alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                                   AS ADDED BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Provident Community  Bancshares,
Inc. (the  "Company")  on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended  September 30, 2006 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission (the "Report"),  I, Dwight V.
Neese, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as added by 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
     as of and for the period covered by the Report.


                                        /s/ Dwight V. Neese
                                        -------------------
                                        Dwight V. Neese
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer


Date: November 07 , 2006
**AD Economic Evaluation**

Docket No . FAA - 2013 - 0491 Directorate ID : 2008 - SW - 012 - AD Helicopter Model: Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Model 430 Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 37 Helicopters in the US Regi stry . Reason : The actions of this AD are intended to alert pilots to avoid certain engine speeds during steady- state operations, prevent failure of the third stage engine turbine, engine power loss, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. Costs : Parts per Helicopter $ 20 for the decal Labor per Helicopter ( 0.5 work- hour x $ 8 5 /work - hour to update the RFM ) (0.2 work- hour x $85/work- hour to install the decal) $ 43

$17 Other (Explain) Total Cost per Helicopter $ 80 Total US Fleet Cost $ 2,960 Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory

Flexibility

Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : Chinh Vuong
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 460 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                        Calendar No. 58
106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 460

To designate the United States courthouse located at 401 South Michigan 
  Street in South Bend, Indiana, as the ``Robert K. Rodibaugh United 
                    States Bankruptcy Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 24, 1999

   Mr. Lugar introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

                             March 17, 1999

               Reported by Mr. Chafee, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the United States courthouse located at 401 South Michigan 
  Street in South Bend, Indiana, as the ``Robert K. Rodibaugh United 
                    States Bankruptcy Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF ROBERT K. RODIBAUGH UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY 
              COURTHOUSE.

    The United States courthouse located at 401 South Michigan Street 
in South Bend, Indiana, shall be known and designated as the ``Robert 
K. Rodibaugh United States Bankruptcy Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Robert K. 
Rodibaugh United States Bankruptcy Courthouse''.
                                     

                                                        Calendar No. 58

106th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 460

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To designate the United States courthouse located at 401 South Michigan 
  Street in South Bend, Indiana, as the ``Robert K. Rodibaugh United 
                    States Bankruptcy Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             March 17, 1999

                       Reported without amendment
```
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 99a

  EXHIBIT (99)(a) CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF JAMES CABLE
            PARTNERS, L.P. FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of James
Cable Partners, L.P. (the "Company") hereby certifies, to such officer's
knowledge, that the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal
quarter ended March 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

Dated: May 14, 2003                 /s/ William R. James
                                    --------------------
                                    William R. James
                                    President of Jamesco, Inc., a general
                                    partner of James Communications
                                    Partners, the general partner of James
                                    Cable Partners, L.P.
                                    (Principal Executive Officer)

The foregoing certification accompanies the filing and is being furnished solely
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1




                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in: (1) the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-69357) pertaining to the Landair Corporation Stock Option and
Incentive Plan, the Landair Corporation Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan
and the Landair Corporation Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and (2) the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-94247) pertaining to the Landair
Corporation Amended and Restated Stock Option and Incentive Plan, of our report
dated February 7, 2001, except for the fourth paragraph of Note 5, as to which
the date is March 30, 2001, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Landair Corporation included in its Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2000, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

                                               Ernst & Young LLP

Nashville, Tennessee
March 30, 2001
October 21, 2015

Mr. John Desmedt

5099 Rock Springs Road

Warrenton, VA 20187

Dear Mr. Desmedt :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We received your June 16, 2015

, exemption request filed i n D ocket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 3059

, but we are unable to process your request any further. Your petition does no t comply with the

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must

send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and th e extent of

the relief you seek

.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information , views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation A dminist ration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notif ying you further.

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure s34
EXHIBIT
32.1. Certification of Principal Executive
Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002)   I, Dr. Thomas Drees, Chief Executive
Officer, and David Nelson, Principal Accounting Officer, of Sanguine Corporation
(the "Registrant") do 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 our knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the period March 31, 2009 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):  (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 Registrant.  Dated:  May 19, 2009 By:  /s/ Dr. Thomas
Drees  Dr. Thomas Drees  Chief Executive Officer  By:  /s/  David
Nelson David
Nelson, Chief Financial Officer  * A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to Sanguine Corporation and will be
retained by Sanguine Corporation and furnished to the Securities Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
* 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. 02-50457 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RUBEN HURTADO-DIAZ, also known as Pedro Perez-Roman, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-02-CR-415-ALL

-------------------- October 30, 2002 Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ruben Hurtado-Diaz appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Hurtado-Diaz contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) define separate offenses. He argues that the aggravated felony conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of the offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) that should have been alleged in his indictment. Hurtado-Diaz maintains that heNo. 02-50457 -2- pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Hurtado-Diaz acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-20570

Summary Calendar

__________________

KENNETH B. COTTON,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY

OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS; UNION PACIFIC 

RAILROAD CO.; SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD CO.;

BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD; HOUSTON 

BELT & TERMINAL RAILWAY CO.,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CA-H-94-4268

- - - - - - - - - -

February 5, 1996

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kenneth B. Cotton appeals the district court's grant of

summary judgment for the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris

County, Texas, and the defendant railroad companies. Cotton's

attempted arguments fail to challenge the district court's order. 

See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). In

light of the well-reasoned memorandum opinion by the district 
No. 95-20570

-2-

court, see Cotton v. Metropolitan Transit Auth., No. H-94-4268

(S.D. Tex. June 20, 1995), we AFFIRM.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OFTEXAS AUSTIN
, s \ @ ,i p-y- : 1 ,
/ !

Honornbla ti. 0. BZowars Seoretary of 3toto kustln, Texiie Deer Glrr

ipt 

## 0ryour it3tter 

## 0r
suoh ooropanpIs being 

## 0.00, wherein one-hair 

## 0r cepltol stool: ts to b8 paid oration 

## 0r 750 units of the

, an ualncorporated aeaoolafron poui’litter en 

## r0ii0w8t reoent o&ion No. 0-2544-s &.I

### ro~,ard to r ‘Toxaa Guarantors*, 

### YGU hnvo hold tbat ct vi118too speculntlw to be oonolderod ithln the 

## mnnlag

0rp9 Cpnstitutlon aau the3tatutee. *We&~a mm baen furnishad with an appliontlon 

## r0ran anoncli23ntto the ctsrter 0r *Xnsuranoe fnvostriont Corparution~
. The fmandmnt inoreasas the oapital Etook Proa ~500.00 to 315JOO.00. On+holf or the Increase or 315,000.00, or $7,500.00, ie ohown to have‘i I .-,.-- 

## 2 i 1
! Honorable k!. 0. Flotisra, Da@ 2. 1 , ; I been paid ln’with the transfer to tho corpora- , i tlon of 750 units 

## Gr‘Texas stay.9 Life Underwriters’, /

an unincorporated association at Dallas 

## dlChhas I i the Csnsrol egenoy contract for the 

## 1Te~~3 Stats Life Insurance Company* at Dallao. I

“On the basis of your previous opinion, we held that these units were too npeoulativs to be considered 8s property ror ths oapitnl stock. The president 

## or the oorporatlon, however, has asked that we write and
. sub&t to you evldenos as to the value or these units, and aek fox a specific oplnlon as to whether they can be oonsldersd as. property in this oass. ‘i,:sare, therefore, handing you the following Instruments: .,/ “1. Assignment 

## 0rStook Csrtlflcates. .a. Speoimen copy of one 

## Grthe certificates. I 9. A statement from tha tree!$ursr-auditor of

._- the corporation 

## asto the dividend payments of these units. 4. Financ’%nl statement of the 

## Texas State ,Ll.fe Insurance Coilpany. 5. A statomont as to tho potential profits of the company selling bonds for the life insurenoe company.

“\r;swould sppreo&to your usual prompt attention to this matter, erndws ea.kthat you roturn the enolooed instruments with your opinicn.” 

### We have carefully considered the above mentioned instruments attached to your inquiry, and believe that our Opln: ions Nos. O-2544 end 0-2944-A addressed to the Secretary of Stats and called to your attention are applicable to and control the question here under consideration. Therefore, you are respectfully advised that it 

## 13the opinion of this Department that the above uentloaed units are not admlsolble as property for payment of capital stook in the obovo mcr&ioned. oor?orlit

## iG&

.

The above 4oentloned instruments nrs herewith returned. L IHonorable M, 0. Flowere, Fqe 3

,: Trustip that tt.8 foregoing fully, anewera your in;uiry, w0are I Yours very truly AF?XIkU?JYGlGW?ALOFTEXAS

Ardell V~illiams Aeslstant

ATTG~RNEY

GENERAL OB TEXAS
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 4.17

                              CERTIFICATE OF TRUST

                                       OF

                        KELLOGG COMPANY CAPITAL TRUST IV



         THIS Certificate of Trust of Kellogg Company Capital Trust IV (the
"Trust") is being duly executed and filed on behalf of the Trust by the
undersigned, as trustees, in order to form a Delaware Business Trust, pursuant
to the requirements of the Business Trust Act of the State of Delaware (12 Del.
C. Section 1810 et seq.) (the "Act").

         1. Name. The name of the business trust is Kellogg Company Capital
Trust IV.

         2. Delaware Trustee. The name and business address of the trustee of
the Trust in the State of Delaware are as follows:

                  The Bank of New York (Delaware)
                  White Clay Center
                  Route 273
                  Newark, Delaware 19711

         3. Effective Date. This Certificate of Trust shall be effective as of
the date of filing with the office of the Secretary of State of the State of
Delaware.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have duly executed this Certificate
of Trust in accordance with Section 3811(a)(1) of the Act as of the date written
below.

Executed on this 22nd day of October, 2001.





                                     THE BANK OF NEW YORK (DELAWARE), AS TRUSTEE


                                     By:    /s/ William T. Lewis
                                     Name:  William T. Lewis
                                     Title: Senior Vice President
<PAGE>
                                                                EXHIBIT   10.28


                  AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO WARRANTS TO PURCHASE STOCK

     THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO WARRANTS TO PURCHASE STOCK is made as of May 3,
2002 by and between Silicon Valley Bank ("Holder") and Exchange Applications,
Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company").

     WHEREAS, the Company issued to Holder that certain Warrant to Purchase
Stock dated as of April 24, 2001 and that certain Warrant to Purchase Stock
dated as of July 24, 2001 (collectively, the "Warrants"); and

     WHEREAS, in connection with a credit transaction between the Company and
Holder of even date herewith, and as additional consideration to Holder for its
agreements in connection therewith, the Company has agreed to amend the Warrants
in the manner set forth herein;

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, and for other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the Company agrees with Holder as follows:

     1. AMENDMENT OF EXERCISE PRICE. Each Warrant is hereby amended so that,
effective as of the date hereof, the Exercise Price (as defined in each
respective Warrant) is $1.38 [closing price on day immediately preceding the
above date].

     2. FUTURE ADJUSTMENTS; CONTINUATION. Except as specifically amended hereby,
each Warrant shall continue in full force in effect as originally written. The
Exercise Price of each Warrant shall continue to be subject to adjustments from
and after the date hereof in accordance with the respective terms of each
Warrant.

     3. REPRESENTATION. The Company represents and warrants to Holder that the
Company's execution, delivery and performance of this Amendment No. 1 has been
approved by all necessary corporate action on the part of the Company's board of
directors and stockholders.


                  [REMAINDER OF PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY]
<PAGE>

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment No. 1 to Warrants
to Purchase Stock to be executed and attested by its duly authorized
representatives as an instrument under seal as of the date first above written.

ATTEST:                                "COMPANY"

                                       EXCHANGE APPLICATIONS, INC.


By:________________________________    By:___________________________________

Name:______________________________    Name:_________________________________

Title:_____________________________    Title:________________________________
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 3194

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

431 North George Street in Millersville, Pennsylvania, as the ‘‘Robert

S. Walker Post Office’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 12 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 22), 2000

Mr. SANTORUM (for himself and Mr. SPECTER) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

A BILL

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service

located at 431 North George Street in Millersville, Pennsylvania, as the ‘‘Robert S. Walker Post Office’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF ROBERT S. WALKER POST OF4 FICE.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The facility of the United States

6 Postal Service located at 431 North George Street in

7 Millersville, Pennsylvania, shall be known and designated

8 as the ‘‘Robert S. Walker Post Office’’.
2

•S 3194 IS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall

4 be deemed to be a reference to the Robert S. Walker Post

5 Office.

Æ