alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 18



November 13, 1998




The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Movie Gallery, Inc.
739 West Main Street
Dothan, Alabama  36301

Dear Sirs:

Note 2 of Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements of Movie Gallery,
Inc.  included  in its Form  10-Q for the nine  months  ended  October  4,  1998
describes  a change  in the  method of  accounting  for  amortizing  the cost of
videocassette and video game rental inventory from the  straight-line  method to
an accelerated  method.  You have advised us that you believe that the change is
to a  preferable  method in your  circumstances  because (1) it will result in a
better match of the cost of  videocassettes  and video games with their revenues
in the Company's  current  operating  environment  and (2) it is consistent with
trends in industry practice.

There are no  authoritative  criteria for  determining  a preferable  accounting
method for amortization of  videocassette  and video game inventory based on the
particular circumstances;  however, we conclude that the change in the method of
accounting for amortization is to an acceptable  alternative method which, based
on your business  judgment to make this change for the reasons  cited above,  is
preferable in your  circumstances.  We have not conducted an audit in accordance
with generally  accepted auditing  standards of any financial  statements of the
Company as of any date or for any  period  subsequent  to  January 4, 1998;  and
therefore,  we do not express any opinion on any  financial  statements of Movie
Gallery, Inc. subsequent to that date.

                               Very truly yours,

                              
                              /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
* This matter is being decided by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. §

46(d).

** 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-50898 Conference Calendar

DAVID ERIC POPE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus KATHY HOLUBER, Nurse; OFFICER LOTT; SHIFT SUPERVISOR GONZALAES, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-97-CV-229-SS

- - - - - - - - - - February 10, 1999 Before BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. *
PER CURIAM: ** This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its own motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby , 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). A timely notice of appeal is a prerequisite for the exercise of jurisdiction by this court. United States v. Carr , 979 F.2d 51, 55 (5th Cir. 1992).No. 97-50898 -2- David Eric Pope did not file a notice of appeal from the district court’s judgment entered on September 4, 1997, within the 30 days prescribed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) (1997) or within the time granted by the district court. Pope’s motions for extension of time to appeal, in which he sought time to research and decide whether he had appealable issues, do not clearly evince his desire to appeal and do not serve as a notice of appeal. See Mosley , 813 F.2d at 660. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, as Pope did not timely notice his intent to appeal. See Robbins v. Maggio , 750 F.2d 405, 408 (5th Cir. 1985).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Eugene V. McMahon v. Marcia Zimmerman, Individually, and the Zimmerman Law Firm, L

. L

. P

.

Appellate case number: 01

- 12

- 01090

- CV

Trial court case number: 20 11

- 37680

Trial court: 281st District Court of Harris County

Appellees, Marcia Zimmerman and the Zimmerman Law Firm, L.L.P., have filed a “Motion for Involuntary Dismissal in Civil Case.” In their motion, Zimmerman and the Zimmerman Law Firm request dismissal of this case based on the alleged failure to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1 by appellant, Eugene V. McMahon. In his response, McMahon “recognize[d] the defects cited by Appellees [sic] motion and respectfully request[ed] the opportunity to re

- brief to cure the defects.” McMahon also filed a “Motion for Extension of Time to Refile Brief to Cure Procedural Defects in Civil Case,” seeking “at least ten (10) additional days” to correct his brief. Finally, McMahon re

- filed his motion for ext ension with a certificate of conference indicating that Zimmerman and the Zimmerman Law Firm have agreed

to his motion.

Neither the statement of the case nor the statement of facts in McMahon’s brief contain s

any references to the record. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.1(d), (g). Further, McMahon failed to include a copy of the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law in the appendix. 1 See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.1(k)(1)(B). Nevertheless, briefing rules are to be liberally construed, substantial complia nce with Rule 38 is sufficient, and we must permit a party to amend, supplement, or redraw a brief even when Rule 38 has been flagrant ly violat ed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.9.

Accordingly, we GRANT McMahon’s agreed motion for an extension of time, DISMISS

Mc Mahon’s non

- agreed motion as moot, and DENY Zimmerman and the Zimmerman Law Firm’s motion for involuntary dismissal. We further ORDER McMahon to file an amended

1 Zimmerman and the Zimmerman Law Firm also contend that McMahon’s brief fails “to make appropriate citations to the record when presenting several purported facts,” citing to Rule 38.1(h). Rule 38.1(h), however, applies to the summary of the argument and d oes not require record references. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.1(h).brief, containing all necessary references to the record and conforming to Rule 38.1, no later than

August 13, 201 3 . Zimmerman and the Zimmerman Law Firm’s brief will be due no later than 30 days after the date McMahon’s amended motion is filed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.6(b).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ H a rvey Brown

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: July 26, 2013
Exhibit 99.2


                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

         I, Edward N. Jones,  Chief Financial  Officer of FoneFriend,  Inc ( the
"Company" ), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

         The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the three months
ended June 30, 2003 (the " Report")  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of
Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         The  information  contained  in  the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.


Dated:  November 19, 2003

                                       /S/ Edward N. Jones
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                       Edward N. Jones, Chief Financial Officer
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 98-4156EM

_____________

Helga Gallop, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

* Appeal from the United States

Secretary of the United States * District Court for the Eastern

Department of the Army; Unknown * District of Missouri.

Commander, United States Army *

Finance and Accounting Center; United * [UNPUBLISHED]

States Department of Justice, Janet *

Reno, United States Attorney General, *

*

Appellees. *

_____________

 Submitted: January 7, 1999

Filed: January 19, 1999

_____________

Before FAGG, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Helga Gallop appeals the district court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of

Gallop's suit against the Secretary of the Army and others. Having carefully reviewed

the record, we conclude the district court correctly determined it lacked subject matter

jurisdiction. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Filed 11/18/20 P. v. Tanner CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on 

opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(a). This 

opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

PARVIN JOSEPH TANNER,

Defendant and Appellant.

B304511

Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. KA095754

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, David C. Brougham, Judge. Dismissed.

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

In 2012, defendant and appellant Parvin Joseph Tanner

pled no contest to two counts of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211)1 and 

two counts of false imprisonment (§ 236), admitted using a gun in 

the commission of these offenses (§ 12022.53), and admitted a 

2007 prior conviction of first degree burglary as a prior strike and 

prior serious felony conviction (§§ 667, 1170.12). The plea 

agreement provided he would serve twenty-three years and eight 

months in state prison. The court imposed that sentence, which 

included a ten-year gun-use enhancement and five-year 

enhancement for the prior serious felony conviction. 

In 2019, Tanner filed a motion to vacate an unauthorized 

sentence. In the motion, he argued the five-year prior serious 

felony enhancement was unlawful, and that, upon remand to 

correct the unlawful sentence, Tanner would ask the court to use 

its discretion to strike the ten-year gun use enhancement.

Tanner’s asserted legal ground for challenging the enhancement 

was that his burglary conviction did not qualify as a serious 

felony because there was no showing that it was residential and 

that a person was present at the time, as required by sections 667 

and 667.5. 

The court denied Tanner’s motion. Tanner filed a motion to 

reconsider the denial. The court denied that motion. Tanner 

timely appealed.

Appellate counsel filed a brief identifying no issues and 

invited this court to independently review the record for arguable 

issues. The court notified Tanner he had 30 days to file a 

supplemental brief, but he did not do so. This court “has no 

independent duty to review the record for reasonably arguable 

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal 

Code.
3

issues. [Citations.]” (People v. Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023, 

1028, 1039-1040, review granted Oct. 14, 2020, S264278.) We 

therefore dismiss Tanner’s appeal as abandoned. (Ibid.)

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

CURREY, J. 

We concur: 

WILLHITE, Acting P.J. 

COLLINS, J.
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# 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 24, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 17, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 492 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-107, K2025-105.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-24631 Filed 10-23-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
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 Hudson Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, James R. Buscemi, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 the Company.







|s/ James R. Buscemi    
|-----------------------
|James R. Buscemi       
|Chief Financial Officer
|                       
|May 10, 2006
From: Muldoon, Albert (OST)
To: "mseibert@cableone.net" ; "mglaze@stdtrans.com" ; "Steve Stockam (sstockam@joplinmo.org)" ; "SAnselm@joplinmo.org"
Cc: American Airlines, Will Livsey (Will.Livsey@aa.com) ; American Airlines, Colin Wheeler (colin.wheeler@aa.com) ; Schlemmer, Kevin (OST) Subject: Essential Air Service at Joplin, MO - Request for Comments - Due December 17, 2014
Date: Monday, November 17, 2014 4:25:07 PM
Attachments: JLN rebid.pdf

All:
I would like to update you on the Essential Air Service (EAS) situation at Joplin, Missouri, and give you an opportunity to submit comments on the record before we submit a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs. In anticipation of the current contract’s expiration on February 28, 2015, the Department issued Order 2014-10-9 (October 15, 2014) soliciting proposals from carriers to provide EAS at Joplin, MO, for a new contract period beginning March 1, 2015. In response to that Order, we received only one proposal, from American Airlines (American).
I have attached a copy of the proposal to this email. The proposal can also be accessed online through the Federal Dockets Management System at www.regulations.gov by entering “DOT-OST-2006-23932” in the search box. For your convenience, I will briefly summarize the proposal below.
American proposes to maintain its existing service level at Joplin for an additional two years, through February 28, 2017, by providing two daily (14 weekly) nonstop round trips to Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. Service would be provided by American’s subsidiaries, American Eagle or US Airways Express, using 50-seat ERJ-145, CRJ-200, or 44-seat ERJ-140 regional jets. Please note that American has requested that the Department and Joplin waive the right to hold-in American should it wish to end service, and instead agree to a 120-day notice to terminate service with no hold-in provision. American would require an annual subsidy of $519,201 to provide this service.

The schedules and fares that the carrier has proposed are illustrative only, and they may make changes to reflect changing conditions. The Department expects subsidized carriers to maintain well-timed and well-spaced flights in order to ensure full compensation.
We request that you review the proposal and submit any comments you may have as soon as possible, but no later than December 17, 2012. We will carefully consider your comments before we submit a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for a decision.
Please send your comments via email to EAS@dot.gov or by fax to (202) 366-7638. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact A.J. Muldoon of my staff at albert.muldoon@dot.gov or (202) 366-1058.

Sincerely,

Kevin D. Schlemmer Chief, Essential Air Service Division, X-53 Office of Aviation Analysis
Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.
 By:
    
    /s/ Ezra J. GreenName:
    
    Ezra J. GreenTitle:
    
    Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)Dated:
    
    November 13, 2008By:
    
    /s/ Arthur L. GoldbergName:
    
    Arthur L. GoldbergTitle:
    
    Chief Financial Officer (Principal
Financial and Accounting Officer)Dated:
    
    November 13, 2008
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 203 (Monday, October 21, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 84166]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24199]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Deafness and Other 
Communication Disorders Special Emphasis Panel; U01 Cooperative 
Agreement for Clinical Trials in Hearing Disorders.
    Date: November 12, 2024.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate cooperative agreement 
applications.
    Address: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 
6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Meeting Format: Virtual Meeting.
    Contact Person: Sonia Elena Nanescu, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Division of Extramural Activities, NIDCD, NIH, 6001 
Executive Blvd., Suite 8300, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-8683, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9deef2f3f4fcb3f3fcf3f8eefee8ddf3f4f5b3faf2eb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="473428292e26692926292234243207292e2f69202831">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.173, 
Biological Research Related to Deafness and Communicative Disorders, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 15, 2024.
Victoria E. Townsend,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-24199 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Transport Airplane Directorate 1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. Renton, Washington 98057-3356

October 9, 2014

Mr. Douglas M. Lane Director, Regulator y Administration The Boeing Company

P.O. Box 3707 MC 03-56 Seattle, WA 98124-2207

Dear Mr. Lane:

We received your August 18, 2014, petition for exemption requesting an amendment to Exemption No. 10767, which is a time-limited partial grant exempting the 767-200/-300/- 300F/-400ER airplanes from the requirements of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 25.981(a)(3) and 25-901(c). The amendm ent, if granted, would extend the time limit on Exemption No. 10767 to address the remaining production of the 767-300/-300F.

The current petition, which you submitted to th e Department of Transportation’s Federal Docket Management System (FDMS), is in Docket No. FAA-2012-1132.

We have reviewed your petition and have determined we need additional information before we can process it.

Your request stated the exemption would appl y to 767 airplane production and incremental sales through the end of 2019. Safety upgrades to airplanes produced after the exemption is granted would be included as part of th e type design for the remainder of the 767 production. The request refers to service instructions for upgr ading the existing fleet of freighter airplanes; however no dates were provi ded for availability of those instructions. Please provide an estimated date for when these service instructions will be available. Also, please provide an estimated maximum number of airplanes for which the exemption would apply that would be produ ced prior to the end of 2019.

When we receive the requested information, we will publish a summar y of your petition in the Federal Register for a 20-day public comment period, in accordance with the requirements of § 11.85. We will advise you of the agency’s decision on your petition as soon as possible after the comment period closes.

If you have any questions or concerns regardi ng your petition or the petition process, please contact Mike Dostert by phone at 425- 227-2132 or by e-mail at mike.dostert@faa.gov.2

Sincerely,

/s/

Theresa White Transport Airplane Directorate

Aircraft Certification Service