alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.2

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

I, Christopher Westad, the President, Chief Financial Officer and Director of
Able Energy, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my
knowledge:

(1) the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13
(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
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: September 23, 2002



                    /s/ Christopher Westad
                    ----------------------
                    Name: Christopher Westad
                    Title: President, Chief Financial Officer
                           and Director
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          14,434
<SECURITIES>                                    13,224
<RECEIVABLES>                                   23,635
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,842
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                52,873
<PP&E>                                          23,732
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,550
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  78,201
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           36,034
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            31
<OTHER-SE>                                      42,037
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    78,201
<SALES>                                         11,273
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,202
<CGS>                                              600
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,506
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,581
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 240
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,817)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        32
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,849)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,849)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.18)
        

</TABLE>
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Outer Continental Shelf Air Permit OCS

- EPA

- R4008

- M2

for BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc.

The a ir q uality a nalysis m odeling f iles submitted with this application are available upon request

. The 81 air modeling files in 97 folders are stored on a DVD and total 2.28 gigabytes in size

. To request a copy of these

files please contact: Ms. Rosa Yarbrough, Permit Support Specialist at ( 404 ) 562

- 9643 or yarbrough.rosa@epa.gov

.
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #20718 and #20719; TENNESSEE Disaster Number TN-20017]

# AGENCY:

Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Amendment 1.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Tennessee (FEMA-4832-DR), dated October 10, 2024.

*Incident:*                         Tropical Storm Helene.                    

# DATES:

Issued on October 24, 2024.

*Incident Period:*                         September 26, 2024 through September 30, 2024.                    

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         December 2, 2024.                    

*Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         July 2, 2025.                    

# ADDRESSES:

*Visit the MySBA Loan Portal at https://lending.sba.gov*                         to apply for a disaster assistance loan.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of Tennessee, dated October 2, 2024, is hereby amended to update the incident period for this disaster as beginning September 26, 2024 and continuing through September 30, 2024.

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Rafaela Monchek,

Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience.

[FR Doc. 2024-25347 Filed 10-30-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8026-09-P
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Kathleen Ligocki, President and Chief Executive Officer of Tower Automotive, Inc., certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2006of Tower Automotive, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986.  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, oris reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design and oroperation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have aa significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date:August 4, 2006By: /s/ Kathleen Ligocki
#### Collins, Plaintiff and Respondent, vs. Ladwig, Defendant and Respondent: Vees and another, Appellants.

*662For the appellants: *Dougherty, Arnold & Kivett*of Milwaukee.

For the respondent Mary Collins: *Tibbs & Tibbs*and *Walter W. Rockteschel,*all of Milwaukee.

For the respondent Edward J. Ladwig: *Edward G. Minor*of Sturgeon Bay.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
#### WILLIAM JOHNSTON v. JAMES C. RUDESILL, *ET AL.*

Evidence. Damages.

This was a petition to recover damages for an injury to the plaintiff’s sawmill, caused by the defendant’s erecting a dam for a mill below, over the same stream, and thereby ponding the water back on the wheels of the plaintiff’s mill. The suit was commenced in Gaston County, and removed to Mecklenburg, where it was tried at the Fall Term of 1853, before his Honor Judge Dick.

On the trial, it was admitted that the plaintiff' was entitled to *511recover, and the only question was the amount of the damages. For the purpose of affecting the question of damages, the defendant offered one Ramsour, a Millwright, as a witness, and proposed to ask him “ if he could not, with an expenditure of five hundred dollars, take the site of the plaintiff’s saw mill, obstructed as it was, and put a saw mill, which would saw one thousand feet per day,” it having been proved before, that when, unobstructed, the plaintiff could saw only about four hundred feet per day. The question was excepted to by the plaintiff, and rejected *by the*Court. After a verdict for the plaintiff, amotion for a new trial was made, for error in rejecting this testimony, which was refused, and a judgment given, from which the defendant appealed.

*JBoyden,*for plaintiff.

*Guión, Wilson,*and *Bynum,*for defendant.

Battle, J.

We cannot conceive of any principle upon which the testimony offered by the defendant, and rejected by the Court, was admissible for any legitimate purpose, in ascertaining the amount of damages to which the plaintiff is entitled. The plaintiff certainly was not bound to make the improvements in his Saw Mill, suggested by the question which the defendant proposed to put to his witness, Ramsour. And because he declined to erect a more costly, though it might be a more profitable establishment, he did not forfeit his right to recover the actual damages which he had sustained in his more humble mill by the wrongful act of the defendants. •

The judgment must be affirmed.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 30, 2022

No. 04-22-00673-CV

Thelma GARZA et al,

Appellant

v.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 15, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022CV01903

Honorable Melissa Vara, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On November 29, 2022, appellant filed an emergency motion, seeking to stay execution 

of a writ of possession. Because appellant did not file the mandatory supersedeas bond, this court 

cannot grant the requested relief. See TEX. PROP. CODE § 24.007 (“A judgment of a county court 

may not under any circumstances be stayed pending appeal unless, within 10 days of the signing 

of the judgment, the appellant files a supersedeas bond in an amount set by the county court.”); 

Marshall v. Housing Authority of City of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782, 786-87 (Tex. 2006). 

Accordingly, we deny appellant’s motion.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 30th day of November, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-18-00087-CR

Briana Micole Gatson, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 264TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

NO. 09741A1, THE HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N 

Appellant Briana Micole Gatson has filed a motion to dismiss her appeal. The 

motion is signed by both appellant and her attorney. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). We grant the

motion and dismiss the appeal. See id.

_________________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Bourland

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: June 28, 2018

Do Not Publish
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 211 (Thursday, October 31, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 86852]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25312]


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

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 31, 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 
October 25, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 540 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-163, K2025-161.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-25312 Filed 10-30-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JOSEPH JACKSON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 113 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6th day of August, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### THE BANK OF GUILFORD v. T. B. KEOGH et al.

In two actions brought by the plaintiff, the one against Harriet A. Keogh, a *feme covert,*Thomas B. Keogh and E. L. Gilmer, and the other against the two last.named, upon two separate notes signed by all of said parties, there was judgment in both cases for the plaintiff against the defendants, T. B. Keogh and Gilmer, at May Term, 1893, of Guilford Superior Court, before Bryan, *J.*

Defendants appealed.

*Mr. L. M. Scott,*for plaintiff.

*Mr. James E. Boyd,*for defendants (appellants).

Per Curiam:

The plaintiff is so clearly entitled to recover of the appellants that we deem it unnecessary to discuss the several points presented on the appeal. Counsel with commendable candor was unable to insist with much earnestness upon any of the assignments of error to the rulings of the Judge below. The judgment in both cases must be Affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40347

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EDWIN GARRIDO, also known as Edwin Garrido-Arriaga,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:14-CR-500-1

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Edwin Garrido raises an 

argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria, 831 F.3d 

670 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc), petition for cert. filed (Sept. 29, 2016) (No. 16-

6259). In Gonzalez-Longoria, we held that 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), which defines a 

crime of violence when incorporated by reference into U.S.S.G. 

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(C), is not unconstitutionally vague on its face in light of Johnson 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 20, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40347 Document: 00513803993 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2016
No. 15-40347

2

v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). Id. at 672. Accordingly, the motion 

for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension 

of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-40347 Document: 00513803993 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2016
#### THE STATE v. TOM. FARRAR.

*Record*— When *Case Remanded for Defectin Transcript of— Amendment, Nunc pro. Tunic.*

1. The transcript of the record sent to this Court in a State case, failing to show that a Court was held by a Judge at the time and place prescribed by law, that a grand jury was drawn and sworn and presented the indictment, that the plea of not guilty was formally entered, is fatally defective, and the- Court will not proceed to decide the question presented in the assignment of error, but will remand the case, that the record may be perfected.

2. Where a defendant was tried in the Court below, as upon a plea of not guilty, the Court, at a subsequent term, ought, upon the facts being made to appear, to direct the plea to be entered *mine pro-tune.*

Motion to dismiss an appeal in'an indictment for larceny, tried at February Term, 1889, of Chatham Superior Court.

*412
      *The Attorney General,*for the State.

No counsel for the defendant.

Merrimon, J.

The transcript of the record of this appeal fails to show that a Court was held by a Judge at the time and place prescribed by law, that a grand jury was drawn, sworn and charged, that a grand jury presented the indictment set forth in what purports to be the record in open Court or at all, that the plea of not guilty was formally entered, and there are other defects of less importance. It is fatally defective, and we cannot decide the question intended to be presented by the assignment of error.

The Attorney General, insisting that the appeal is without merit, moved to dismiss it for the causes stated.

Enough is presented, by what purports to be the transcript of the record, to satisfy us that there is very probably in the Court below a perfect record, or one that may be perfected, and we see also that it may be that the defendant can assign such grounds of error as might entitle him to a new trial. He is charged with larceny, the offence is serious, and we therefore deem it safe and proper to remand the case, to the end that the rtcord may be perfected, if it is not so, and a perfect transcript thereof sent to this Court, as the law requires to be done.

If the record does not fully set forth what was done in the course of the action — as, for example, that the grand jury was drawn, sworn and charged, and presented the indictment in open Court, or that the plea of not guilty was formally entered of record, when it was so treated by the Court and parties, but was not so entered, by inadvertence, the Court might — ought—the facts properly appearing, to direct a proper entry to be made *nunc pro tunc.*Plainly, the Court has the power, and it is its duty, to make its record express the truth in all respects.

*413This Court has frequently, in- the exercise of a sound discretion, with the view to justice, remanded cases not unlike the present one. *State*v. *Butts,*91 N. C., 524; *Spence*v. *Tapscott,*92 N. C., 576; *State*v. *McDowell,*93 N. C., 541; *State*v. *Johnston,*93 N. C., 559 ; *Holly*v. *Holly,*94 N. C., 639 ; *Holly*v. *Holly,*96 N. C., 229.

Remanded.
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 Quarterly Report of Cardo Medical, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending
September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Andrew Brooks,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

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/ ANDREW  A. BROOKS
                      Andrew A. BrooksChief Executive Officer
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  November 14, 2008

---
EXHIBIT 4.1
-----------


                                  AMENDMENT TO
                                WARRANT AGREEMENT

         THIS AMENDMENT TO WARRANT  AGREEMENT (this  "Amendment") to the Warrant
Agreement dated December 21, 2001 (the "Agreement") by and between Arkona, Inc.,
a Delaware  corporation (the "Company"),  and Paul Henriod,  an individual ("Mr.
Henriod")  is made as of  December  20,  2006.  Capitalized  terms  used but not
defined herein have the meaning set forth in the Agreement.  In consideration of
the mutual  promises and  covenants  set forth herein and in the  Agreement  and
other  good  and  valuable  consideration,   the  receipt  of  which  is  hereby
acknowledged by the parties, the parties hereto agree as follows:

1. Amendment to Term. The Termination  Date calculable  pursuant to Section 1 of
the  Agreement  (as being 60 months after the  Effective  Date,  or December 21,
2006)  is  hereby  amended  to be the  earlier  to occur of (a) the date 60 days
following the date Mr. Henroid  ceases to be a director of the Company,  and (b)
December 21, 2007.

2. Full Force and Effect.  Except as amended hereby,  the Agreement shall remain
in full force and effect.

3. Entire  Agreement.  This Amendment and the Agreement  constitute the full and
entire  understanding  and  agreement  between  the  parties  with regard to the
subjects hereof and thereof.

4.  Counterparts.  This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts,
each of which shall be an original,  but all of which together shall  constitute
one instrument.


         IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  this Amendment is hereby  executed as of the date
first above written.



                                ARKONA, INC.
                                a Delaware corporation

                                By: /s/
                                    --------------------------------------------

                                Name:
                                      ------------------------------------------

                                Title:
                                       -----------------------------------------


/s/ PAUL HENRIOD
---------------------------
Paul Henriod, an individual