alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY ACT





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of United Insurance Holdings Corp. for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Joseph R. Peiso, the Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer) of United Insurance Holdings Corp. 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; and

|   |                                                                                                                                                                        
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of United Insurance Holdings Corp.







By:/s/ Joseph R. PeisoDate:May 11, 2011Joseph R. PeisoChief Financial Officer(principal financial officer)
---

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Lake Victoria Mining
Company, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the three month period ended June
30, 2014, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, David Kalenuik, President and Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that

| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or Section 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.

|Dated: August 14, 2014 | By: | /s/ David Kalenuik                   
|---------------------- | --- | -------------------------------------
|                       |     | David Kalenuik                       
|                       |     | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                       |     | (Principal Executive Officer)        

---
Exhibit 32.1  Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) In connection with the Quarterly Report of Star Gold Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lindsay Gorrill, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  /s/ Lindsay GorrillLindsay GorrillChief Executive Officer & Principal Accounting OfficerMarch 17, 2010 This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference. A signed original 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.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 202 (Friday, October 18, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 83928-83929]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-23999]


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

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: October 18, 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 30, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 414 to Competitive Product List. Documents

[[Page 83929]]

are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-777, K2024-70.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-23999 Filed 10-17-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1075

In Re: LORENZO DOMINIC RICHARDSON,

Debtor.

---------------------------------- LORENZO DOMINIC RICHARDSON, Plaintiff – Appellant,

v. THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE EDUCATION ASSISTANCE AUTHORITY, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:08-cv-00557-FL)

Submitted: May 28, 2009 Decided: June 5, 2009

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lorenzo Dominic Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Brent Drake Kiziah, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Research Triangle, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Lorenzo Dominic Richardson appeals from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders upholding the validity of Richardson’s debt to Appellee, and determining that the debt was not dischargeable in Richardson’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy case. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Richardson v. The North Carolina State Education Assistance Authority , 5:08-cv-00557-FL (E.D.N.C. Nov. 24, 2008). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

The National Science Board's (NSB) Committee on External Engagement hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business pursuant to the National Science Foundation Act and the Government in the Sunshine Act.

# TIME AND DATE: 

Friday, October 18, 2024, from 5:00-6:00 p.m. EDT.

# PLACE: 

This meeting will be held by teleconference through the National Science Foundation.

# STATUS: 

Open.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

The agenda of the teleconference is: Chair's Opening Remarks; planning for NSF-NSB's 75th anniversary events; planning for Congressional engagement; and other business, including member ideas and questions.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

                        Point of contact for this meeting is: Nadine Lymn,                         *nlymn@nsf.gov,*                         703/292-7000. Members of the public can observe this meeting through a YouTube livestream. Meeting information including a YouTube link is available from the NSB website at                         *https://www.nsf.gov/​nsb/​meetings/​index.jsp#up.*

Ann Bushmiller,

Senior Counsel to the National Science Board. 

[FR Doc. 2024-24015 Filed 10-11-24; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
#### CHANEY v. STATE.

No. 19245.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 15, 1937.

State’s Rehearing Denied Jan. 26, 1938.

A. A. Dawson, of Canton, for appellant.

Lewis O. Orsborn, Co. Atty., of Canton, and Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for unlawfully driving an automobile upon the public highway while intoxicated; penalty assessed at a fine of $50.

The verdict of the jury prohibits the appellant from driving a motor vehicle upon the highways of Texas for a period of 12 months. Such verdict was authorized by article 802a of the Penal Code. However, that article was repealed by chapter 466, Acts of 44th Legislature, 2d Called Session, 1935, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 6687a. Under the terms of chapter 466, supra, which was in force at the time of the appellant’s conviction, he could only be prohibited from driving a motor vehicle on the highways of Texas for a period of 6 months for the first offense. In the absence of the evidence adduced upon the trial, this court must assume that the present instance is the first conviction of the appellant of the offense in question.

By reason of the repeal of article 802a, supra, by the act of the Legislature mentioned, that part of the verdict of the jury depriving the appellant of the right to drive a motor vehicle upon the highways of Texas for a period of 12 months was unauthorized. See Harris v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 109 S.W. 2d 201; Harris v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 109 S.W.2d 203; Reeves v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 109 S.W.2d 1051, not yet reported in State report.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause remanded.

On Motion for Rehearing.

HAWKINS, Judge.

The State through the honorable county attorney of Van Zandt county files a motion for rehearing in which it is suggested that this court may reform the judgment to obviate the error upon which the reversal was predicated. To accomplish the reformation mentioned this court would be compelled to disregard a part of the jury’s verdict, and we are aware of no authority which would support us in doing something which the trial court would be without power to do. See Pritchard v. State, 117 Tex. Cr.R. 106, 35 S.W.2d 717; Williams v. *465State, 118 Tex.Cr.R. 366, 42 S.W.2d 441; Ex parte Edwards, 125 Tex.Cr.R. 188, 67 S.W.2d 308.

The motion for rehearing is overruled-
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   In connection with the Annual Report of Star Gold Corp., a Nevada corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending July 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Lindsay E. Gorrill, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Star Gold Corp., and will be retained by Star Gold Corp., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  /s/ LINDSAY E. GORRILLLindsay E. Gorrill
Chief Executive Officer
September 14, 2011      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 Annual Report of Star Gold Corp. a Nevada corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending July 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Kelly J. Stopher, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Star Gold Corp., and will be retained by Star Gold Corp., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  /s/ KELLY J. STOPHERKelly J. Stopher
Chief Financial Officer
September 14, 2011
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2872

AN ACT

To improve the cause of action for misrepresentation of

Indian arts and crafts.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Indian Arts and Crafts

5 Enforcement Act of 2000’’.
2

S 2872 ES

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO CIVIL ACTION PROVISIONS.

2 Section 6 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to promote the

3 development of Indian arts and crafts and to create a

4 board to assist therein, and for other purposes’’ (25

5 U.S.C. 305e) (as added by section 105 of the Indian Arts

6 and Crafts Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–644; 104 Stat.

7 4664)) is amended—

8 (1) in subsection (a)—

9 (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1),

10 by inserting ‘‘, directly or indirectly,’’ after

11 ‘‘against a person who’’; and

12 (B) by inserting the following flush lan13 guage after paragraph (2)(B):

14 ‘‘For purposes of paragraph (2)(A), damages shall include

15 any and all gross profits accrued by the defendant as a

16 result of the activities found to violate this subsection.’’;

17 (2) in subsection (c)—

18 (A) in paragraph (1)—

19 (i) in subparagraph (A), by striking

20 ‘‘or’’ at the end;

21 (ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking

22 the period and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and

23 (iii) by adding at the end the fol24 lowing:
3

S 2872 ES

1 ‘‘(C) by an Indian arts and crafts organi2 zation on behalf of itself, or by an Indian on be3 half of himself or herself.’’; and

4 (B) in paragraph (2)(A)—

5 (i) by striking ‘‘the amount recovered

6 the amount’’ and inserting ‘‘the amount

7 recovered—

8 ‘‘(i) the amount’’; and

9 (ii) by adding at the end the fol10 lowing:

11 ‘‘(ii) the amount for the costs of investiga12 tion awarded pursuant to subsection (b) and re13 imburse the Board the amount of such costs in14 curred as a direct result of Board activities in

15 the suit; and’’;

16 (3) in subsection (d)(2), by inserting ‘‘subject

17 to subsection (f),’’ after ‘‘(2)’’; and

18 (4) by adding at the end the following:

19 ‘‘(f) Not later than 180 days after the date of enact20 ment of the Indian Arts and Crafts Enforcement Act of

21 2000, the Board shall promulgate regulations to include

22 in the definition of the term ‘Indian product’ specific ex23 amples of such product to provide guidance to Indian arti-
4

S 2872 ES

1 sans as well as to purveyors and consumers of Indian arts

2 and crafts, as defined under this Act.’’.

Passed the Senate October 5 (legislative day, September 22), 2000.

Attest:

Secretary.
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2872

AN ACT

To improve the cause of action for

misrepresentation of Indian arts and crafts.
#### TEXAS EMPLOYERS INS. ASS’N v. ALLEN.

No. 4568.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.

April 6, 1936.

Underwood, Johnson, Dooley & Huff, of Amarillo, for appellant.

James W. Witherspoon, of Hereford, and Clayton & Bralley, of Amarillo, for appel-lee.

MARTIN, Justice.

Appellee recovered judgment under the Texas Workmen’s Compensation Statute. In response to appropriate special issues, the jury found in substance that appellee received injuries in the course of his employment which totally incapacitated him for work. It was shown that appellee received injuries to his spine resulting in total paralysis of his lower limbs. His incapacity for work was admitted, but appellant claimed and introduced much evidence tending strongly to show that such incapacity was the result of infantile paralysis. This defensive issue was submitted by the court in the following language:

> “Special Issue No. 6.

> “(a) Do you find, from the preponderance of the evidence, that Frank Allen has a disease known as infantile paralysis ? Answer Yes or No.

> “(b) If so, do. you find, from the preponderance of the evidence, that such disease, if any, is not the sole cause of his incapacity to perform labor ? ”

To this, appellant properly filed the following objection, in part:

> “Plaintiff objects to the court’s special issue No. 6 (a) because same improperly puts the burden of proof on the plaintiff with respect to the existence of infantile paralysis. * * * ”

In addition, it requested the submission of the following special issue:

> “Do you find that infantile paralysis has caused the incapacity of the defendant, Frank Allen ? ”

Subdivision (a) of special issue No. 6 was answered “No,” and (b) remained unanswered.

It is no longer an open question in Texas that a charge is erroneous which places the burden of proof upon an insurance carrier to establish the affirmative of an issue of the character quoted above. The reasons have been fully given in numerous authorities, and will not be here repeated. See Consolidated Underwriters v. Strahand (Tex.Civ.App.) 82 S.W. (2d) 1058, and authorities there collated.

The objection quoted was sufficiently specific, nor did the appellant invite such error by requesting the issue noted above. Texas *482Employers’ Ass’n v. White (Tex.Civ.App.) 68 S.W.(2d) 511, and authorities there cited.

Another alleged error may not under fuller pleadings and proof again be present, and will not be discussed.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
# EUR-Lex - 32011M6282 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 32011M6282

**Commission Decision of 05/07/2011 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market (Case No COMP/M.6282 - ERG / LUKOIL / JV) according to Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (Only the English text is authentic) **

*

*

|EUROPEAN COMMISSION |

Brussels , 5.7.2011

C(2011) 4985 final

PUBLIC VERSION

SIMPLIFIED MERGER PROCEDURE

|To the notifying parties: |

Dear Madam(s) and/or Sir(s),

Subject: Case No COMP/M.6282 - ERG/ LUKOIL/ JV Commission decision pursuant to Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [1]

1. On 07/06/2011, the European Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by whichthe undertakings ERG Renew (ERG Renew, Italy), a company belonging to the ERG Group and OOO Lukoil-Ecoenergo (Lukoil Ecoenergo, Russian Federation), a company belonging to the Lukoil Group, acquire within the meaning of Article 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of a newly created company constituting a joint venture ("JV CO"), by way of purchase of shares. [2] .

2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

- ERG Renew: generation and wholesale supply of electricity from renewable sources, mainly in the wind sector;

- Lukoil Ecoenergo: active in the renewable energy sector,

- JV: generation and wholesale supply of electricity form renewable sources in Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraina and Russia.

3. After examination of the notification, the European Commission has concluded that the notified operation falls within the scope of the Merger Regulation and of paragraph 5(b) of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [3] .

4. For the reasons set out in the Notice on a simplified procedure, the European Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the internal market and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation.

For the Commission (signed) Alexander ITALIANER Director General

[1]OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 ("the Merger Regulation"). With effect from 1 December 2009, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ("TFEU") has introduced certain changes, such as the replacement of "Community" by "Union" and "common market" by "internal market". The terminology of the TFEU will be used throughout this decision.

[2] Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No C 177, 17/06/2011, p.31

[3] OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32.