Board and Trustee

Date: March 24, 2008



/s/ Herbert E. Jones, III
Herbert E. Jones, III
President


Date: March 24, 2008


/s/ Robert R. McCoy
Robert R. McCoy
Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer


Date: March 24, 2008
OPM.gov / Retirement / Benefits Officers Center / Aids

Skip to main content

### In this section

- My Annuity and Benefits Toggle submenu   - Services Online
  - Life Events
  - Annuity Payments
  - Healthcare & Insurance
  - Medicare
  - Thrift Savings Plan
  - Related Federal Benefits
  - Retirement Eligibility Surveys
  - Representative Payees
- CSRS Information Toggle submenu   - Eligibility
  - Computation
  - Creditable Service
  - Planning and Applying
  - Types of Retirement
  - Survivors
  - Military Retired Pay
  - Service Credit
  - Former Employees
- FERS Information Toggle submenu   - Eligibility
  - Computation
  - Creditable Service
  - Planning & Applying
  - Types of Retirement
  - Survivors
  - Military Retired Pay
  - Service Credit
  - Former Employees
- Phased Retirement
- Retirement Statistics
- Special Notices
- Federal Ball Park Estimator
- FEGLI Calculator
- Tax Information for Annuitants
- Publications & Forms Toggle submenu   - Pamphlets
  - Retirement & Insurance Forms
  - Benefits Administration Letters
  - Financial Management Letters
  - Payroll Office Letters
  - CSRS/FERS Handbook
- Benefits Officers Center Toggle submenu   - List of Benefits Officers
  - Tools
  - Aids
  - FERS Election Options
  - Training
  - Reference Materials
- Pre-Retirement
- Post-Retirement
- Leaving the Government
- Survivor Benefits
- How to Make a Payment
- Quick Guide
- Contact Retirement
- Retirement Information Center
- Application Tips

### Resources For

          - New / Prospective Employees
          - Federal Employees
          - Retirees or Family Members
          - Benefits Officers

# Benefits Administration Letters

## Federal Erroneous Retirement Coverage Corrections Act (FERCCA)

Benefits Administration Letters (BAL) provide guidance to agencies on various aspects of Federal benefits administration. The following list of BALs are specific to the processing of FERCCA cases. Click here to view additional BALs.

Back to Top
ACCEPTED 04-14-00758-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 4/30/2015 11:31:46 AM KEITH HOTTLE CLERK
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

ROBERTO RAMOS, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18-50042 

D.C. No. 2:17-cr-00491-PSG

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 27, 2018**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Roberto Ramos appeals the eight-month custodial sentence and five-year 

term of supervised release imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Ramos contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 3 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-50042

respond to his mitigating arguments and explain the sentence. We review for plain 

error, see United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), and 

conclude that there is none. The record shows that the district court considered 

Ramos’s mitigating arguments. Moreover, it explained the sentence adequately, 

noting Ramos’s breaches of the court’s trust. United States v. Perez-Perez, 512

F.3d 514, 516 (9th Cir. 2008). Ramos has not shown a reasonable probability that 

he would have received a different sentence had the district court said more. See 

United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008).

Ramos next argues that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because 

the district court failed to give adequate weight to the Guidelines and to Ramos’s

mitigating circumstances. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall 

v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The within-Guidelines custodial sentence

and five-year term of supervised release are substantively reasonable in light of the 

18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, 

including Ramos’s decision to leave the residential treatment program and failure 

to report to probation. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th 

Cir. 2007).

 Finally, Ramos argues that the written judgment conflicts with the district 

court’s oral pronouncement of sentence. The record indicates that there is no 

conflict. In both the written judgment and the oral pronouncement, the district 
3 18-50042

court reimposed the terms and conditions imposed upon Ramos’s first revocation, 

but with one modification: upon release, Ramos must enter a residential substance 

abuse treatment program for a period not to exceed six months. The record reflects 

that this new condition was intended to replace condition number one in the 

November 1, 2017, judgment, and that satisfaction of the new condition would 

meet the requirements of condition number five in the November 1, 2017,

judgment.

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 99.1

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

                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


The following certification is provided by the undersigned Chief Executive
Officer of Park Bancorp, Inc., on the basis of such officer's knowledge and
belief for the sole purpose of complying with 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 June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 14, 2002, (the "Report"), I, David A. Remijas,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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/ David A. Remijas
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Name: David A. Remijas
                                    Title: President and Chief Executive Officer

                                    Date: August 14, 2002


                                       13
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT

M. SYLVIA BAIR, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF MARTHA A. EDWARDS, DECEASED, Respondent

v.

MANOR CARE OF ELIZABETHTOWN, PA, LLC D/B/A MANORCARE HEALTH SERVICES-ELIZABETHTOWN, MANORCARE HEALTH SERVICES, INC., MANOR CARE, INC., HCR MANORCARE, INC., HCR HEALTHCARE, LLC, HCR II HEALTHCARE, LLC, HCR III HEALTHCARE, LLC, HCR IV HEALTHCARE, LLC,
Petitioners : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 118 MAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 21st day of August, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is
DENIED

.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7314
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus AKEEM ALIN-NAFIS ABDULLAH-MALIK, a/k/a Akeem Abdul Malik, Plaintiff - Appellant. No. 04-7315
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus AKEEM ALIN-NAFIS ABDULLAH-MALIK, a/k/a Akeem Abdul Malik, Defendant - Appellant. No. 04-7316
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus- 2 - AKEEM ALIN-NAFIS ABDULLAH-MALIK, a/k/a Akeem Abdul Malik, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CR-01-398; CA-03-672-1) Submitted: February 9, 2005 Decided: February 16, 2005 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Akeem Alin-Nafis Abdullah-Malik, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Patrick Auld, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* This court lacks jurisdiction to directly review a magistrate judge’s order absent consent. Accordingly, No. 04-7316, in which Abdullah-Malik seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying his motion to amend, is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. - 3 - PER CURIAM:In these consolidated appeals, Akeem Alin-Nafis AbdullahMalik seeks to appeal the district court’s judgment adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and the magistrate judge’s order denying the post-judgment motion to amend the § 2255 motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Abdullah-Malik has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, as to all the appeals, we deny certificates of appealability and dismiss the appeals. * We dispense with oral- 4 - argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 2, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80284-80285]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-22676]


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

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

[[Page 80285]]

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: October 2, 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 23, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 379 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-735, K2024-28.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-22676 Filed 10-1-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
# Official Journal C 277/12 N

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 277 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4712 November 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 277

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4712 November 2004

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Council |
| 2004/C 277/1 | Communication from the Council | 1 |
| | Commission |
| 2004/C 277/2 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |
| 2004/C 277/3 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3554 — SERCO/NEDRAILWAYS/NORTHERN RAIL) (1) | 3 |
| 2004/C 277/4 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3454 — KKR/DYNAMIT NOBEL) (1) | 3 |
| 2004/C 277/5 | Communication from the Commission — Renewal of the Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture | 4 |
| 2004/C 277/6 | Renotification of a previously notified concentration (Case COMP/M. 3535 — VAN DRIE/SCHILS) (1) | 5 |
| 2004/C 277/7 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3549 — KKR/DLJ/JOSTENS-VON HOFFMANN-ARCADE) (1) | 6 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Council

2004/C 277/1

Communication from the Council

1

Commission

2004/C 277/2

Euro exchange rates

2

2004/C 277/3

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3554 — SERCO/NEDRAILWAYS/NORTHERN RAIL) (1)

3

2004/C 277/4

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3454 — KKR/DYNAMIT NOBEL) (1)

3

2004/C 277/5

Communication from the Commission — Renewal of the Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture

4

2004/C 277/6

Renotification of a previously notified concentration (Case COMP/M. 3535 — VAN DRIE/SCHILS) (1)

5

2004/C 277/7

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3549 — KKR/DLJ/JOSTENS-VON HOFFMANN-ARCADE) (1)

6

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2004/C 277/8 | 1 November 2004 — New version of EUR-Lex! | s3 |

2004/C 277/8

1 November 2004 — New version of EUR-Lex!

s3

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Question from Massachusetts

October 23, 2014

2012 Baseline

In the Building Block 4 target calculation, EPA multiplies the “net cumulative EE savings as percent of BAU 

sales”[1] in each year 2020 through 2029 by the “2012 total MWh (sales x 1.0751)” (adjusted for the 

proportion of sales generated in-state)[2] to determine the EE MWh target for each year during the 

compliance period. Assuming that, in most states, total MWh sales will increase from 2012 through 2029, 

the use of a constant 2012 sales baseline seems to discount the target EE MWh savings in each future 

year. For example, if a state’s net cumulative EE savings percent 2020-2029 increased 1% per year from 1% 

to 10%, 2012 sales were 100MWh, and 2020-2020 sales increased 10MWh per year from 110MWh to 

200MWh, the total EE MWh saved would be 55MWh under the proposed approach versus 93.5MWh if the 

net cumulative EE savings percent was multiplied by the projected sales in each compliance year (see 

Table 1 below). Consequently, the proposed approach forgoes additional savings under the Clean Power 

Plan and requires states with lower projected sales growth due to historical EE initiatives to save a greater 

proportion of their future sales than states with higher projected sales growth.

TABLE 1: Example Comparative EE Savings

Year

Net 

Cumulative 

Savings 

Percent 2012 MWh Projected MWh

Savings w 

2012 sales 

(MWh)

Savings w 

projected sales 

(MWh)

2020 1% 100 110 1 1.1

2021 2% 100 120 2 2.4

2022 3% 100 130 3 3.9

2023 4% 100 140 4 5.6

2024 5% 100 150 5 7.5

2025 6% 100 160 6 9.6

2026 7% 100 170 7 11.9

2027 8% 100 180 8 14.4

2028 9% 100 190 9 17.1

2029 10% 100 200 10 20

Total savings 

(MWh) 55 93.5

[1] GHG Abatement Measures TSD, 5-43

[1] State Goal Computation TSD, column AP

 

[1] GHG Abatement Measures TSD, 5-43

[2] State Goal Computation TSD, column AP
#### FARRIERS ROYALTY HOLDING CO. et al., Appellants, v. J. W. ASHMORE and Izoria Ashmore, Appellees.

No. 2930.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

May 1, 1936.

Rehearing Denied May 20, 1936.

Dudley, Hyde, Duvall & Dudley, of Oklahoma City, Old., J. W. Young, of Crockett, and C. L. Orn, of Fort Worth, for appellants.

Aldrich & Crook, of Crockett, for appel-lees.

WALKER, Chief Justice.

This is a companion case with cause No. 2929, Farmers Royalty Holding Co. et al. v. T. F. Alderman et ux. (Tex.Civ.App.) 94 S.W.(2d) 261; in this case, appellees, J. W. Ashmore and wife, were plaintiffs below, and the same parties who were defendants below are appellants here, as in cause No. 2929.

The pleadings of the parties in this case are identical with the pleadings of the parties in cause No. 2929. The lower court rendered the same judgment in favor of appellees, and filed the same conclu*263sions of fact and law as in cause No. 2929.

For the reasons therein stated, appellants’ propositions attacking appellees’ judgment are overruled, and the judgment of the lower court is in all things affirmed.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer

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 Gateway Certifications, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



1.

The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2.

Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this statement this



10th day of September 2008.





/s/ Lawrence Williams, Jr.

______________________________



Lawrence Williams, Jr.

Principal Executive Officer and

Principal Accounting Officer
----

            COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 73/2006

of 13 January 2006         

amending Regulation (EC) No 92/2002 imposing definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of urea originating in Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Libya, Lithuania, Romania and the Ukraine

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1), and in particular Articles 8 and 9 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,

Whereas:

A.   PREVIOUS PROCEDURE

B.   FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE UNDERTAKING

C.   AMENDMENT OF REGULATION (EC) No 92/2002

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EC) No 92/2002 is hereby amended as follows:

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 13 January 2006.

For the Council

The President

U. PLASSNIK            

----

(1)OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 461/2004 (OJ L 77, 13.3.2004, p. 12).

(2)OJ C 301, 21.10.2000, p. 2.

(3)OJ L 197, 21.7.2001, p. 4.

(4)OJ L 17, 19.1.2002, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2002 (OJ L 168, 27.6.2002, p. 1).

(5)OJ L 333, 20.12.2005, p. 26.

----